The Federal Supreme Court
Family Affairs Circuit.
Supreme Court Decision No / 178/2016
Issued by the Supreme Court, Family Law First Circuit headed by his Excellency Albshra Osman
Salih, as president and the membership of their Excellencies Abdelhamid Mohammed
Abdelhamid and Abdelaziz AL Rasheed Mohammed Osman, the Supreme Court Magistrates
(Presented: - Record of Appeal No 6 /c/ 2015 River Nile Court of Appeal Aldamr. The record of the t
suit No / 107 /g/ 2015 Atbara court recorded under No 174 / Objection / 2015 - filed at Adamr Court
Applicant: Hind Mohammed Khaled Mohammed
Opponent: Nafissa Al-Kamel Al-Mahi
Judgment
This is an application submitted by Advocate Huda Taha Mohammed Ahmed on behalf of her client
(the applicant) Hind Mohammed Khalid against the judgment passed under No a. seen. sheen /66/
by the River Nile Court of Appeal – Family Affairs Circuit on 31/3/2015. The court of appeal decision
dismissed the appeal of the applicant summarily and confirms the judgment passed by Atbara First
Instance Court to the effect of dismissing the case. Primarily the case was filed by the applicant to
see and accompany the applicant’s children who were under the custody of their grandmother. The
children were named Asim and Azam aged 12 and 8 years respectively. The applicant was notified of
the decision, which is the subject matter of the objection, on 3/5/2015, as was stated by the
applicant. However, I did not find among the papers evidence to the exact date of the applicant’s
knowledge of the judgment. Anyhow, I presume the truth of the applicant’s statement about the date
of her knowledge and accept the objection as a matter of form, as per S.190 of the Civil Procedure
Act 1983.
From the subjective aspect of the matter and upon scrutinizing the whole papers ,the factual situation
of this suit could be said to be .The applicant filed the suit against the opponent in the opponent
capacity as the custodian of the applicant two sons Asim and Azamo from the applicant divorced
husband claiming the right to visit and accompany the children in the week end and the school
leave . The applicant alleged that she was domiciled at Khartoum North and she meets much
suffering as a result of her travelling to Atbara where the children reside. After hearing the case the
court of First Instance issued its decision dismissing the case.
The applicant was not satisfied with this decision, made an appeal to River Nile Court of appeal, and
the court of appeal passed it is decision the subject of this objection.
The reason for objection were expressed to be that the court of appeal is wrong in its decision to the
effect that no enough evidence was submitted by the applicant to explain the reason for the claim or
justify granting the applicant the relief claimed. In the opinion of the applicant the purpose of
preserving the motherhood relationship between the children and their mother is enough to justify the
claim as per the ruling of the judicial precedent 411/1994. The court of appeal also said in its ruling of
confirming the dismissal of the case, that the applicant did not provide enough guarantee that could
insure the children return on the end of the school leave.
The applicant argued that an official residence certificate issued by the Popular Committee (being a
recognized official entity) confirm the applicant residence at Khartoum Bahry – Almazad block and
that she had submitted a guarantee towards the children return as per the request of the court. The
applicant concluded that the decision of the court of appeal court of First Instance violated the
Shariah law principles that preserves the women dignity and freedom. The applicant further
elaborated on the matter by repeating the fact that the court of appeal had based its decision on its
fair that the applicant may not return the children putting in its mind the fact that the applicant has a

Select target paragraph3