Red Sea State Court of Appeal Family Affairs Circuit Before: His Excellency; - Ahmed Mohammed Alfaki His Excellency: - Mohammed Alnazeer Ahmed Al-Mubarak. His Excellency: - Mohammed Ibrahim Alhaj. Mohammed Abdulrazek Al-Sharif Vs Sohaila Saleh Omer A. Sein. Shein / 26 /2008 In the case No, 653/2007 (Divorce for diversion) the court of family affairs has issued on 15/5/2008 its decision ordering 1- the arrest of the defendant by any police officer outside the Jurisdiction of the court and to be brought before the court and criminal accusation case be opened against him under Section 94 of the Criminal Law. 2-the defendant advocate shall be banned from appearing in this case. 3-Advocate Mohammed Abdalmotall Alsharief shall be denied the appearance in this case. As against this decision, advocate Mohammed Abdalmotall Alsharief submitted before us a request for appeal on the 19th of May 2007. Initially we decide to accept the appeal as a matter of mere formality The reasons announced to be the bases of the appeal could be summed up to be; 1-Issance of an arrest warrant looks very strange since the provisions of section 85 of the civil Procedure Act and the provision of section 86 of the same act talked about the court authority to summon and order witnesses to appear and present the document which they may have had in their possession whereas section 86 provides for the court authority and power to compel the witnesses to appear before the Court. This provision does not apply to the suit parties. The law is obvious in this regard. The law in case is clear in stipulating that in the case of the defendant absence when dully summoned, the right action ensuing as result of that is to hear the case and issue a default decree in the absence of the defendant. The court in this situation is not empowered to issue an arrest warrant and it worth mentioning that the defendant is represented by an advocate. The advocate appeared on behalf of the defendant in all court's sessions. 2-Issuance of a decision depriving the advocate of appearing on behalf defendant under s. 58/3 for exploiting and prolonging the proceeding is not just since in the opinion of appellant advocate, the post bonding of the case was for reasons beyond the control of the party concerned and due to the parties hoping to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute. 3-the court should have summoned the defendant as the Principle of justice necessitates appointing anther advocate to represent the defendant instead of issuing an arrest warrant. 4- The advocate thinks that its strange decision of the court when refusing the appointment of the advocate as an Arbitrator although he represents one of the parties. This for the reason that the appointment may not help to conclude an amicable settlement although the advocate when practicing the role of arbitrator he shall be motivated by the principles of justice and the duties imposed upon him by the profession code of ethics and conduct .The advocate further added,that its judicially noted that the arbitrators shall be appointed from the parties relatives and the defendant agreed to the advocate appointment . And finally, the advocate relying on the above reasons asked for the quashing of the Court of First Instance decision Upon perusing the case records and papers we can rule on the reasons of application as follows: 1-in the first instance it is necessary to reach a unified understanding on the procedural law that shall be applied to adjudicate on the cases of family affairs. Although the law is the Civil Procedure, but the part of that law is the provisions of schedule 3 annexed to the main law and not the