The appellant was not satisfied with the court’s decision and therefore forwarded this cassation. the appellant was notified of the decision on 25/1/2015 and filled his complain on 27/1/2015 and therefore the claim was presented within the legal window frame allowed by the law and therefore it is accepted on form. As to the subject matter, the appellant claims that the appeal court along with the court of the first instance have erred and deviated from the common judiciary procedure and on what have been the norm of similar older cases in the following points: 1. He claims that the delayed dowry was named as a show off and that his witnesses are residing outside of Sudan and therefore difficult to be called upon to the proceeding and that the concerned court refused to notify his witnesses through the normal diplomatic channels nor hear their testimonials. Therefore, the decision of the court came in fault and liable to be revoked. 2. The court’s decision to hear his witnesses deprived him of the chance to prove his claim which effected the court’s decision that should be revoked, and he based his claim on 33/1473 from the Judiciary Magazine for the year 1973 page 32-45. 3. Many similar cases permitted the witnesses on even smaller sums of money or contrary to the one stated on the marriage certificate – cassation number 208/1980 of the Judiciary Magazine for 1980 from page 48-51 read along with the discrimination decision number 152/1975 pages 5-6 and the cassation decision number 16/1979 from the Judiciary magazine 1979 pages 24-25 and by the denial of the court to his decision , it therefore deprived him of presenting his alibi to refute the respondent’s claim. 4. The respondent was the one who called for the divorce and therefore her right to claim the remaining sum of the dowry is nulled which was a term stated on the marriage contract and that she did not remain in the household after the divorce which labels her as a rebellious wife and therefore, does not deserve to be paid the rest of the dowry amount. 5. The court’s decision on the lawyer’s expenses and fees was not justified, and the unlawful decision is faulty because it reflects the point of view of the court and that the decision issued on 145/1981 of the Judiciary Magazine for the year 1981 on page 20 bearing in mind that the lawyer’s fee was not paid and it stands to reason that the lawyer’s fee should be borne by the respondent who is the owner of the claim and the decision. Therefore, the decision became faulty. And he requested to issue an order to revoke the decision of the court of the first instance and the appeal court. This is what had been stated on the reasons for the cassation. The causes: By reviewing the precedents cited by the appellant we did not find a precedent in his favor and what has been stated in the 15/1986 magazine 1975 to prove the increase or decrease of the dowry came as a request from the wife’s father on the pretext that others would not claim that he (the father) wedded his daughter without a dowry and the sum agreed upon was 1 pound but to say in public that the sum agreed upon was 60 pound, of which 30 pounds is given to the bride and the thus remains another 30 pounds, and this agreement was not written down on the original marriage contract, nor the increase was mentioned and therefore, this claim should be settled by proof (Witnesses) as to the subject of this claim, there is a justifiable proof taken from the