marriage and strongly denied the father’s intentional stopping of sustaining the daughter living
expenses.
The first instance court decided to hear the case to clarify through evidence the issue of the
authorization of the opponent to the first applicant to execute the marriage. Upon hearing the evidence
of the applicants, the Court of First Instance passed its judgment on 11/2/2013 dismissing the suit in
the presence of the parties. This ruling was opposed by the opponent there, by filing an appeal before
the court of appeal (Omdurman). The appeal court passed its judgment No / 00000/ 260 / 2013
summarily dismissing the appeal.
The opponent, not satisfied with the said decision, levied an objection before the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court issued a decree under No 486 /2013 dated 5/8/2013 cancelling the Court of Appeal
decision and referring the case back to the Court of First Instance to rule on the case as per the
Supreme Court memo direction. The court was ordered to question the first applicant on the
authorization granted to him by the guardian, and to check and verify the truth of this authorization.
The court was also requested to verify the date of marriage consummation and the issue of father
sustaining his daughters expenses, and then to rule whether that could waive the father’s guardianship
or not.
The records were referred to the Court of First Instance to act as per the Supreme Court instructions.
At the hearing, the first defendant said that the plaintiff (the guardian) did not authorized him to
execute the marriage contract. The second defendant stated that he had consummated the marriage on
29/9/2012. However, the first defendant alleged that he has concluded the marriage because the
plaintiff had said to his daughter (third defendant) “go to your uncle, to conclude the marriage”.
He further added that he had conceived this statement from the daughter (the third defendant).
The court of first instance asked the defendants to prove the authorization. To that end, the court had
heard the first witness, who is the son of the plaintiff and the brother of the third defendant (the third
applicant). The witness testified to the effect that, his father objected to the marriage and refused to
execute the marriage contract and “said you may execute the marriage as you like, go to your uncle
(the third defendant) to execute the marriage contract”. He also said, the father (the opponent) refused
to allow the daughter to reside with him or to show any signs of happiness in the marriage at his
home. He stated more over that his father did not incur any expenses regarding the daughter living
since 2004.
The second witness testified that the plaintiff refused to execute the marriage contract at his house,
where as the third witness expressed that the plaintiff said to him, “You can do any and everything but
away from my home”.
The Court of First Instance resolved for the second time to dismiss the case on 9/12 /2014. This
decision was not accepted by the father (the opponent), which is why he raised an appeal before
Omdurman Appeal Court which passed its decision (the subject matte) of this application, even
though it is not accepted by the applicants who filled this objection to this Court.
However, upon examining all the records, papers and decisions I would say that the instructions stated
in the supreme Court decision No, 482 /2013 is not adequately followed. These instruction are
summarized in two points; the first one relates to the authorization of the guardian to the first
applicant - who is the uncle of the daughter ( the bride) - to execute her marriage where as the second
point relates to the lack of the father sustaining his daughters living expenses ,which when proved,
could waive the guardian ship resulting in denying the father the right to terminate the marriage
contract according to section 36 of the family law Act 1991 .
The evidence is not enough, not in accordance with required quorum and is based on the statement of
the first witness only (the son of the opponent and the brother of the third applicant) whereas the other
witnesses did not testify to the fact in issue. More over the court of First Instance did not conduct a
full investigation with the witness about the statement of the first applicant that he was authorized by
the father (the guardian) to execute the marriage contract outside the father house.
It’s crucial to answer the question of whether the contract was executed before the father objection or
after that. In case of after the contract would be valid and in case of the after the guardian in such a
case would be considered as having revoked his authorization. It's necessary to further investigate