As for The Subject Justifications for the request; The court erred in acquitting the two accused persons without considering the circumstantial evidence and the presumptive evidence indicating that it was the first accused himself who had climbed over the wall of the house of the second accused. The attorney then explained in great detail the subject of the circumstantial evidence, and conclusively requested the revocation of the Court of First Instance, and that we decide what we see appropriate. The Facts Facts indicate that the accused/ Holeya is a divorcee living with her 7 children in her own house. Suspicions were raised that the accused Musa Mohammed Musa was in an illegitimate affair with the accused Holeya. This prompted the plaintiff and prosecution witnesses to stalk her so that they could, as he alleged, (catch her red-handed). On the date of pressing charges, the plaintiff called the prosecution witnesses and told them that the accused was in Holeya’s house. When they got there, according to their accounts, they saw the accused running away, wearing only a vest and shorts; accordingly, they went in and asked the accused to hand them the accused man’s clothes, but she denied having any man with her, not the accused or any other one. So, they tracked the accused and caught him, and the police began procedures against all the accused and brought them to the court, where the contested ruling was issued. Having reviewed all the documents and the decision in the request to the Court of Appeal which had the appeal request dismissed pro forma number …/14/2017, as it was submitted outside the specified time limit. That decision was correct, and although the Court of Appeal had the means to block the request under Article (188), it did not do so, because the authority to examine the case is not exercised by the higher courts, unless there was a prerequisite for that. And as contained in the records, I do find correc the decision by the Court of appeal not to use 2