In the Name of the Merciful God
National Supreme Court
Personal Status Division
Case No 471/2015
Issued by the Supreme Court Personal Status Division on 12/8/2015 under the chairmanship of
Mr. Salah Al-Tijani Al-Amin and members Yaaqoub Hamad Abdul Rahman and Ms. Rabab
Mohammad Mustafa Abu Kousaisa: Judges of the Supreme Court.
The appeal case number 122/S/2015 has been submitted. Al-Khartoum Court of Appeal and the
case papers 675/K/2014 Khartoum-East Court D A CH, registered under number
243/appeal/2015
Appellant: Zineb Izz Al-Din Mohammad
versus
Respondent: Seif Al-Din Marzouk
The Jugdment
The case number 675/2014 in the Khartoum-East Personal Status Division, Court of First
Instance, was postponed to hear evidence of the respondent's negligence in the education of her
children, but the respondent did not accept this decision and filed his appeal number
CH/112/2015 before the Court of Appeal of Khartoum. The appeal has been filed.
The Appellant filed through her attorney Sateaa Mohammad al-Haj this request, in which she
asked to overturn the judgment of the Court of Appeal upholding the decision of the Court of
First Instance.
The request was submitted within the time prescribed by law, in which there are questions as to
the immediately-enforceable instructions and the final order of the dispute. It is thought that the
appeal judgment does not fall under Article 157 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment
2009), because its meaning is based on the inclusion of children and not on the decision of the
Court of First Instance that treated the case as a matter of abandonment of guardianship. There is
a big difference between the annexation action and the claim to testify. The decision of the Court
of First Instance to hear evidence of negligence is erroneous and must be delimited between the
act of annexation and the application for dismissal because the reason for each of them is
different.
With respect to the hearing of the evidence, and despite our agreement with counsel for the
appellant on the meaning that we have evoked, the essential point is that the hearing mentioned
does not terminate the trial. At the end of the case, he may discuss all matters, including the
discussion of abandonment and annexation, but the decision of the evidence does not end the
dispute. Because of the subject of rivalry, as stressed by the lawyer, who knows the difference
between abandonment and annexation, which is determined by the age of the child, the benefits

Select target paragraph3