In the name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful The National Supreme Court Department of Personal Status Cassation Decision 280/2015 Issued by the Department of Personal Status of the Supreme Court on 13/5/2015 under the chairmanship of Mr. Othman Al Sideeq Ahmed Tai Allah and the membership of Mrs. Jamilah Ali Hamed Al Haj and Mrs. Dr. Ilham Ahmed Othman Wani judges of the supreme court. The appeal documents number 191/S/2014 Appeal Court of the Northern State – Dunqullah D.A.SH and the claim documents number 63/G/2014 Marawi Court registered under number 22/Cassation/2015. Applicant: Fatima Mahjoub Ibrahim Respondent: Omar Othman Ahmed Mahmoud The Decision: This is a cassation against the judgment of the appeal court of the northern state Dungullah under the number 191/S/2014 which stated the rejection of the judgments of the lower courts and to return the documents to the court for processing on the claim on the face of the memorandum. This judgment was issued on 11/1/2015 and the applicant was notified of the same on 8/2/2015 and the memorandum was filed on 22/2/2015 and thus was presented within the legal permissible time frame. The subject of the case is summarized in that the court of the first instance heard 4 witnesses as court witnesses without the applicant’s request but the appeal court has disapproved and rejected its judgment which is against the article 116(3) of the personal status for the year 1991 and the lawyer of the applicant elaborated in stating the articles regarding the guardianship according to the evidence presented by the claim which he sees that it has established more befitting of the applicant and that she – the applicant – possesses more adequate qualities than the respondent on such a way as stated on the memorandum and also sees that the weight of the evidence and the evaluation of the same are stated by the court of the first instance because it heed to such evidence and observed the behavior of the witnesses and therefore the appeal court shall not intervene unless the lower degree courts shall the court of the first instances have erred in their decision and the appeal court did not state that the court of the first instance and the supreme court have erred in their establishment of the evidence was wrong by referencing Milad Mahfodh / against / Abdul Hameed Abu Ghassim M.A./T.M./57/1982 of the journal and reports of the judiciary for the 1982 page number 232. The lawyer of the applicant states that the claim of the respondent is only filed on deceit, for he resides outside of Sudan and did not attend the procedures of the came which proves that he is not serious in his claims and requested to reject the judgment from the appeal court and retain the judgment of the court of the first instance and the general court. The facts of the case filed with the court of the first instance are summarized in that the applicant has a new born boy called Alla Al Dean – 7 years old and two months - of the respondent’s daughter, and that the boy has passed the legal age to be on his mother’s guardianship and the mother travels extensively and neglects her duties in taking care of the boy and that his father (the applicant) has