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

Select target paragraph3