Reasons After perusing the minutes, objection pleading and the decision issued by the Court of Appeal, I agree with the decision issued by the Court of Appeal, that is to quash the decision issued by the Trial Court and to refer the case back to it to proceed again. However, I disagree with decision issued by the Court of Appeal in two (2) points: 1. Respondent did not respond to appellant’s claims regarding the items presented to her by appellant for the official engagement, nor its value, the parts that have perished or used, yet, her response was directed to the reasons why the engagement was cancelled, therefore, the papers shall be referred back to the Trial Court and shall be reconsidered to hear the reply of respondent with regard to the type and value of the gifts. 2. Article (10-2) of the Personal Status Act has expressly and clearly provided that, if the right of the party who retreated the engagement is established, he shall recover the items gifted if they are still existing and their value at the time received if they perished. This express clear provision closes the door for implementing the Hanfia school principals, however, the legal provision extracted from Malykia school principals as a source of legislation shall be applied in this part. Therefore, and based on the above, I believe, if my respected colleagues in this circuit agree, to uphold the contested judgment by referring the case back to the Trial Court, to consider the case based on this pleading and then issue its reasonable judgment to reject/quash the appeal on summary basis, and appellant shall bear the respective fees. Dr. Ahmed Mohammed Abdul Mageed “signed” Judge at the Supreme Court 04/08/2015