enough financial resources to aid him in raising and taking care of the and educating the child and therefore, he requests to be reunited with his boy and also requests to be compensated the amount of 5 Thousand Sudanese Pounds as lawyer fee. The respondent has agreed on his right as a father of the boy and on the age of the boy and that the boy in question has passed the legal age to be under a woman’s guardianship and denied the claimed negligence and forwarded an appeal to the embitterment of guardianship since she qualifies more than the applicant as stated on her defense in the explanation of the claim and requests that such be rejected. The applicant insisted on his claim and was requested by the court to prove his claim of negligence on which he brought a number of witnesses, and the court requested the respondent to bring forward a counter claim as to her possessing more qualifying evidence and she brought forward someone who had testified on her behalf and then the court listened to the testimonials of the court and finally issued a judgment to reject the claim. An appeal against the judgment was filed with the general court of Marawi who in turn issued its judgment number A.S.SH/20/2014 supporting the judgment of the court of the first instance and rejected the claim. Then a cassation against this judgment was filed with Dunqullah’s appeal court that issued the mentioned judgment on the face of this memorandum in question. Article 116(3) of the personal status for the year 1991 states the following (If the guardianship filed a case to the effect of joining the child under the pretext of betterment, and established her point and was denied by the respondent, if established, then the claim of guardianship shall be rejected, and the respondent shall not be sworn on his claims, but if did so, then to rule on his favor, and his claim shall not be rejected.). What has been established from the facts of the claim is the erring of the court of the first instance to this clear article that the guardian, should establish how he/she is more qualified to raise the child and if this is established, then the claim to rejoin them shall be rejected or the respondent shall be worn on the face of his claim, and the respondent has presented a number of witnesses to prove that she qualifies more than the applicant and should the court not be satisfied with sufficiency of such witnesses to prove who is more qualified and suitable for the guardianship of the child, then it’s should have made it clear to her is she desired the applicant’s to go under oath, and if such is the case and sworn then to rule in his favor and if she did not desire the same to rule in his favor also, but should she desire to subject the applicant with the oath, and the applicant countered her claim, then the case shall be rejected. The court of the first instance did not apply this law in the right manner and therefore, the judgment of the appeal court of Dunqullah to reject the judgment and reject the judgment of the general court that was in favor of the judgment since it was in accordance with the law, and should be approved and to reject this cassation in summary should my esteemed colleagues agree and God’s Help we seek. (Signature) Jamilah Ali Hamed Al Haj Judge of the Supreme Court 7/5/2015 I agree and elaborate that the court should request from the applicant exactly how she defines suitability and she possess of qualities that balance her against the respondent and to oblige her under article 166/2 of the personal status act.