Supreme Court 9. Law department 2010/2050 E., 2010/5887 K., T.4.3.2010
(The oath offered to the legal entity will be taken by the authorized body of the legal entity – in case of joint representation, all persons authorized to represent together must take the oath in order for the oath to be binding )
Offer of oath ( in order to remind the Court of the right to offer an oath, the burden of proof must be based on the evidence of the oath of the party that falls on it )
Co-representation ( in order for the oath to be binding, all persons authorized to represent together must take the oath )
1086 / m.179, 180, 195, 200, 344
Abstract: in order to remind the Court of the right to offer an oath, the burden of proof must be based on the evidence of the oath. The oath offered to the legal person is taken by the authorized body of the legal person. In the case of co-representation, in order for the oath to be binding, all persons authorized to represent together must take the oath.
Case: the plaintiff asked for a decision on payment of severance, notice compensation, leave, overwork, week holiday, national holiday and general holiday receivables.
The Local Court partially overturned the request.
Although the sentence was appealed by the lawyers of the parties during its term, the file was examined after the report issued by the examination judge for the case file was heard, the requirement was discussed and considered:
Decision: 1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, all of the plaintiff’s Appeals, which are outside the scope of the following bend of the defendant, are not in place.
2-the plaintiff, the defendant worked as a Chamberlain in the workplace, the employment contract was unfairly terminated, stating that seniority, notice, leave, overwork, week vacation and general vacation will be requested.
The defendant defended the dismissal of the case by stating that the plaintiff’s claims had expired, and that the plaintiff had not accepted the dates he claimed to have worked, and that all his rights and compensation had been paid to him.
By the court, seniority, notice, week holiday and general holiday receivables are subject to the provision. A document was presented by the defendant stating that 15847.67 riyals were paid to the plaintiff in exchange for notice and severance pay in exchange for work between 04.07.1989 and 09.05.2005 Dec. This document should be shown to the plaintiff and asked what they will say. According to the conclusion of this, it is wrong to not value the payment document while a decision on the severance and notice compensation of the plaintiff should be made.
3-on the other hand, the plaintiff is a Chamberlain and there is no witness statement that he works on Week holidays and general holidays. The plaintiff could not prove that the worker worked on week breaks and general holidays. In this case, while it is fixed that the plaintiff does not have a week’s holiday and general holiday work, it is wrong to judge these receivables.
4-evidence of an oath in our Civil Procedure Law is conclusive evidence; it is considered in two titles in practice and teaching. One of them is the oath of the party ( the final oath ), and the other is the oath of the re’sen ( the complementary oath offered by the judge).
A final oath is an oath that the party whose burden of proof falls on it offers the other party to prove an effective case in the case, and is regulated in articles 344 and continuation of the Code of Civil Procedure 1086. A party that offers an oath is a party that has the burden of proof, but has not been able to prove its claim or defense.
The additional oath offered by the judge is that of Section 356 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086. it is recognized that the conditions contained in the article “the alleged matter cannot be proven by conclusive evidence” and “the evidence shown to prove the alleged matter cannot convince the judge to the extent that it can be judged” must occur together.
Again, in articles 195 and continuation of the same law, the response to the merits is regulated; the defendant must report counter-evidence, if any, 200. Article 179. and 180. with reference to substances clearly stated.
By the way, it should be noted that reminding the court of the right to offer an oath is only possible with the existence of the right to apply to the evidence of the oath of the party whose burden of proof falls on it. It is also unthinkable to remind the court of the existence of a right that does not have a legal right to use it. It is also possible that the parties either explicitly rely on this evidence in the lists of evidence or rely on the evidence of the oath in the plaintiff’s petition for action, the defendant’s response petition, or include other evidence as agreed in practice ( 20.10.2008 days and 2007/29532 basis, decision 2008/27966 ).
In cases in which legal persons are parties, the oath offered to the legal person is taken by the authorized body of the legal person. This representative is the representative at the time the oath was offered, not on the date the subject of the oath was made. In addition, in case of joint representation, all persons authorized to represent together must also take the oath in order for the oath to be binding.
An oath directed by a party that does not have the burden of proof to the other party does not have legal consequences.
In a concrete case, the defendant offered the plaintiff an oath that he would receive permission. The plaintiff must be offered an oath to the party and it must be ruled that he will receive permission according to the outcome of this.
Conclusion: The Appeal decision was unanimously decided on 04.03.2010 to return the appeal fee received in advance to the relevant person on request for the reason written above ( to be overturned).