9TH SUPREME COURT DEPARTMENT OF LAW 2010/2050 Base, 2010/5887 Decision, Date .4.3.2010

THE EMPLOYEE WILL RECEIVE (The Oath Offered to the Legal Entity Will Be Taken by the Authorized Body of the Legal Entity – In Order for the Oath to Be Binding in the Case of Joint Representation, All Persons Authorized to Represent Together Must Take the Oath)
OATH OFFERING (In Order to be Reminded of the Right to Offer an Oath by the Court, the Burden of Proof Must Be Based on the Evidence of the Party Who Has Taken the Oath)
JOINT 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 be reminded of the right to offer an oath by the court, the burden of proof must be based on the evidence of the party who has taken the oath. The oath offered to a legal entity is executed by the authorized body of the legal entity. In order for the oath to be binding in the case of joint representation, all persons authorized to represent together must take the oath.

LAWSUIT: The plaintiff requested that a decision be made on the payment of seniority, notice compensation, leave, overwork, week break, national holiday and general holiday receivables.

The local court partially ruled on the request.

Although the verdict was appealed by the lawyers of the parties during the term, after hearing the report prepared by the examining judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:

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 that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph of the defendant’s appeal are not in place.

2- The plaintiff stated that the defendant worked as a chambermaid at the workplace, the employment contract was terminated unfairly, and requested that he receive seniority, notice, leave, overtime, week break and general vacation.

The defendant defended the refusal of the case by stating that the plaintiff’s claims had expired, in addition, the plaintiff did not accept the dates on which he claimed to be working, and all his rights and compensation had been paid to him.

Seniority, notice, week break and general holiday receivables have been provided by the court. A document was submitted by the defendant dec that the plaintiff was paid 15847.67 Riyals in exchange for notice and severance pay in exchange for work between 04.07.1989 and 09.05.2005. This document should be shown to the plaintiff and asked what they will say. As a result of this, a decision should be made about the plaintiff’s seniority and notice compensation, while it is erroneous not to value the payment document.

3- On the other hand, the plaintiff is a chamberlain, and there is no witness statement that he works during the week break and general holidays. The plaintiff worker could not prove that he worked during the week holidays and general holidays. In this case, while it is fixed that the plaintiff does not have a week off and general vacation work, it is erroneous to judge these receivables.

4- In our Civil Procedure Law, the evidence of the oath is a definite evidence and is considered as two headings in practice and teaching. One of them is the oath of allegiance ( final oath), and the other is the re’sen oath (complementary oath offered by the judge).

The final oath is the oath offered by the party whose burden of proof falls on him to the other party for the proof of an effective case in the settlement of the case, and is regulated in Articles 344 and the continuation of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086. The party who will offer an oath is the party whose burden of proof falls on him, but he has not been able to prove his claim or defense.

The complementary oath offered by the judge is 356 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086. it is accepted that the conditions set out in the article “the alleged fact cannot be proved with conclusive evidence” and “the evidence shown to prove the alleged fact cannot convince the judge to the extent that it can be judged” must be met together.

Again, in Articles 195 and further of the same Law, an answer to the merits is regulated and the defendant must report his/her counter-evidence, if any, in accordance with Article 200. in article 179. and 180. it is clearly indicated by the reference to the articles.

By the way, it should be noted that reminding the court of the right to offer an oath is possible only with the presence of the right to apply for the evidence of the oath of the party whose burden of proof falls on him. It is also unthinkable that the court will remind you of the existence of a right that does not have the right to be used legally. Only be based on sworn evidence, or the evidence of the parties is clearly based upon this evidence the charts, or the plaintiff’s petition, the defendant in the answer based on evidence or sworn evidence in the application it is possible to provide a statement of the poet ( 20.10.2008 2007/29532 day and, based on Decision No. 2008/27966 the declaration ).

In cases where legal entities are parties, the oath offered to the legal entity is executed by the authorized body of the legal entity. This representative is the representative of the subject of the oath not on the date of the transaction, but at the time when the oath was offered. In addition, in order for the oath to be binding if there is a joint representation, it is mandatory that all persons authorized to represent together also take an oath.

An oath taken 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 party has offered an oath to the plaintiff that he will obtain permission. An oath must be offered to the plaintiff and it must be decided that he will receive permission according to the result of this.

You can read other articles and example petitions by clicking here.