Judicial principles and studies
Decisive and Supplementary Oaths and the Probative Weight of Computer Outputs
Decision reference: تمييز حقوق رقم (٤٥٤١/٢٠٢٥) .
A concise summary of procedural rules on decisive and supplementary oaths and the evidential status of computer outputs under the Evidence Law and the Court of Cassation's practice.
Courts and procedure
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
A concise summary of procedural rules on decisive and supplementary oaths and the evidential status of computer outputs under the Evidence Law and the Court of Cassation's practice.
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
Subject
This summary addresses three practical evidence issues: the rules on decisive oaths and the waiver effect of accepting them, the role of the supplementary oath as a means to complete the court’s conviction, and the probative status of computer outputs attributed to a party under Article (13/3/c) of the Evidence Law.
Summary
- Decisive oath: Article (53/2) permits the court to inform a party unable to prove a claim or defense of the option to face a decisive oath; the party then chooses between accepting the oath or relying on its submitted evidence. Acceptance of a decisive oath operates as a waiver of other evidence concerning the fact in question under Article (61/1); if the oath is sworn, the dispute on that fact is finally resolved and excluded evidence may no longer be reasserted. - Supplementary oath: Article (1/70) authorizes the court to direct a supplementary oath to one party when the submitted evidence is insufficient; the oath serves a complementary evidential role to complete the court’s conviction and is directed to the party whose proof the court finds more persuasive. - Computer outputs: Article (13/3/c) attributes ordinary probative force to computer outputs attributed to the opposing party; the party against whom such outputs are relied upon bears the burden of proving that the outputs were not produced, authenticated, signed, or assigned. This rule does not cover outputs prepared by a party for its own proof, since a party may not fabricate evidence for itself. Notice: This is an educational summary only, not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
This summary addresses three practical evidence issues: the rules on decisive oaths and the waiver effect of accepting them, the role of the supplementary oath as a means to complete the court’s conviction, and the probative status of computer outputs attributed to a party under Article (13/3/c) of the Evidence Law.
Summary?
- Decisive oath: Article (53/2) permits the court to inform a party unable to prove a claim or defense of the option to face a decisive oath; the party then chooses between accepting the oath or relying on its submitted evidence. Acceptance of a decisive oath operates as a waiver of other evidence concerning the fact in question under Article (61/1); if the oath is sworn, the dispute on that fact is finally resolved and excluded evidence may no longer be reasserted. - Supplementary oath: Article (1/70) authorizes the court to direct a supplementary oath to one party when the submitted evidence is insufficient; the oath serves a complementary evidential role to complete the court’s conviction and is directed to the party whose proof the court finds more persuasive. - Computer outputs: Article (13/3/c) attributes ordinary probative force to computer outputs attributed to the opposing party; the party against whom such outputs are relied upon bears the burden of proving that the outputs were not produced, authenticated, signed, or assigned. This rule does not cover outputs prepared by a party for its own proof, since a party may not fabricate evidence for itself. Notice: This is an educational summary only, not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance?
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
Study collection
Courts, judicial principles, and enforcement
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Commercial and civil litigation
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.