Judicial principles and studies
The Decisive Oath, Electronic Swearing, and Opponent's Consent
Decision reference: تمييز حقوق هيئة عامة رقم 4310-2025.
Electronic swearing of the decisive oath is permissible in principle but depends on the other party's consent. If conducted over objection it is void and courts should use alternative measures such as judicial commission.
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
Electronic swearing of the decisive oath is permissible in principle but depends on the other party's consent. If conducted over objection it is void and courts should use alternative measures such as judicial commission.
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
The available points indicate that swearing a decisive oath by electronic means is permitted in principle but is conditional on the other party's consent, by analogy to electronic examination of witnesses under Art. 81(7) of the Civil Procedure Code. If electronic swearing occurs despite the opponent's objection, the act is void because it undermines public‑order safeguards, and the court should resort to alternative measures such as judicial commission.
Summary
Consent to electronic swearing is an essential requirement that cannot be bypassed; the decisive oath remains an in‑court procedure under Art. 58 of the Evidence Law, and any use of electronic tools must comply with procedural rules.
Practical significance
In practice, obtain the opponent's consent before conducting electronic swearing; if the opponent objects, pursue the established alternative legal mechanisms. This is an educational summary only; it is not a judicial text or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
The available points indicate that swearing a decisive oath by electronic means is permitted in principle but is conditional on the other party's consent, by analogy to electronic examination of witnesses under Art. 81(7) of the Civil Procedure Code. If electronic swearing occurs despite the opponent's objection, the act is void because it undermines public‑order safeguards, and the court should resort to alternative measures such as judicial commission.
Summary?
Consent to electronic swearing is an essential requirement that cannot be bypassed; the decisive oath remains an in‑court procedure under Art. 58 of the Evidence Law, and any use of electronic tools must comply with procedural rules.
Practical significance?
In practice, obtain the opponent's consent before conducting electronic swearing; if the opponent objects, pursue the established alternative legal mechanisms. This is an educational summary only; it is not a judicial text or legal advice.
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.