Judicial principles and studies
Legality of the Decisive Oath, the Option of Questioning, and Suing Joint Partners
A brief summary outlining rules on directing the decisive oath and the option of questioning, joint partners' liability, and the related enforcement procedure.
Compensation and insurance
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 brief summary outlining rules on directing the decisive oath and the option of questioning, joint partners' liability, and the related enforcement procedure.
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 core points drawn from the Evidence Law and Companies Law: conditions for directing the decisive oath and the court’s option to question under Articles 53/1 and 53/2 of the Evidence Law; a partner’s liability in a joint (solidarity) company under Articles 26 and 27 of the Companies Law; and where execution against joint partners is addressed.
Summary
- The decisive oath may be directed only at the request of a party pursuant to Article 53/1 of the Evidence Law; the court does not have authority to impose it on its own while sufficient evidence exists in the case. - The decision to use the option of questioning is discretionary for the trial court under Article 53/2; if the court has weighed the evidence and finds no reason to exercise that option, its non-use is not defective. - Under Articles 26 and 27 of the Companies Law, a creditor of a joint company may sue the company and its partners, as a joint partner is jointly and severally liable with his personal assets for the company’s obligations incurred during his partnership. - Raising execution against joint partners is handled before the enforcement chamber at the execution stage, not before the trial court; therefore, omission of an explicit reference to Article 27 in the challenged judgment does not, on the presented points, constitute a ground for cassation. This is an educational summary and does not constitute 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 core points drawn from the Evidence Law and Companies Law: conditions for directing the decisive oath and the court’s option to question under Articles 53/1 and 53/2 of the Evidence Law; a partner’s liability in a joint (solidarity) company under Articles 26 and 27 of the Companies Law; and where execution against joint partners is addressed.
Summary?
- The decisive oath may be directed only at the request of a party pursuant to Article 53/1 of the Evidence Law; the court does not have authority to impose it on its own while sufficient evidence exists in the case. - The decision to use the option of questioning is discretionary for the trial court under Article 53/2; if the court has weighed the evidence and finds no reason to exercise that option, its non-use is not defective. - Under Articles 26 and 27 of the Companies Law, a creditor of a joint company may sue the company and its partners, as a joint partner is jointly and severally liable with his personal assets for the company’s obligations incurred during his partnership. - Raising execution against joint partners is handled before the enforcement chamber at the execution stage, not before the trial court; therefore, omission of an explicit reference to Article 27 in the challenged judgment does not, on the presented points, constitute a ground for cassation. This is an educational summary and does not constitute 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
Companies, contracts, and investment
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Corporate, governance, and investment advice
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.