Judicial principles and studies
Following a cassation ruling on directing the oath of proof in inheritance claims
This summary outlines the court's authority to direct the oath of proof under Article (54/2)(a) of the Evidence Law, and the obligation of the court of appeal, when a case is remitted, to implement the cassation ruling by questioning parties or directing a complementary oath.
Family and personal status
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
This summary outlines the court's authority to direct the oath of proof under Article (54/2)(a) of the Evidence Law, and the obligation of the court of appeal, when a case is remitted, to implement the cassation ruling by questioning parties or directing a complementary oath.
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 official points indicate that Article (54/2)(a) of the Evidence Law confines directing the oath of proof to a person who has established a claim to an inheritance; the court retains the discretion to order that oath, which addresses whether the claimant did not collect the right personally or through another, did not have it absolved or assigned, and that there was no pledge over it.
Summary
- Directing the oath of proof is permissible only for one who proves a right in the estate, and the decision to direct the oath rests with the court under the cited provision. - When a case is reinstated following a cassation ruling, the aim is to enable the court of appeal to exercise its trial-level powers to ascertain the truth, including interrogating the parties under Article (76/2) of the Civil Procedure Law and/or directing a complementary oath to the plaintiff under Article (70) of the Evidence Law concerning a fact identified by the cassation decision. - If the court of appeal has interrogated the plaintiff, it must also interrogate the other parties as required to implement the cassation decision; failing to do so renders its decision premature.
Practical significance
The summary clarifies the limits on directing an oath of proof and the obligation of the court of appeal, upon remittal, to follow the factual determinations fixed by cassation by questioning all parties or ordering the complementary oath when necessary, so the trial court can reach a definitive resolution. Note: This is an educational summary only; it is not a judicial text nor legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
The official points indicate that Article (54/2)(a) of the Evidence Law confines directing the oath of proof to a person who has established a claim to an inheritance; the court retains the discretion to order that oath, which addresses whether the claimant did not collect the right personally or through another, did not have it absolved or assigned, and that there was no pledge over it.
Summary?
- Directing the oath of proof is permissible only for one who proves a right in the estate, and the decision to direct the oath rests with the court under the cited provision. - When a case is reinstated following a cassation ruling, the aim is to enable the court of appeal to exercise its trial-level powers to ascertain the truth, including interrogating the parties under Article (76/2) of the Civil Procedure Law and/or directing a complementary oath to the plaintiff under Article (70) of the Evidence Law concerning a fact identified by the cassation decision. - If the court of appeal has interrogated the plaintiff, it must also interrogate the other parties as required to implement the cassation decision; failing to do so renders its decision premature.
Practical significance?
The summary clarifies the limits on directing an oath of proof and the obligation of the court of appeal, upon remittal, to follow the factual determinations fixed by cassation by questioning all parties or ordering the complementary oath when necessary, so the trial court can reach a definitive resolution. Note: This is an educational summary only; it is not a judicial text nor 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.