Judicial principles and studies
Effect of "and others" in Appeal Lists and the Appellate Court's Authority to Find Facts
A concise summary of judicial principles on the validity of an appeal list containing "and others", the effect of naming a person in a personal capacity, and the limits of cassation review over factual findings.
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 judicial principles on the validity of an appeal list containing "and others", the effect of naming a person in a personal capacity, and the limits of cassation review over factual findings.
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 related issues: the effect of including "and others" in an appeal list on the validity of standing, the consequence of naming a person in a personal capacity when they were not a party in that capacity, and the limits of cassation review over factual findings by the appellate court under the Evidence Law.
Summary
- The term "and others" does not automatically invalidate the appeal if the appellant is identified within the appeal record by details of the contested decision (its number, the issuing court, date and content) in a manner that removes ambiguity, particularly where the respondent did not raise a formal objection in its appellate memoranda, indicating waiver. This principle is drawn from cassation decision No. (1030/2022). - If a name appears in the appeal list in a personal capacity while the person was not a party in that capacity in the original proceedings, the court of appeal must dismiss the appeal against that person on formal grounds. (Principle from cassation decision No. (1030/2022)). - The court of appeal, as a court of merits, is competent to determine the facts pursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of the Evidence Law; cassation does not reappraise those factual deductions provided the evidence relied upon is lawful, originates in the case, and supports the findings. This content is an educational summary only; it is not an official judicial text nor 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 related issues: the effect of including "and others" in an appeal list on the validity of standing, the consequence of naming a person in a personal capacity when they were not a party in that capacity, and the limits of cassation review over factual findings by the appellate court under the Evidence Law.
Summary?
- The term "and others" does not automatically invalidate the appeal if the appellant is identified within the appeal record by details of the contested decision (its number, the issuing court, date and content) in a manner that removes ambiguity, particularly where the respondent did not raise a formal objection in its appellate memoranda, indicating waiver. This principle is drawn from cassation decision No. (1030/2022). - If a name appears in the appeal list in a personal capacity while the person was not a party in that capacity in the original proceedings, the court of appeal must dismiss the appeal against that person on formal grounds. (Principle from cassation decision No. (1030/2022)). - The court of appeal, as a court of merits, is competent to determine the facts pursuant to Articles 33 and 34 of the Evidence Law; cassation does not reappraise those factual deductions provided the evidence relied upon is lawful, originates in the case, and supports the findings. This content is an educational summary only; it is not an official judicial text nor 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.