Written by Consultant/ Hassan Alfayoumi

Preamble

Defining The Strict Oath: – It is the oath required to be performed by one litigant which is directed to another as a method of finalizing a dispute or a conflict disputed for, and this is described as a “Strict” Oath due to its effect to finalize the case, and in this Oath, a litigant is governed by the conscience of the other party, and this kind of oath is referred to when a litigant is missing evidence and the other party denies his rights. The Strict Oath gives an end to the case in case a litigant denies.          

Defining the Complementary Oath: – It is the oath required to be performed by the judge under his own discretion directed at any litigant to gain the confidence that enables him to issue a judgment when evidences submitted are not enough persuasive, in other words, this kind of oath is directed by a judge to help in a ruling of a case, and it is not restricted to special cases in law, and it is an absolute opinion of a judge.    

Differences between the Complementary Oath & The Strict Oath:- 

• The Complementary Oath functions as complementary evidence used to complete missing evidence, but The Strict Oath is an independent evidence that may be used separately to issue a ruling in a case.
• The Complementary Oath is performed by the judge himself without any being requested by litigants, but The Strict Oath is directed by one litigant to another under one litigant’s request in his sole discretion.
• The Complementary Oath is a material fact directed by a judge to a litigant by his own discretion, but The Strict Oath is a legal act requested by one litigant of the other under the latter’s sole discretion.  
• The Complementary Oath cannot be rejected by a litigant to another, but The Strict Oath can be rejected by the other litigant in question.
• The Capacity of the litigant to whom the Complementary Oath is directed may be sufficient to be eligible for litigation only, whilst the litigant to whom the Complementary Oath is directed must be eligible to act.
• The Complementary Oath may be cancelled, as the judge could disregard the Complementary Oath even after being performed upon assuring that the evidences submitted are enough for a ruling, and it could be cancelled as well upon finding new evidences for a ruling, on the other hand, a strict oath may not be canceled after being accepted by a litigant.
• The Complementary Oath does not resolve the dispute where the judge is not bound to rule according to it, so the judge has the right to rule on whoever took the Complementary Oath from among the litigants or to rule against him, and he also has the right to rule on its basis or other evidence available in the case, whether it was available after its direction or before it was directed, while The Strict Oath settles the dispute in favor of the one who swore it, whether it was from the beginning of the one who directed it or after the one who directed it, and the judge decides according to it even if it appears to him that the other evidence presented in the case is valid as a basis for the ruling.

Written by: Hassan Alfayoumi