HEIRS OF MOHAMMED FADLALLA SHIHAB EL DIN, Applicants-Plaintiffs v. HEIRS OF HASSAN MOHAMMED FADLALLA SHlHAB EL DIN, Respondents-Defendants
Civil Procedure--Summons-Wilness must appear when summoned-fudge not
entitled to ·wail'(: appearance on statement by witness that he knows noth-
ing about the dispute
Civil Procedure-Witness-Form of oath to be taken by witness
1. Witnesses must appear when summoned. The court is not entitled
to waive their appearance merely because they have written a letter stating
that they know nothing about the facts of the case.
2. The only form of oath recognized by the courts is upon the Koran.
Revision
The judgement in this case involved purely factual questions re-
garding the ownership of two plots of land following the inclusion of
the plots in an irrigation area. The case is reported only on one issue
which was raised in the application for revision. The relevant facts
appear in the reported portion of the judgement.
December 31, 1938. Creed C.J.: The applicants have stressed
the point that certain witnesses whom the applicants applied to call
and on whom summonses were served by the court on payment of Iees,
did not appear owing to the influence of the Sheikh who is a defendant
in the action and they were not heard.
In the view of this court the decree must be set aside and the
case re-opened. Witnesses when summoned must appear and the
court is not entitled to waive their appearance merely because they
have written a letter stating that they know nothing about the facts
of the case. These witnesses should be resummoned and heard. When
they have been heard it will be for the court to consider all the evi-
dence before it and the submissions of the parties and then to come
to its final decision.
Evans R.G.L.: I concur.
Application allowed
* Court: Creed C.l. and Evans R.G.L.
The case was reheard by the District Court, Hassaheissa. In the
final judgement the following paragraph appears:
M. Abu Rannat: After hearing fresh evidence, the plaintiffs'
agent states that he will be more satisfied if Mohammed EI Hassan,
. the Sheikh of the village and defendant in this case, will take the oath
on the tomb of Sheikh EI Ghorashi that he had paid him PT,44 only
in respect of rent, It was, however, pointed out to him that he can
only take the form of oath recognised by the courts, viz., the Koran

