The Court
After perusal of documents and hearing the report, which was read by the presiding Judge of the hearing, pleadings and after deliberation, and whereas, the appeal has satisfied the procedural formalities.
 
Whereas the facts, as shown from the appealed judgment and from other documents, can be summarised as that the Respondents have lodged against the Appellant case no. 148/2004 and pleaded the court to issue a judgment, to validate its Admission dated 25/1/1995 of its Community ownership , along with the First Respondent and the Successor of the Second Respondents, of Property No.(9118) in equal shares and equal delivery, and they explained that pursuant to the admission made and signed by the Appellant, the Appellant has admitted and acknowledge that they all own the Property in equal share. However, the Appellant has refused to register the same in accordance with their shares, and as a result they instituted their case. The Court has decided in favor of the Respondents. The Appellant has appealed such Judgment by filing Appeal No. 59/2006, and in 31 of January 2007; the Court rendered its judgment to dismiss the appeal. The Appellant filed an appeal by cassation and whereas such appeal is presented before this Court in the Deliberation room and the Court scheduled hearing date to hear the same.
And whereas the appeal was based on three grounds, and whereas the Appellant has pleaded against the appealed judgment on its first ground that the appealed judgment violated and erroneously applied the law where it concludes and decided the validity of the Appellant Admission which was made and dated 25^th of January 1995 which results on the ownership of Second Respondents of their Successor’s share in the Property the subject matter of the dispute, whereas, the ownership of their Successor  was not proved by the Successor’s admission dated 15/5/1997 as presented before the Sharia Judge, and which state that the Respondents’ Inheritor does not share with the Appellant the ownership of the Property and as such, the Successor’s admission shall be deemed as judicial admission, which was not refuted by the Inheritors on the basis of ignorance and therefore, it should be regarded as  conclusive evidence against them, and as such the judgment was rendered defective and should be overturned.
 
And whereas this pleading is rejected for the reason that the weight of judicial admission is limited to the case in which it was rendered.  Reliance upon such admission by the Litigant in whose favor the admission was made as well as third parties, in subsequent case, it shall be considered for the purpose of other subsequent case, as non-judicial admission, and it shall not be considered as conclusive evidence against the person who made the admission, but it shall be subjected to the Trial Court’s discretion. And for this Court after taking into consideration and assessing the circumstances of the case, to consider such admission as written evidence or capable of being proved by writing or is merely presumption or not to be originally considered. And such discretion shall not be supervised or reviewed as long as such discretion was exercised and based on sound reasons. And whereas this is the case and whereas the writing of the Successor of the Second Respondents, dated 15/5/1997 and as presented to the Sharia Judge in the Inheritance Case No….., which was relied upon by the Appellant to negate the ownership of the Successor of the Respondents to the Property the subject matter of the dispute, and whatever the opinion on the same as regard to the Inheritance case, should not be, and based on the foregoing, regarded as judicial admission in similar case, and therefore, the weight of  its proof is the discretion of the Trial Court to decide on and as the Trial Court has decided to decline to admit its prove which will insure to the Appellant alone without the those to whom the admission was made, and that there is a right on the Property the subject matter of the dispute for the reasons as mentioned in its Judgment’s transcripts and writings  that “ this letter does not include particular specification and reference to the disputed Property No.(9118) under the name of the Claimant “Appellant” and the ownership of the Successor of this Property was proven before many years before this letter pursuant to admission as presented in this case and pursuant to the other two admissions as stated in the minutes of the hearings and sessions of Sharia Court as abovementioned and referred to and further, pursuant to the testimony of the diseased the Mother of all litigants which was dated in 3/10/1993” and such reasons were sound and substantiated by documents and shall suffice to uphold decision of the appealed Judgment and therefore shall considered as within the limits of the Trial Court’s jurisdiction and its discretion to evaluate evidence of the case, which was taken far from the reach of supervision of the Court of Cassation, and by this, this pleading should be regarded as factually argumentative which should not be invoked before this Court and for that reason is not accepted.
 
Whereas the Appellant has pleaded in its Second ground of appeal that the appealed judgment has violated its right of defense, and to explain such contention, the Appellant has stated that it insisted on and invoked a defense before the Trial Court which can be summarized on that  Appellant Admission dated 25/1/1995 was concerned by the Property No (10) Street…. And such property is part of the property No. (9118) and it produces supporting documents to substantiate the same and requested the appointment of an Expert Engineer to exclude the portions that is not shared between Appellant and the Respondents, however, the Appealed Judgment has disregarded this defense and such Judgment considered, contrary to the reality, that the House No (10) Street….as the entire property, and by concluding so, which render it defective and obligates its overturning.  And whereas, this pleading shall be rejected for the reason that the Trial Court has the jurisdiction, and as being the doctrine of this Court, that the Trial Court has the power to assess and understand the factual basis and evidence of the case and it shall do so by preponderance of document and evidence and consider what it believes to be convincing as long as it based its judgment on valid reasons which were well proven and substantiated by documents. And whereas this is the case, and whereas the Trial Court is not obliged to honor the request for expert appointment, whenever, the Court finds in the Case document what will substantiate its conclusions, and whereas the appealed judgment has decided that the content of the Appellant admission dated 25/1/1995 is concerning the registered property with the Real Estate Registration Department under No.(9118) based on the testimony given by the mother of the two Litigants of the case which was admitted by the Appellant- and in this regard- as shown in the minutes of the Sharia Court hearing which was attached to the file of this case, which indicates that the Court does not see any need to appoint an Expert, a fact that will render the appeal against what it was concluded, as factual arguments fall under the jurisdiction and the discretion of the Trial Court  and it shall not be pleaded before this Court, and therefore, this ground of appeal is not acceptable.
And whereas the Appellant pleaded in the third ground of appeal that the appealed judgment defective in its reasoning and to explain that the Appellant stated that Appellant was insisting in invoking the conclusiveness of the conclusive oath which Appellant has taken and sworn before the Sharia Court and the effect of which in ending this dispute, and that the Appealed Judgment has disregarded such conclusiveness and justified that on the Judgment rendered by Sharia Court did not refer to disputed Property, a fact that would indicate that his defence is disregarded and therefore, the Judgment is rendered defective and should be overturned.
And whereas this appeal is rejected in so far as the Trial Court will not be pleaded against by and evidence which decided to disregard even if  such evidence was admitted as an evidence in another case, and whereas the conclusive oath as sworn on by the Appellant is not more in this case than evidence which shall be subjected to the discretion of the Trial Court to decide on the evidence of the case and to admit whatever it found convincing and in such case it shall not be blamed if it decides to reject whatever is produced by the Appellant and decided to admit another evidence in the case, and therefore the Appeal of the Appellant against the Appealed Judgment shall be considered as an argument which is left to the discretion of Trial Court to decide on and shall not be invoked before this Court and therefore, shall be unacceptable.
Therefore, the Appeal is dismissed and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the Appellant, further the Court ordered the guarantee bond to be confiscated.