Judicial principles and studies
The Decisive Oath, Electronic Swearing, and Opponent's Consent
Electronic swearing of the decisive oath is permissible in principle but depends on the other party's consent. If conducted over objection it is void and courts should use alternative measures such as judicial commission.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The available points indicate that swearing a decisive oath by electronic means is permitted in principle but is conditional on the other party's consent, by analogy to electronic examination of witnesses under Art. 81(7) of the Civil Procedure Code. If electronic swearing occurs despite the opponent's objection, the act is void because it undermines public‑order safeguards, and the court should resort to alternative measures such as judicial commission.
Summary
Consent to electronic swearing is an essential requirement that cannot be bypassed; the decisive oath remains an in‑court procedure under Art. 58 of the Evidence Law, and any use of electronic tools must comply with procedural rules.
Practical significance
In practice, obtain the opponent's consent before conducting electronic swearing; if the opponent objects, pursue the established alternative legal mechanisms. This is an educational summary only; it is not a judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
A 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 service