Judicial principles and studies
Labour Law: Directing a decisive oath to the company's authorized signatory
A brief summary addressing when a decisive oath is directed to the company's authorized signatory, the evidentiary weight of the employer's statement of dues, and the court's powers to modify the oath and request internal regulations.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
This summary addresses when a decisive oath is directed to the company's authorized signatory based on its records and ledgers, the effect of an email renewing an employment contract on directing the oath to a manager, the evidentiary value of the employer's statement of dues, the court's authority to modify the oath's formulation, the consequence of omitting a substantive request under Article (168/3) of the Civil Procedure Code, and the obligation to require the company’s internal regulations when the claimant relies on them.
Summary
- The decisive oath is directed to the authorized signatory of the defendant company and is taken according to its records and ledgers pursuant to Article (55/1) of the Evidence Law. - Renewal of an employment contract by an email sent by a company manager does not justify directing the oath at that manager, since contract renewal is governed by the contractual relationship between the employee and the company rather than by the individual manager. - The court may amend the wording of the decisive oath so it addresses the fact(s) to be sworn to, under Article (59) of the Evidence Law, and is not bound by a formulation proposed by the parties. - A statement of the claimant’s dues issued by the defendant company constitutes admissible evidence under Articles (13/3/d) and (18) of the Evidence Law; it is treated like commercial books insofar as it is extracted from the company’s accounting records and presented by its extractor, and it has probative effect against the claimant unless rebutted by other evidence. - It is established in the Court of Cassation’s case law that omission by the court to decide a substantive request listed in Article (168/3) is not susceptible to cassation unless the matter was first submitted to the court of subject-matter jurisdiction for decision. - The court should exercise its procedural powers under Articles (100) and (185) of the Civil Procedure Code to order the company to produce its internal regulations if the claimant’s demands rely on those regulations.
Practical significance
- Courts will direct the decisive oath to the company’s authorized signatory where the facts require reference to company records, rather than to individuals based solely on managerial correspondence. - The court’s ability to reformulate the oath provides procedural flexibility to align the oath with the disputed facts. - Employer-issued statements of dues carry significant evidentiary weight and are treated as accounting/ commercial records when properly extracted and presented. - When claims depend on internal regulations, courts are expected to compel production of those regulations under their procedural powers. This summary is an educational general summary and not judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.