Judicial principles and studies
Evidence: Fictitious Price and Oath of Truthfulness of an Acknowledgment
The points distinguish two types of statements under Article 7 of the Evidence Law and show that price amounts and receipt acknowledgments in a sale contract belong to the type that can be contradicted by ordinary evidence, including oath.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
Article 7 distinguishes two categories of statements in official instruments: (1) items recorded by a public officer about physical acts within his competence or events occurring in his presence that serve administrative certainty (such as parties' attendance, signatures, and the document date), which are contestable only by proof of forgery; and (2) statements made by interested parties and transcribed by the officer as given without ability to verify their truth (for example, a seller's acknowledgment of receipt of the price). The latter, as to their substance, are treated like ordinary instruments and may be rebutted by ordinary means of proof under the Evidence Law.
Summary
The entries in the sale contract concerning the amount of the price and its receipt fall under the second category, so an appellant may prove the opposite by ordinary evidentiary methods. Jurisprudence has accepted the use of an oath as admissible evidence to demonstrate the alleged falsity of an acknowledgment, whether to show non-receipt of the price or to establish the true price (تمييز حقوق ٢٠١٧/١٦٢١ - ٢٠١٨/٤٩٥٣). The oath to be directed at the defendant should include a component addressing the non-lying of the acknowledgment as meant by Article 1589 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the fact of receipt, and a decisive oath concerning the real price. Given the plaintiff's failure to prove, the trial court’s direction allowing both a decisive oath and an oath of non-lying does not contravene the law (تمييز حقوق ٢٠١٧/٣٣٨٦ - ٢٠٢٠/١٣٠٤- ٥٣٦٠/٢٠٢٢). There is, however, a defect in the wording of the two oaths composed by the court of first instance, which requires the appellate court to exercise its authority to amend the wording so that both facts are covered.
Practical significance
In disputes over the authenticity of a contract’s stated price or the seller’s receipt acknowledgment, those statements can be controverted by ordinary evidence, including an appropriately framed oath that addresses both the truthfulness of the acknowledgment and the actual price; appellate courts may correct defective oath formulations. This is a general educational summary only, not a judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.