The Oath of Non-Lying in Acknowledgment as a Means of Proof in Civil Law

Acknowledgment is considered one of the strongest means of proof stipulated by law as it directly relates to the truth. This is because it involves a declaration made by the person against whom it is used, lending it a high degree of credibility. As a result, acknowledgment has gained decisive authority in resolving disputes and reaching judgments in favor of the acknowledged party in court. However, a party may claim that their acknowledgment was false, raising doubts about the validity of such an oath. This study concludes that when a plaintiff submits an acknowledgment issued by the defendant and requests a judgment based on it, the defendant has several options: to deny the acknowledgment, admit to it, or accept that it was issued by them but dispute its content or accuracy. In such cases, the defendant may direct an "Oath of Non-Lying in Acknowledgment" at the plaintiff to verify the acknowledgment's truthfulness. The Palestinian Evidence Law does not address this type of oath; therefore, this study recommends that the legislature introduce specific provisions regulating the Oath of Non-Lying in Acknowledgment and clarify whether it should be classified as a decisive or supplementary oath. The originality of this study lies in its analysis of the Oath of Non-Lying in Acknowledgment, which is not addressed in the Palestinian Evidence Law, with reference to the Majallat al-Ahkam al-Adliya, which does regulate it.