1. Rejoinder about the issued expert's Reports issued in relation to
Appeal No. (157/ 2008) Commercial
Submitted by
The First Collateral Appellee: -----------
By attorney of lawyer/ Dr. -------
and ------------- and ----------
Versus
1- The Collateral Appellant: -----------
By attorney of lawyer/ -----------
and ----------- Dr. -----------
2- The Second Appellee: -----------
By attorney of lawyer/ -----------
3- The Third Appellee: -------------
4- The Fourth Appellee: -------------
By attorney of lawyer/ ---------------
5- The Fifth Appellee: -----------------------
6- The Sixth Appellee: -----------------------
By attorney of lawyer/ Dr. ---------------------
and ------------------
www.-------------.com 1 22. 04. ------

2. The Pleading
First: The First Appellee insists on all aspects of its pleadings and its docket
of documents submitted in the lawsuit, and in particular, its memorandum
submitted to the honorable Court on 09/ 04/ -----, and its docket of documents
attached and its memorandum submitted to the same Court on 30/ 04/ -----,
and pleas to consider whatever mention therein as integral part of the present
rejoinder.
Second: The First Appellee claims the nullity of the expert's report because of
the serious breach of the right to defend and the deficiency in reasoning, and it
is explained hereinafter:
In the minute of the sixth session of expert dated on 09/ 02/ -----, the first
Appellee submitted a copy of its pleading submitted to the esteemed Court on
09/ 04/ ------, and the docket of documents attached and a copy of pleading
submitted to the same Court on 30/ 04/ ------. These two pleadings and the
docket of documents attached in the first pleading are one of the important and
essential aspects of pleading, which when the expert reviewed, his conclusion
will come with a much different result than he concluded in his report as by
reviewing the expert report, it is evident that the expert ignored such important
and essential plea which are supported by probative conclusive documents,
and such act discredits the report with serious violation to defense right
causing nullity of the report.
And it's certain that the closing argument, which the First Appellee submitted
in the minute of the last expert session dated on 27/02 /------, is as importance
as the aforementioned pleading, responding to the documents submitted to the
expert by the Appellant in the second expert session
www.------------.com 2 22. 04. ------

3. in its pursue for proving its lawsuit and as a response to the expert request of
submitting the documents verifying its claim. The mentioned pleading contained an
important and essential plea in paragraph (1) of page (2) where the Appellee denied
and challenged the value of such documents, and requested the expert to dismiss it
without using it in preparing the report being just photocopies of customary papers
don't have any value in evidencing.
By reviewing the expert report, it is evident that the expert had completely ignored
such important and essential plea, and never mentioned or rejected in his report, and
used the photocopies, despite the fact of denying and challenging them, in his report
as the only evidence of proof, which affects nullity to the report because of ignoring
important and essential documents, causing serious breach in the right of the defense.
Moreover, the documents' docket attached by the First Appellee to this rejoinder
included documents of equal importance to the pleading contained in such motion.
Among them specifically, there is a document No (1) annexed thereto which is a
document issued by an official authority; the ministry of economy; as a response for a
request submitted by the attorney of the First Appellee in a prior date to enquire
whether the Appellant in the date of the enquiry (02/ 04/ ----) was registered in the
ministry as an agent for the two toothpastes called (--------- and ---------) being the
base to the current claim. The ministry expressly notified in its written notification
that the aforementioned two products are not registered under the name of any
exclusive agent including the Appellant. That was in the date of the enquiry which
was on 02/ 04/----.
www.--------.com 3
22. 04. -------

4. In the abovementioned, we referred that the pleading of the First Appellee included a
challenge for the photocopies of documents presented by the Appellant whereas the
Appellee denied any probative value of such documents including document No (2)
thereof which the Appellant described as a minute of meeting attaching in its docket
of documents submitted to the expert under No (2). The First Appellee challenged
such document on the basis that it isn't productive in the Appellant case, thus, it will
not be of any aid to the expert in the performance of his mission as such document
goes back to the year of 1986, and the Appellant failed to submit any document refers
to being an exclusive agent registered principally in the ministry for these two
products of ------ in that date. In fact, it was stated that it was non-exclusive agent
with non-registered attorney, and this attorney was terminated on 31/ 05/ ----- onthe
manner that follows hereunder.
The same challenge included document No (3) submitted in the Appellee documents'
docket as it goes back to 24/ 02/ ------, where it is established in the documents that
the Appellant did not register these two products in the ministry of economy under its
name as an exclusive agent until 26/ 02/ -------.
In the aforementioned pleading, the first Appellee also challenged document no (5)
submitted in the documents' docket of the Appellant as has no probative value, which
was titled with a copy of products list of the Appellant agency listing the price of
purchasing, the price of selling and the number of packs. The Appellee expressly
stated that such document, regardless of its content, neither refers to the date it was
prepared in nor the authority that had prepared it, thus, it is not productive and shall
not have any effect in proving the alleged rights and entitlements of the Appellant.
www.--------.com 4
22. 04. ------

5. It is worthy of mentioning that the Appellant had previously submitted the same
document to the expert of the lawsuit in the esteemed Court, and the Appellant
submitted an answer challenging such document on 07/ 01/ ---- and attached an
request for allowing the pleading, denied any probative value of such document and
requested from the revered Court to review its answer to increase its convention that
the document which the Appellant resubmitted to the expert cannot be relied upon as
an evidence in the light of the aforementioned pleading herein; thus, using such
document by the expert in his report to reach such the conclusion shall be deemed
defective evidence for being bases on photocopies of customary documents which had
been denied by the Appellant whether before the esteemed Court or as what stated in
its joinder submitted to the expert, which makes such document invalid as a proof and
as a consequence makes the report defective altogether, let alone that such documents
go back to the years of (85, 86 and ----) which are prior dates to the registry of the
exclusive agency of the Appellant for the two ------- which was on 29 /09 /----- as the
Appellant was an agent by the virtue of non-registered agency for the all first
Appellee products including medicine and dental products, and as a result for bad
performance and failing to achieve the quantities agreed upon by the virtue of non-
registered agency agreement dated on 01 /19 /----- and failing to pay the due amounts
to the first Appellee, the latter, under its previous commercial name (------) terminated
such agency by the virtue of notification dated on 31 /05 /---- in accordance with the
expressly stated paragraph (b) of Article (18) of the agreement of attorney (please
review document No/2 in the docket of document presented with defense note of the
first Appellee dated on 09/ 04/ ------),……..
www.------.com 5 22. 04. ----