Rejoinder about the issued expert's Reports issued in relation to Appeal No. (157/ 2008) Commercial

Submitted byThe 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. ------

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. ------

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. -------

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/ ----- on the 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. ------

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. ----