Saddiq Ahmed against Kamall Ahmed (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 30 (25 March 2026)

Saddiq Ahmed against Kamall Ahmed (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 30 (25 March 2026)

The court held that the pursuer's averments, if established, are relevant to support reduction of the grant of confirmation. Reduction is a competent remedy in these circumstances, and there is no requirement to aver a miscarriage of justice. The pleas regarding all parties not called, incompetency of interdict and suspension, and conflict of interest are without merit and are repelled. The court allows proof of the parties' averments, except for two minor articles refused probation.

Citation
[2026] CSOH 30
Parties
Pursuer: Saddiq Ahmed; Defender: Kamall Ahmed
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Executors/confirmation/reduction / Procedure Roll Debate (interlocutory)
Outcome
Defender's first plea-in-law sustained in part (Articles 3 and 7 refused probation); defender's second, seventh, eighth, and tenth pleas-in-law repelled; pursuer's second, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth pleas-in-law repelled; proof allowed of remaining averments; defender found liable in expenses of the debate.
Legal Topics
Reduction of Confirmation, Executor Duties, Interdict, Suspension, Conflict of Interest, Probation of Averments
Succession Law Civil Procedure Reduction of Confirmation Executor Duties Interdict Suspension Conflict of Interest Probation of Averments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saddiq Ahmed

Pursuer

Kamall Ahmed

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Executors/confirmation/reduction / Procedure Roll Debate (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reduction of the grant of confirmation is competent and relevantly pled
  2. 2 Whether interdict and suspension are competent remedies in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether all necessary parties have been called

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuer's averments, if established, are relevant to support reduction of the grant of confirmation. Reduction is a competent remedy in these circumstances, and there is no requirement to aver a miscarriage of justice. The pleas regarding all parties not called, incompetency of interdict and suspension, and conflict of interest are without merit and are repelled. The court allows proof of the parties' averments, except for two minor articles refused probation.

Court Disposition

Defender's first plea-in-law sustained in part (Articles 3 and 7 refused probation); defender's second, seventh, eighth, and tenth pleas-in-law repelled; pursuer's second, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth pleas-in-law repelled; proof allowed of remaining averments; defender found liable in expenses of the debate.

Orders

  • Refusal to admit to probation Articles 3 and 7 of condescendence
  • Repel defender's second, seventh, eighth, and tenth pleas-in-law