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 pursuer has pled a relevant case for reduction of the grant of confirmation, and the remedies of suspension and interdict are competent in the circumstances. The defender's pleas regarding all parties not called, incompetency of remedies, and conflict of interest are without merit. The case should proceed to proof on the 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 Succession / Executry / Procedure Roll Debate (interlocutory)
Outcome
Defender's first plea-in-law sustained in part (two articles 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 on remaining averments; defender found liable in expenses of the debate.
Legal Topics
Reduction of Confirmation, Executors Dative, Interdict and Suspension, Conflict of Interest in Executry, Probate Procedure
Succession Law Civil Procedure Reduction of Confirmation Executors Dative Interdict and Suspension Conflict of Interest in Executry Probate Procedure

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 Succession / Executry / Procedure Roll Debate (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reduction of grant of confirmation is competent in the circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer has pled a relevant case for reduction
  3. 3 Competency of interdict and suspension remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer has pled a relevant case for reduction of the grant of confirmation, and the remedies of suspension and interdict are competent in the circumstances. The defender's pleas regarding all parties not called, incompetency of remedies, and conflict of interest are without merit. The case should proceed to proof on the averments, except for two minor articles refused probation.

Court Disposition

Defender's first plea-in-law sustained in part (two articles 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 on remaining averments; defender found liable in expenses of the debate.

Orders

  • Refusal to admit Articles 1 and 6 of condescendence to probation
  • Repel defender's second, seventh, eighth, and tenth pleas-in-law