A claimant filed a case with the civil court against the defendant requiring them to pay an amount in Dinars and delay interest. This was a debt for their use of a two-line phone service, which they had refused to pay.

The court dismissed the case.

The claimant appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the ruling.

The claimant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation because it had upheld the ruling rejecting their case despite the submission of papers containing two copies of the service delivery contracts to the defendant, where their signature was shown on the documents attached to a statement of account of the required amount, which indicated the validity of the claim but the court did not challenge the defendant with the papers presented and dismissed their claim, which was incorrect, and must be repealed.

The court said that the argument was valid according to the rule that the contract was the law of the contractors.