ECC 4335/2000

This case involved a request for a sales contract to be validated. It had been argued the contract had been signed while the defendant's father was ill. As this was the defence and argument that the signature on the contract was a forgery and one of the witnesses was illiterate so could not confirm this was irrelevant.

Background

The claimants filed a case against a defendant before the court requesting the validation of a sales contract they signed with the defendant's father.

The court ruled that the contract should be validated.

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

Decision

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and said in her grounds of appeal that the ruling had insufficient evidence of causation and had violated the right of defence. It was said that the court established its ruling on the validity of her father's signature based on testimonies of two witnesses although one of them was illiterate. The defendant said the court dismissed her defence based on the argument that she had only argued that the contract was issued during the father's illness.