A claimant filed a case against two defendants. He requested the court to appoint an expert in order to estimate the value of a housing allowance he deserved and to order the first defendant to pay it. He said that he was working for the first defendant and he deserved a housing allowance but the first defendant had failed to pay it.

The court dismissed the case.

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

The claimant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation. He said in his grounds of appeal that the appealed ruling had erred in the application of law and had insufficient evidence of causation. He said that the decision which prevented him from having the housing allowance was issued by irrelevant authority. He said that the decisions issued by the first defendant should comply with the Civil Service Law.