KCC 649/2004

The original dispute involved a claim for money after a party had failed to follow a tenancy agreement. The elementary ruling had wrongly included a requirement for the company to pay the property maintenance costs, which should have been considered by the court's commercial division.

Background

A claimant filed a case against a company and requested the court to order the company to pay an amount of money. The claimant stated the company had failed to commit to a tenancy agreement agreed between the two parties.

The court ruled that the company should pay the claimant 4200 Dinars.

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

Decision

The company appealed the ruling before the court of cassation.

The court of cassation raised the issues which related to the general system because the appealed ruling had upheld the elementary ruling that the company should pay the property maintenance costs though the court's commercial department should have considered the case.

The court repealed the ruling.