KCC 577/2005

This case involved a request for an expert to be appointed to review accounts and order a company to pay an amount of money. The defendant's stated they had provided evidence that the claimant's father had withdrawn money from the company accounts which had been ignored. This was irrelevant as it was a proof of status case.

Background

The claimants filed a case against some defendants and requested the court to appoint an expert to review the first defendant's (a company's) accounts and order the company to pay accordingly.

The court terminated the case.

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 and stated in its grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law and stated it had provided the court with documents which confirmed that the father of claimants had withdrawn money from the company's account from 1984 to 1990 but the court had ignored this defence.

The court stated this argument was invalid because the court had concluded that the case involved proof of status and terminated it.

The court dismissed the appeal.