KCC 638/2005

This case involved a claim for an unpaid amount relating to car instalments. Although the court had previously referred the case for investigation so that the defendant could prove the payment of the instalments was a grant and this had failed to be proved, the court still had the authority to make a ruling based on other evidence.

Background

A claimant filed a case against a defendant and requested the court to order the defendant to pay him an amount of money. The claimant stated he had lent an amount to the defendant but they had refused to pay it back.

The court stated the case had been previously settled.

The claimant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court abandoned the appealed ruling and rejected the case.

Decision

The claimant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and stated in his grounds of appeal that the ruling had contradictions because the court had referred the case to investigation so the defendant could prove that the payment of the car instalments was a grant but she had fail to do so and then the court had rejected the case without explaining the reason.