Background

A claimant filed a case against a defendant requesting that the court appoint an expert to calculate his dues including housing and social allowances.

The court rejected the case.

The claimant appealed and the appeal court upheld the ruling.

The claimant appealed by cassation.

Decision

Before the cassation court the claimant argued that the ruling had erred in the application of law as the court had rejected his case based on the working relationship being a contractual and temporary one which entailed the rights stipulated by the contract, however, he had requested his financial dues which weren't stipulated in the contract.

The court held that this argument was invalid as the contract between the parties included accurate clauses as to the mentioned dues and thus the claimant could not rely on the civil service laws to claim his rights.

The court therefore dismissed the appeal.