KCC 161/2011

This case involved a request to appoint an expert to determine who owned a disputed property and rule on the payments. The request for an expert was ignored by the court as was the argument about payments which had not been made. This was irrelevant as the case documents proved the claimant was obliged to provide the defendant a share in the property.

Background

A claimant filed a case against a defendant and requested the court to appoint an expert in order to review a disputed shop, determine its owner and order the defendant to pay accordingly.

The court rejected the case.

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

Decision

The claimant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and stated in their grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law because the court had not considered their defence that the defendant had not paid the agreed amount of money in the contract and that the court had ignored the request to appoint an expert.