Background

A claimant filed a case against a defendant and requested the court to dismiss a decision which had prevented her from receiving her father's pension.

The elementary court stated it had no mandate to consider the case and referred the case to the court of appeal which rejected it.

Decision

The claimant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and stated in her grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law and had contradictory material documentary evidence. She stated the court had established its ruling based on the argument that the case should be dismissed due to the statute of limitations although she had a realistic obstacle to filing the case as she had been abroad.

The court stated this argument was valid because the case documents revealed that the claimant had a realistic obstacle to filing the case as she had been abroad.

The court repealed the ruling.