The court concluded that the appellant still owed an amount of money to a company as a result of an investment contract.

The court said that the appellant had maintained the defence that the company should pay an amount of money because it granted the right to advertising on boards for a third party. The court said that the documents of the case revealed that the contract signed between the two parties did not stipulate the boards should be granted to the appellant exclusively. The court said that the court established its ruling on the grounds of solid evidence and that the appellant's defence was irrelevant in this regard.

The court dismissed the appeal.