The documents of the case revealed that the court had concluded that the litigant had committed to his obligations according to the authorization he had received from the company (appellant).

The court said that the court concluded that the company had failed to pay the litigant expenses for working to get land for the company in Egypt. The court said that the company's defence that it did not receive the land was irrelevant because the company and not the litigant was responsible for starting the required proceedings to receive the land according to the authorization. The court said that the court had established its ruling on solid evidences.

The court dismissed the appeal.