The documents of the case revealed that the court had dismissed the appellant's defence that the the consideration of the case did not fall under the jurisdiction of the commercial court because the disputed contract included appellate conditions.

The court said that the court concluded that the disputed contract granted the tenant the right to benefit from the property which was owned by the state. The court said that as the contract was related to the right of use of the property, it should therefore falls under the mandate of the commercial department in the court. The court said that the evaluation of the contract and the determination of their legal nature fell under the court's authority.

The court dismissed the appeal.