“Discrimination” annuls a ruling for corruption in reasoning and acquits the appellant of 26,000 dinars after obliging him to pay it with the testimony of witnesses

The Civil Court of Cassation closed the curtain on a judicial dispute in the lawsuit filed by one person against another, claiming KD 26,000 from him, after he had previously obtained a court judgment in absentia against the defendant obliging him to pay KD 26,000 and KD 500 for legal fees and expenses, based on In his claim for witness testimony, a court of first instance responded to him and ruled on his requests due to the defendant not appearing and presenting his defense before it.
The defendant resorted to the office of Lawyer / Dalal Lafi Al-Mutairi, who prepared a defense plan that began with an appeal against the ruling and presented reasons for that resulting from the lack of reasoning in the ruling and its violation of the application of the law, which inherited the nullity. In her defense, she emphasized an important rule of evidence, which is the inadmissibility of evidence And by the evidence in the cases in which proof is required in writing, in addition to the failure of the opponent to present the accepted evidence of proving that indebtedness, and that the aforementioned ruling relied on the testimony of the witnesses in proving the indebtedness of her principal who was not able to object to the hearing of the witnesses due to his absence, which invalidates the ruling necessitating its annulment and the dismissal of the case. This defense was not accepted by the Court of Appeal before which the appeal was submitted, and it ended in its judgment by accepting the appeal in form and in the matter by rejecting it and upholding the appealed ruling.
Attorney Dalal Al-Mutairi was not satisfied with that judiciary, which prompted her to challenge the ruling before the Court of Cassation. She prepared reasons for that in which she refuted the appealed ruling and showed points of its violation of the law and the error in its application and interpretation, as well as its lack of reasoning. The appeal to the Cassation Prosecution Office to express an opinion on the appeal, ended up with an opinion by cassation of the judgment, which is consistent with what was requested by Lawyer Dalal Al-Mutairi at the conclusion of her appeal filed by cassation of the judgment for its violation of the law, which was concluded by the Court of Cassation in its final judgment and decisively by cassation of the judgment and the dismissal of the case, which is what Lawyer Dalal Al-Mutairi considered a victory And confirming the effectiveness of the path it prepared for the defense in that case.