Damages, Standing, Jurisdiction, Permits

The court established from the litigation files that the defendant is litigating for himself and no one else, and to prove his capacity, he produced the report of the judicial police. This report noticed the drop in the level of water in the basin. It observed also that water flowed from a fissure in the soil made hill through a downhill towards the salty valley, and the water overflowed several Hectares of agricultural land and destroyed its crop and then flowed to the salty valley. Then with the attestation of the concerned authorities, it was established that the defendant was pulling his need of the valley’s water by pumping for irrigation, and according to two legal expert ‘reports , it was noticed that the tubes used for pumping water have several holes in them and that they occurred under the effect of salt and chemical products that oxidized. Hence, the appellate court when ordered two legal examinations, one during the first instance, and the other during the appealed trial and confirmed the lower court decision ruling that the first appellant pays compensation to the defendant for damaging the iron tubes, and assumed that the second appellant should substitute the first in the payment of the compensation, it would had assessed all the documents in this case within its jurisdiction, and correctly concluded that the quality of the defendant stands in the present case. The appellate court did not have to look for the validity of the permit as long as the subject of the litigation is about compensation of the harm suffered by the defendant because of tubes used to pump water that were damaged by saltiness resulted from the explosion of the gas reservoir owned by the first appellant and that it is not about dispute over the water and who has the right to bring it from the valley or the validity of the exploitation permit
Request rejected