Kazakhstan's Cassation Court has issued an official clarification regarding a civil case that sparked heated discussion on social media. The court emphasized that the proceedings were conducted against a specific Kazakh citizen, and the discrepancy in the patronymic was purely technical, infohub.kz reports.
According to the court, the plaintiff filed a claim for recovery of unjust enrichment from persons who had unjustifiably received funds. When filing the claim, the plaintiff's representative made a technical error in the patronymic of the defendant in the copy of the statement of claim attached to the electronic claim: instead of "Zhūmakhanov Bağlan Begimzhanūly," the patronymic was mistakenly indicated as "Zhūmakhanūly." However, the defendant's individual identification number (IIN) was correctly specified.
In the claim form of the "Törelik" information system, the defendant's personal data, including patronymic and IIN, were initially correctly indicated. A copy of this claim form was sent to the defendant upon his repeated requests.
Subsequently, during the consideration of the case, the plaintiff clarified the claims, including the defendant's personal data, and the patronymic was corrected to "Begimzhanūly."
"In all subsequent procedural documents of the court — on acceptance of the statement of claim, on consideration of the case in simplified proceedings, on transition to consideration of the case under general rules of claim proceedings, on requesting information from the bank and involving third parties — the patronymic is correctly indicated: 'Begimzhanūly.' In accordance with Article 190 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the identity of the participants in the process was established by the court before the consideration of the case on the merits. A separate consideration of the patronymic issue was not required subsequently, since the subject of the dispute was unjust enrichment," the court added.
It is noted that the courts of all instances considered the case specifically against Zhūmakhanov Bağlan Begimzhanūly, with the participation of his authorized representative. The amount of unjust enrichment was recovered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's personal data were properly verified by the court.
"The cassation instance left the judicial acts unchanged. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan refused to review the judicial acts for Zhumakhanov B.B. Thus, the information currently circulating on social media that the case was considered against another person with a different patronymic does not correspond to reality," the Cassation Court concluded.