Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 1371

A judgment imposing interdiction for mental infirmity: ruling that dispositions preceding it are valid does not infringe its binding authority so long as it did not conclusively determine that mental infirmity existed at the time of the disposition. - The presumption is that a person's disposition proceeds from a sound will unless the contrary is proved. - A person's being generally known to be insane or mentally infirm, or the court's appointment of a curator for him. Its implication: a disposition made by him from the time the condition became generally known or the curator was appointed is presumed to have been made while he was in that condition. The burden of proving that the disposition occurred during a lucid interval rests on whoever alleges that. - Assessment of the existence of generally known mental infirmity at the time of the disposition. Within the authority of the trial judge. Example: dismissal of a request to invalidate an assignment contract because it was valid and made before the judgment imposing interdiction on the disposer, and because the condition of mental infirmity was not generally known.