Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 177

Expropriation for public benefit. Its manner. Either directly, by following the procedures set out in Expropriation Law 33/1964. Or indirectly, by incorporating property owned by an individual into public property without taking the procedures prescribed in the aforementioned law. Implication thereof. It is considered usurpation entailing the administration’s liability for compensation. - The administrative authority may return the seized property to its owner pending issuance of an expropriation decision or a final judgment awarding compensation. Reason therefor. - The expert’s establishment in his report that the State installed an electricity line crossing the property before the respondent purchased it. The appellant’s assertion that the line was cancelled and removed. Its implication. The administration had not settled on making the seizure permanent. The judgment’s departure from this view, in addition to contradicting what is established in the papers, constitutes an error in applying the law requiring its cassation.