Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 1485

The court must respond to an unequivocal request; otherwise its judgment is devoid of reasons. Appointment of an expert is not a right of the litigants. Its import: the court may refuse it on specific reasons subject to review by the Court of Cassation. - The appellants’ contention before the court of merits that the commercial agency contract continued after the death of the agent—the predecessor in title of the appellants and respondents—and that the respondents conduct the agency for the benefit of all the heirs, that it remains registered in the commercial registers in the predecessor’s name, and that they appropriated its revenues for themselves. The appellants’ request for appointment of an expert to investigate the validity of this defense. The challenged judgment’s disregard of this, affirming the first-instance judgment dismissing the action on the basis that the agency terminated upon the agent’s death. Does not constitute a response to this defense and does not justify refusing the request to appoint an expert, thereby vitiating it and requiring its cassation.