Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 112

Summary: - Establishment that the appellant did not submit an application to the Central Agency for Remedying the Status of Illegal Residents to open a file and issue the green card before bringing his action. Its implication: the administration had not become aware of the decision it was required to take. Its effect: it was under no obligation to undertake the procedures that the law required it to undertake in this regard. The challenged judgment’s conclusion that the action was inadmissible for lack of an administrative decision. Correct. Criticizing the judgment for the inference it drew on reasonable grounds. A factual dispute falling outside the Court of Cassation’s review. Rule: The challenged judgment based its ruling that the action seeking annulment of the negative decision issued by the Head of the Central Agency for Remedying the Status of Illegal Residents, by refraining from opening a file for him and issuing a green reference card to complete his personal transactions, was inadmissible for lack of an administrative decision, on its inference, in light of its discretionary authority to understand and ascertain the facts of the action and the true nature of the administrative decision and the extent to which it was obligatory, that the papers contained nothing indicating that the appellant had applied to the aforementioned Central Agency to open a file and issue the green card before bringing his action. The administration had not become aware of the decision envisaged as obligatory, and consequently the administrative authority was under no obligation to undertake the procedures that the law required to be taken in this regard. The judgment concluded that the action was inadmissible for lack of an administrative decision. This was a reasonable inference by the judgment, supported by the papers and sufficient to sustain its ruling. Since the complaint in the ground of appeal revolves around criticizing that inference, it amounts to a factual dispute falling outside the Court of Cassation’s review. Consequently, the complaint is without foundation.