Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 122

Summary: - A travel-ban order. It must be served on the person against whom it is issued within two weeks of its issuance. Reason: to afford ample time to lodge a grievance. Article 293/3 of the Code of Procedure. Violation thereof. Effect: the legislature did not prescribe lapse or invalidity of the order as a sanction if the creditor fails to effect service within that period. The challenged judgment’s adherence to this view. Correct. Rule: It is established in this Court’s case law that Article 297/3 of the Code of Procedure, as substituted by Law No. 36 of 2002, provides: "The travel-ban order must be served on the person against whom it is issued within two weeks of its issuance, and a grievance against it shall be subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of Article (293)." Its effect—as disclosed by the Explanatory Memorandum to this provision—is that, although the legislature considered it appropriate to provide in that Article that the travel-ban order must be served on the person against whom it is issued within two weeks of its issuance, to afford ample time to lodge a grievance before travelling or to reach a settlement with the creditor, because the travel-ban procedures took place in the debtor’s absence and he knows nothing of them and may be surprised when travelling by the existence of this ban preventing him from travelling, with the resulting harm, the legislature nevertheless did not prescribe lapse or invalidity of the travel-ban order as a sanction if the creditor fails to serve it on the person against whom it is issued within that period. Since the challenged judgment adhered to this view, the appellant’s contention on this ground, besides being incorrect, lacks legal support and is therefore unfounded.