Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 177

Summary: - The court of merits has the power to characterize the claims submitted to it in the action. It is not bound by the parties’ characterization. The condition for this: that it adhere to the true facts, the claims, and the parties’ intent in making them. In this respect, it is subject to review by the Court of Cassation. - A request to correct or change names. It can relate only to something existing, either recorded incorrectly and sought to be corrected, or undesired and sought to be changed; thus, it can relate only to something existing. - Adding a name that did not originally exist is not a correction or change. Rather, it is an assertion of lineage to that name, which qualifies as a lineage action that the courts alone have jurisdiction to hear. Contravention of this requires cassation of the judgment. Rule: It is established—in the jurisprudence of this Court—that although the court of merits has the power to characterize the claims submitted to it in the action and is not bound by the parties’ description of them, it is constrained in this respect by the true facts, the claims submitted, and the parties’ intent in making them, and in this characterization it is subject to review by the Court of Cassation. A request to correct or change names can relate only to something existing, either recorded incorrectly and sought to be corrected, or undesired and sought to be changed. Both the name sought to be corrected and the name sought to be changed originally exist, for correction or change can relate only to something existing. Adding a name in the first instance that did not originally exist is not a correction or change, but rather an assertion of lineage to that name, which qualifies as a lineage action. That being so, the appellant’s request to add the surname "...." to the end of his name in all official documents for himself, his children, his sister "......", and the children of his deceased brother "....." entails an action asserting his lineage to his aforementioned remote ancestor, which the courts alone have jurisdiction to hear. Since the challenged judgment departed from this view, it is defective and must be quashed.