Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 202

Summary: - A judgment awarding provisional compensation which did not determine the extent of the damage or the amount of compensation. Its acquisition of the force of res judicata. Its effect. It encompasses liability in its various elements, establishes the compensation debt in its origin and basis, has binding effect between the litigants, and confirms indebtedness affirmatively or negatively. The debt established by the judgment may not be confined to what is stated in the operative part; rather, the subject matter of the debt must encompass the elements of its assessment, even through a subsequent action brought by the injured party for the same debt to complete it and determine its amount. - Assessment of compensation for moral damage. A question of fact falling exclusively within the authority of the court of merits without review. The condition for this. It is sufficient that it be in an amount that consoles the injured party and ensures the restoration of his standing, without exaggeration or excess in assessment, and as the judge considers appropriate in this regard according to the surrounding circumstances and actual situation disclosed, in that it consoles and does not equate. An example. Rule: It is established in the jurisprudence of this Court that a judgment awarding provisional compensation, once it has acquired the force of res judicata, even though it has not determined the extent of the damage or the amount of compensation, encompasses liability in its various elements and establishes the compensation debt in its origin and basis. It also has binding effect between the litigants, since through it liability is settled and indebtedness is confirmed affirmatively or negatively. It is not permissible, on a correct application of the law, to confine the debt established by the judgment to what is stated in the operative part as a symbol and indication thereof. Rather, the subject matter of the debt must encompass the elements of its assessment, even through a subsequent action brought by the injured party for the same debt to complete it and determine its amount. In that capacity, it is a branch of an origin that has acquired the force of res judicata and become the expression of the truth. Furthermore, assessment of compensation making good moral damage is a question of fact falling exclusively within the authority of the court of merits without review, provided that it sets out the constituent elements thereof and there is no statutory provision requiring particular criteria to be followed in its assessment. It is sufficient in assessing it that it be in an amount that consoles the injured party and ensures the restoration of his standing, without exaggeration or excess in assessment, and as the judge of merits considers appropriate in this regard according to the surrounding circumstances and the actual situation in the case disclosed, bearing in mind that its purpose is to console, not to equate. That being so, the first-instance judgment, upheld and supplemented by the challenged judgment, after setting out the facts and circumstances of the case and the elements of moral damage sustained by the respondent, assessed the sum of 6000 six thousand dinars as final compensation for moral damage—subject to deduction of the amount of provisional compensation previously awarded—for the sensory and psychological harm he suffered as a result of the infringement of his reputation, standing, and moral and social position. The judgment considered this sum sufficient to make good the moral damage sustained by the respondent and commensurate therewith, relying in this on acceptable grounds. Accordingly, the criticism of it in this respect is no more than mere argument concerning the discretionary authority of the court of merits, which may not be raised before this Court.