Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 229

Summary: - Article 85 of the Civil Code. Its purport: An insane person and a mentally deficient person, like a minor, are under interdiction by virtue of their condition without need for judicial intervention. Reason therefor: Mental deficiency and insanity affect a person’s mind and diminish his understanding. The basis for establishing this: The expertise of specialists and circumstantial indications. Its assessment. A matter for the court of fact. Rule: It is established in the jurisprudence of this Court that the provision in Article 85 of the Civil Code that “A minor, an insane person, and a mentally deficient person are under interdiction by virtue of their condition” means—as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum—that an insane person and a mentally deficient person, like a minor, are under interdiction by virtue of their condition without need for judicial intervention, because mental deficiency and insanity affect a person’s mind and diminish his understanding. The basis for establishing this is the expertise of specialists and circumstantial indications. The court of fact has the power to understand the facts and assess the evidence in the action, including experts’ reports, provided that it bases its judgment on reasonable grounds derived from the papers and sufficient to support it. It is not at fault if it does not accede to the litigants’ request to appoint other experts where it finds in the case papers sufficient material to form its conviction for deciding the case. That being so, the first-instance judgment, upheld by the contested judgment, after setting out the facts of the action and taking account of the defence and documents of both parties, based its ruling that the appellant was under interdiction by virtue of her condition due to mental deficiency on what was stated in the report of psychiatric medicine and the Department of Minors’ Affairs: that the appellant falls within the concept of permanent disability that impairs her ability to work by at least 50%, preventing her from managing her affairs herself. These were reasonable grounds firmly based in the papers and sufficient to support the judgment, and they contain an implicit answer defeating every contrary argument. The court cannot be faulted for not acceding to the appellant’s request to commission forensic medicine to examine her after it found in its papers sufficient material to form its conviction. The appellant’s challenge in this regard amounts to no more than argument concerning matters within the court of fact’s power of assessment, which may not be raised before the Court of Cassation. This challenge is therefore inadmissible.