Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 232

Summary: The evidentiary authority of copies of private instruments extends only to the extent that they lead to the original. The parties' discussion of the substance of documents whose copies are submitted in the action. Its consideration as an implied acknowledgment that they conform to the original, permitting their acceptance and reliance upon them. Its effect. The party may not deny the original from which they were taken or repudiate them. Rule: It is established that, although the basic rule is that copies of private instruments have no authority and no evidentiary value except to the extent that they lead to the original, the parties' discussion of the substance of documents whose copies are submitted in the action constitutes an implied acknowledgment that these copies conform to the original, permitting their acceptance and reliance upon them. The party may not thereafter return to repudiate them or deny the original from which they were taken. Accordingly, the challenged judgment based its ruling concerning the determination of the amounts due to the appellant as profits on her share in the first respondent company on what it deduced from the report of the committee of experts deposited before the Court of Appeal, based on copies of the balance sheets, minutes of general meetings, the calculation of net profit during the period from 2001 to 2008 and the amounts approved for distribution as profits, after deducting the mandatory reserve percentage and the appellant's share in the increase in the capital of the first respondent company. It consequently ordered the latter to pay that amount to the appellant. This is a reasonable inference by the judgment, properly grounded in the documents, sufficient to support its ruling, and containing an implied response disposing of what contradicts it. It is not undermined by the appellant's argument concerning her repudiation of the copies of the balance sheets and general meeting resolutions, since the documents establish that the appellant discussed the substance of those documents and requested judgment in accordance with the copies of the balance sheets and general meeting resolutions, provided that no percentage of the profits due to her be deducted for the mandatory reserve or capital increase. She may therefore not subsequently return to repudiate the photocopies, and no fault attaches to the judgment for disregarding her defense in this respect. The challenge on these 2 grounds is thus without basis.