Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 288

Summary: - The subject-matter jurisdiction of each judicial body. The criterion for determining it. The relief sought by the plaintiff in his action. - The jurisdiction of personal status courts. Is limited to adjudicating the application of disputes whose determination requires the application of the Personal Status Law pursuant to Article 345 of Law 51 of 1984 concerning Personal Status. An example concerning an action wholly unrelated to personal status, whose determination does not require the application of the provisions of the law enacted concerning it. Rule: It is established in the jurisprudence of this Court that the criterion for determining the subject-matter jurisdiction of each judicial body is the relief sought by the plaintiff in his action, and pursuant to Article (345) of Law No. 51 of 1984 concerning Personal Status, is limited to adjudicating the application of disputes whose determination requires the application of the provisions of this Law. Furthermore, the defense to which the court is obliged to respond is a substantive defense which, if correct, would change the view taken of the action. Accordingly, no fault attaches to it if it does not respond to a defense that is manifestly invalid or is not based on a sound legal foundation. That being so, and since the respondents brought their action against the first appellant seeking a judgment appointing an expert to inspect its books and balance sheet to calculate the profits it earned over the period from 1998 until the date the action was brought, and each shareholder’s share of those profits, including profits resulting from its participation or shareholding in other companies, and to calculate the respondents’ share of those profits pursuant to the memorandum of association and its subsequent amendment, in preparation for obliging it to pay the respondents whatever the report establishes, the action, as such, is wholly unrelated to personal status. Its determination does not require the application of the provisions of the law enacted concerning personal status, and it therefore does not fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Personal Status Circuit. Accordingly, no fault attaches to the challenged judgment for disregarding a response to this defense, which has no sound legal basis, and the ground of challenge is without foundation.