Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 41

Summary: - The subject-matter jurisdiction of each judicial body. The determining consideration: the relief sought by the claimant in his action. - The jurisdiction of personal status courts is confined to adjudication in the application of disputes whose determination requires application of the Personal Status Law pursuant to Article 345 of Law 51 of 1984 concerning Personal Status. An example concerning an action wholly unconnected with personal status, whose determination does not require application of the provisions of the law enacted concerning it. Rule: It is established—in the jurisprudence of this Court—that the determining consideration in identifying the subject-matter jurisdiction of each judicial body is the relief sought by the claimant in his action and, pursuant to Article (345) of Law No. 51 of 1984 concerning Personal Status, is confined to adjudication in the application of disputes whose determination requires application of the provisions of that Law. Furthermore, the defence which the court is obliged to address is a material defence which, if valid, would alter the view taken of the action. Accordingly, it is not at fault if it does not address a defence that is manifestly invalid or not founded on a sound legal basis. That being so, the respondents brought their action against the first appellant seeking a judgment appointing an expert to examine its books and balance sheet to calculate the profits it earned during 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 shareholdings in other companies, and to calculate the respondents’ share of those profits in accordance with the memorandum of association and its subsequent amendment, preparatory to ordering it to pay the respondents whatever the report’s findings disclose. Accordingly, the action, being of this nature, is wholly unconnected with personal status, and its determination does not require application of the provisions of the law enacted concerning it. It therefore does not fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Personal Status Circuit. Consequently, the challenged judgment is not at fault for refraining from addressing this defence, which is not founded on a sound legal basis, and the ground of challenge is without foundation.