Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 423

Summary: - Acquired rights. Must be respected even if acquired through administrative, regulatory or individual decisions. Basis thereof: the dictates of justice and natural law and the requirements of the public interest. Reason therefor. To secure the stability of legal positions, which may not be infringed pursuant to the provisions of the Kuwaiti Constitution. - Determination of social status for ownership. The relevant period is from approval of the allocation until expiry of the period it specified, with the remaining conditions also satisfied, without regard to any subsequent change therein. Reason therefor. Because it falls outside the rules it specified for establishing the right to ownership. - The family under the government housing distribution system effective from 26/8/1962. Its meaning. A group consisting of a husband, a wife and their children, or some of this group, living in one household. Consequence thereof. Any individual from that group living separately from it falls outside the concept of the family. This must be observed when allocating these houses, whether upon their initial allocation or upon amendment of the allocation. - Allocation of the government house in dispute to the appellant and her mother and its delivery to them on the basis that they constituted a Kuwaiti family during 1976, and their obtaining a loan secured by it from the Credit and Savings Bank for its extension and renovation. Consequence thereof. The appellant’s social status for ownership was determined from approval of the allocation. Issuance of Minister of State for Housing Affairs Decision No. 564/1993 requiring that the number of members of a family entitled to a government house be no fewer than two. Does not alter this. Reason therefor. It cannot affect the appellant’s legal position, which became settled upon satisfaction of the conditions for her ownership of the property in dispute. The challenged judgment’s departure from this view. A defect requiring its cassation. Rule: It is established in the jurisprudence of this Court that the general rule, pursuant to natural law, is respect for acquired rights, even if acquired through administrative, regulatory or individual decisions. This is what justice dictates and the public interest requires, to secure the stability of legal positions, which may not be infringed pursuant to the provisions of the Kuwaiti Constitution. Likewise, the relevant period for determining social status for ownership is from approval of the allocation until expiry of the period it specified, with the remaining conditions also satisfied, without regard to any subsequent change therein, because it falls outside the rules it specified for establishing the right to ownership. The meaning of family, under the government housing distribution system effective from 26/8/1962, is a group consisting of a husband, a wife and their children, or some of this group, living in one household. Thus, any individual from that group living separately from it falls outside the concept of the family. This concept must be observed when allocating these houses, whether upon their initial allocation or upon amendment of the allocation. That being so, and the documents establishing that the government house in dispute was allocated to the appellant and her mother on 19/7/1976 and delivered to them on the basis that they constituted a Kuwaiti family, and that they obtained a loan secured by it from the Credit and Savings Bank on 30/6/1980 for extension and renovation, the appellant’s social status for ownership was therefore determined from approval of the allocation. This is not altered by the issuance of Minister of State for Housing Affairs Decision No. 564/1993 requiring that the number of members of a family entitled to a government house be no fewer than two, since it cannot affect the appellant’s legal position, which became settled upon satisfaction of the conditions for her ownership of the property in dispute, as previously explained. Since the challenged judgment departed from this view and ruled to set aside the first-instance judgment and dismiss the appellant’s action on the ground that she did not satisfy the conditions for housing welfare, contrary to the provisions of the law, this renders it defective and requires its cassation.