Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 450

Summary: - The phrase “the judges who rendered the judgment.” Its meaning. They are the judges, they are those who rendered the judgment and adjudicated the action, not those who attended its reading. The criterion in this regard: reliance on the particulars recorded in the judgment, supplemented by the particulars contained in the hearing minutes. The original copy of the judgment’s failure to record that another judge replaced the one who signed the draft at the hearing for its pronouncement. Its effect. Nullity of the judgment, requiring its cassation. Rule: The last paragraph of Article 112 of the Code of Procedure provides that the judges who participated in the deliberations must attend the reading of the judgment, and if an impediment arises for any of them, he must have signed the draft judgment. Article 116 thereof likewise means that the judgment must identify the court that rendered it and the names of the judges who heard the pleadings, participated in the judgment, and attended its pronouncement. Failure to state the names of the judges who rendered the judgment entails its nullity. If one of the judges who rendered the judgment fails to attend the hearing for its pronouncement because of an impediment, this must be recorded in the judgment, together with the fact that he signed its draft containing its reasons and operative part, and that another attended the pronouncement of the judgment in his place. The judgment’s omission of this statement entails nullity. This nullity concerns public policy and may be raised by the litigants, the Public Prosecution, or the Court of Cassation. The judges who rendered the judgment means those who adjudicated the action, not the judges who attended its reading. The criterion in this regard is reliance on the particulars recorded in the judgment, supplemented by the particulars contained in the hearing minutes. That being so, and whereas the minutes of the hearing of 22/4/2014 before the court of second instance establish that the panel that heard the pleadings and reserved the principal and cross-appeals for judgment was presided over by Judge / ....... and comprised Judges / ......... and .........., while the original copy of the judgment establishes that the panel that pronounced it on 30/4/2014 was presided over by Judge / .......... and comprised Judges / ......... and ......., this means that Judge / .........., who heard the pleadings, participated in the deliberations, and signed the draft judgment, did not attend the hearing for its pronouncement and was replaced therein, upon its pronouncement, by Judge / ........... Since the original copy of the judgment failed to record this, it is void, requiring its cassation on this ground without any need to address the remaining grounds of appeal. This is not altered by the added phrase recorded at the end of the judgment following its operative part, in the draft judgment and its original, indicating that it was signed by a panel other than the panel that pronounced it, so long as that added phrase was not signed by the presiding judge of the panel that rendered the judgment. Consequently, it has no effect upon the soundness, validity, and integrity of the challenged judgment.