Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 546

Summary: - A donor's revocation of a gift. Its condition. It must be authorized by the court where the donor relies on an acceptable excuse. Article 537, Civil Code. Acceptable excuse for a donor to revoke a gift. Its instances. Article 538, Civil Code. - The general rule is that a gift may not be revoked. Exception. The donor relies on an acceptable excuse for revocation and judicial permission to revoke it is issued. The excuses provided in Articles (537, 538), Civil Code. Factual matters within the trial court's exclusive assessment, as it ascertains them from the circumstances and particulars of the case. Condition thereof. It must base its judgment on reasonable grounds having a sound basis in the record. - A litigant's raising of a material defence capable of changing the outcome of the case and supporting it with documents. Effect thereof. The trial court must examine that defence and state its determination thereon. Failure to do so. Its effect. Deficient reasoning. - The appellant's reliance before the trial court on a material defence to the effect that the first respondent caused the termination of their marital relationship by assaulting her and causing the injuries described in the medical report, which compelled her to obtain a khulʿ divorce from him on the same date, and that her father paid the monetary amounts to the company selling the dwelling that was the subject of the gift on dates coinciding with the date the property was registered in the first respondent's name; and her submission of documents substantiating that defence. The challenged judgment's failure to address it or give it due consideration, and its ruling permitting the first respondent to revoke his gift to her on the basis that she had sought to terminate the marital relationship through khulʿ and her marriage to another, inferring her ingratitude and failure to acknowledge kindness as justifying his revocation of the gift, and that he was indebted to the bank, which might render him unable to provide himself with a decent living or meet the maintenance obligations imposed on him by law toward others. A defect requiring its cassation. Rule: It is established—in this Court's case law—that Article 537 of the Civil Code provides: "1- A donor may not revoke a gift except with authorization from the court if the donor relies on an acceptable excuse. Article 538 of the same Code specifies the circumstances considered, in particular, acceptable excuses for revoking a gift, as the most prevalent excuses. These include where the donee breaches the obligations owed to the donor in a manner constituting gross ingratitude on the donee's part, and where the donor becomes unable to provide himself with the means of living appropriate to his social standing or becomes unable to meet the maintenance obligations imposed on him by law toward others. The purport thereof is that, although the legislature made non-revocation the general rule, as an exception to this rule subject to two restrictions: that the donor rely on an acceptable excuse for revocation and that judicial permission to revoke the gift be issued. Although these excuses are factual matters within the trial court's exclusive assessment, as it ascertains them from the circumstances and particulars of the case, this is conditional on its basing its judgment on reasonable grounds having a sound basis in the record. Where a litigant raises a material defence capable of changing the outcome of the case and substantiates it with documents submitted before the trial court, that court must examine the defence and state its determination thereon; otherwise, its judgment is vitiated by deficient reasoning. That being so, the challenged judgment based its ruling permitting the first respondent to revoke the gift he had made to the appellant on the ground that the appellant was the one who sought to terminate the marital relationship through khulʿ and then married another man. From this, the court inferred her ingratitude and failure to acknowledge kindness, justifying his revocation of the gift. He was also indebted to the National Bank of Kuwait, which might render him unable to provide himself with a decent living or meet the maintenance obligations imposed on him by law toward others. This was despite the appellant's reliance on a defence to the effect that the first respondent caused the termination of the marital relationship, that he assaulted her and caused the injuries described in the medical report dated 4/12/2012, compelling her to obtain a khulʿ divorce from him on the same date, and that her father paid monetary amounts to the company selling the dwelling that was the subject of the gift, totaling 177000 dinars, on dates coinciding with the date the property was registered in the first respondent's name. She submitted documents substantiating this defence, but the challenged judgment neither addressed it nor gave it due consideration, although it was a material defence which, if true, could change the outcome of the case. This vitiates it and requires its cassation.