Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 3594

The limitation period as between principal and representative. Does not run as long as the representation continues. The reason for this. The representative’s possession of the principal’s property is precarious possession and is for the principal’s own account. - Completion by the agent—or representative—of performance of the agency or representation. Its effect. He must submit a detailed account to the principal supported by documents. This obligation does not lapse unless the principal clearly and unequivocally releases him from it or the nature of the transaction or the circumstances require such release. The burden of proving those circumstances. Falls on the agent or representative. - The judgment’s acceptance of the plea that the action should not be heard because more than ten years had elapsed between the sale of the shares and the institution of the action, on the basis of denying the company’s agency for the appellant in selling the shares, despite that representation being established, which necessarily meant that the limitation period did not run pursuant to Article 446/1 of the Civil Code, and its continuation because submission of an account supported by documents had not been established, the burden of proving which lay upon it, and its possession of his funds remained precarious and for his account. An error in the application of the law requiring its cassation.