Attorney, Areej Hamada, obtains a final ruling in favor of my client dropping the State’s right to claim three-year- financial statute of limitations

 

The Kuwaiti Court of Cassation overturned the appealed ruling that a government entity had the right to deduct amounts retroactively after ten years, which had already been disbursed to my client for the period from 31/02/2005 to 02/02/2006, and ruled that the right of the State to do so has expired in accordance with the statute of limitation.

Attorney, Areej Hamada, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court to nullify the Appeal ruling that rejects the case because of the statute of limitation. The reason for the appeal was the existence of a deficiency in the reasoning. In explaining that, attorney, Areej Hamada, said that the appealed ruling confused between the resignation date of my client in 2005, which resulted in the dropping of the State's right to the amounts disbursed by the five-year statute of limitations. And the date of the State's deduction of those amounts retroactively, which took place in 2015, despite the fact that my client was entitled to these amounts, with the existence of a material evidence to prove so. This was adopted by the Supreme Court, which confirmed that the defence of attorney Areej Hamada is substantial, where the ruling of the Court of First Instance and the Appeal ruling overlooked a substantial defense submitted by the attorney Areej Hamada, which invalidates the ruling for the power of its influence on the judgment of the Court of Cassation. The Supreme Court considered this a deficiency in the factual reasons of the judgment. The reason for that is if a defence is submitted to the court with evidence, the court must consider the effect of the defence on the case. If it is productive, the court must assess the extent of its seriousness and proceed to examine it. If the court did not do so, its judgment is deficient and must be challenged for cassation without the need to discuss other aspects of defenses.

The Court ruled that the right of the State to recover the unduly paid amounts after the lapse of three years, in accordance with the legal rules of proceedings of unreasoned enrichment. If the appealed judgment contradicts this consideration, it must be revoked with the obligation of the State to return the deducted amounts retroactively back to the appellant again.