Court rules debt delays aren’t enough to justify travel ban
In a landmark decision, the Court of Cassation ruled that evidence supporting a travel ban must be based on valid reasons with documented proof and sufficient to justify the judgment.
-
The judgment upheld the travel ban, citing the appellant’s overdue debt, failure to pay or provide a guarantee, and suspicion of evasion through travel.
In a landmark decision, the Court of Cassation ruled that delays in debt payment do not automatically justify a travel ban, and that the need to travel may be considered essential, according to Al Rai newspaper.
The facts are summarized in a lawsuit filed by a Kuwaiti citizen seeking to lift a travel ban imposed by his ex-wife, who owes him money in a personal status case. However, both the first-instance court and the appeals court rejected his claim.
The complainant’s lawyer, Dr. Fawaz Al-Khatib, argued before the Court of Cassation that the contested ruling violated the law and misapplied it, warranting its cassation.
The court agreed with the defense, stating that the objection was valid. It is established in the court’s judgment that, according to Articles 297 and 298 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law and the explanatory memorandum, a travel ban can only be issued if the creditor proves that the debt is valid and due, provides evidence of serious reasons to believe the debtor is fleeing, and demonstrates that the debtor is capable of paying.
The court added, the assessment of the reasons for issuing a travel ban order, as well as the grounds for appealing it, are objective matters that fall exclusively within the judge’s discretion who issues the order and, subsequently, the court to which the appeal is submitted. However, it is necessary that the evidence supporting the conditions for the travel ban order be based on valid reasons with a proven foundation in the documents and sufficient to support the judgment.
The contested judgment upheld the order to prevent the appellant from traveling based on the grounds that the debt in question was valid and overdue. It cited the appellant’s failure to either pay the debt or provide a bank guarantee or a capable guarantor, and the suspicion that his desire to travel indicated an attempt to evade the debt. However, these reasons were insufficient to demonstrate the appellant’s ability to pay the debt, which is a necessary condition for the validity of the travel ban order.
