Legal showdown over salary seizure, court to decide on income protection

The urgent court has scheduled a session for tomorrow, Wednesday, to review the first legal case filed by a Kuwaiti citizen against the General Administration of Enforcement. The plaintiff is seeking to halt the department’s decision to permanently withhold his salary, citing severe negative consequences for both himself and his family.

This legal action comes in the wake of recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Law (Law No. 59 of 2025), which were introduced to address procedural shortcomings and strengthen enforcement mechanisms. The new amendments aim to encourage solvent debtors to fulfill their obligations by removing obstacles to repayment, while also considering the situation of insolvent individuals, reports Al-Rai daily.

Legal Ambiguity: Full Salary Seizure Under Scrutiny

The decision to fully seize an individual’s salary has sparked legal debate, especially when the salary constitutes the debtor’s only source of income. According to Article 216 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Code, no more than 25% of a salary may be seized.

Lawyer Khaled Al-Suwaifan emphasized the importance of distinguishing between different types of seized funds—specifically, whether the money is considered a monthly salary or other types of income. He clarified that once a salary is deposited into a bank account, it is classified as “liquid money,” and its legal protections are diminished unless the debtor can prove that the funds remain strictly salary income and have not been commingled with other resources.

Legal Solutions and Judicial Remedies

Legal experts have identified two main approaches for those affected by similar situations:

• Submit a Request to the Enforcement Judge – The debtor may present evidence that the funds in the bank account originate solely from salary payments and negotiate a settlement with the creditor.
• File an Urgent Lawsuit – A court case can be initiated to annul the seizure, supported by proof that the account balance is exclusively from salary income. This would ensure compliance with the Civil Procedure Code, which caps salary deductions at 25%.

The outcome of this case could set a crucial precedent regarding the enforcement of salary seizures under the amended civil law.