KUWAIT CITY, July 5: The Misdemeanor Court upheld the ruling of the First Instance Court, which acquitted a Kuwaiti woman of murdering two children.
It has been reported the children died when a vehicle, driven by the woman, hit them while crossing the Airport Road.
Attorney Dherar Al-Asosi, who represented the woman in court, argued that his client is not responsible for the children’s death, because they crossed the road illegally. He pointed out pedestrians are not allowed to cross that road since the minimum speed limit is 80 km/hour. He said his client was driving within the speed limit but the children crossed the road suddenly and she could no longer avoid hitting them.

The Public Prosecution has conducted a thorough investigation to ensure that the woman did not kill the children deliberately. The Court of Appeals overturned the verdict of a lower court, which had previously dismissed the case filed by a citizen against a bank.
Case files indicate the citizen sued the bank for continuing to deduct loan interest from his account even as he had paid everything earlier.
After the dismissal of the case in the lower court, the citizen’s lawyer filed an appeal, pointing out that his client has presented documents proving that he paid the stipulated interest. The lawyer then asked the higher court to prevent the bank from exploiting his client, who provides for a family of 15. The court then ruled in favor of the citizen, saying the bank has no right to demand payment for interest more than the rate stipulated in the loan agreement.

The Criminal Court presided by counselor Abdullah Al-Sane acquitted and discharged two youths accused of raping their compatriot.
Counselor to the first defendant, Dalal Al-Mulla, argued that her client confessed to the allegation under duress, and stressed the defendant is merely a teenager who didn’t understand enormity of the offense. Earlier, the first defendant had reportedly denied involvement in the alleged crime, until he was forced to plead guilty.
Al-Mulla maintained the plaintiff would have reported the case immediately if the incident had really taken place, while she faulted the mode of investigation. She detected inconsistencies in the version of the plaintiff, which clearly contradicted the medical report.
Meanwhile, the second defendant counsel Saud Abdul-Mohsen also agreed with lawyer Al-Mulla and added that the submissions of the plaintiff were shrouded in ambiguity and lacked concrete proof.