15/02/2026
Share:
15/02/2026
Share:
KUWAIT CITY, Feb 15: The Consultative Chamber of the Constitutional Court ended the public debate over the amendments to the Judicial Fees Law by dismissing the appeal challenging the legislation and confirming its constitutionality. In its reasoning, the court emphasized that the contested provisions fall within the legislature’s discretionary powers and are directed toward serving public interest. It affirmed that the unconstitutionality claim is baseless, and accordingly ruled to reject the appeal for lack of merit. Court President Judge Adel Al-Baho chaired the session on Feb 11, during which the members considered the appeal registered under case No. 4/2025. The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Articles 2, 6, 7, 8/1, 10, 18/1, 19, 22 and 23 of Law No. 17/1973 on court fees, as amended by Decree-Law No. 78/2025.
The appellant argued that these provisions impose excessive fees, creating heavy financial burdens that restrict the right to litigation and may discourage citizens from resorting to the courts, thereby, violating Articles 7, 24 and 166 of the Constitution. The court recognized that the appellant had a personal interest in filing the appeal, indicating that it was submitted after the appellant was required to pay a fee of KD1,500 in connection with the KD30,000 compensation lawsuit filed against the Ministry of Justice. However, the judgment also cited Article 4bis of the Constitutional Court Establishment Law, which allows direct appeals but stipulates that such appeals must be “serious” as a fundamental condition for admissibility, enabling the court to dismiss frivolous appeals in chambers.
In addition, the court affirmed that the legislature’s authority to regulate rights is discretionary and carries a presumption of constitutionality, provided that it remains within constitutional boundaries and is aimed at serving the public interest. The core of this authority lies in choosing the most suitable regulatory alternative to safeguard legitimate public interests—a standard the court found to have been met by the contested law.
It was also pointed out that the legislature recently enacted Decree-Law No. 78/2025, amending certain provisions of Law No. 17/1973 concerning court fees. According to the explanatory memorandum, the main objective is to preserve the right to litigation while addressing the growing number of frivolous lawsuits. This legislative step was prompted by the fact that more than 50 years have passed since the original Court Fees Law was enacted without amendment, despite major economic and social changes that resulted in a steady rise in the number of cases filed in courts.
A reassessment of court fees became necessary to align them with contemporary realities, without undermining the essential balance between ensuring access to justice and maintaining the efficient and orderly functioning of the judicial system. Under this decree-law, the legislature adopted a measured and equitable increase in court fees. This was accomplished by raising the percentages of proportional fees applied to cases of a specified value, which are collected progressively according to defined brackets, and by introducing a minimum fee. Moreover, the fixed fee for cases of unspecified value was reviewed, and the fees for notifications, announcements, and other legal documents were also increased.
It was confirmed that the decision to increase court fees falls within the authority of the legislature to impose charges for particular services provided by a public authority to those who request them. Such fees are levied in return for judicial services in order to compensate the State for the costs incurred in delivering those services and to promote their proper use. In determining these fees, the legislature considered the need to strike a balance between safeguarding the right to litigation and ensuring that the cases filed in courts are serious.
The new law regulates the procedures and conditions for exemption from court fees, ensuring that any litigant who demonstrates inability to pay may be exempted, taking into account that the burden of these fees ultimately falls on the losing party, as the one who caused the case to be filed. This entails that the legislature established a comprehensive framework governing the assessment of court fees, detailing the method of calculation, identifying the party initially responsible for payment, and defining the scope of exemption for those who prove financial hardship. The law also refers to the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law with respect to the mechanism for challenging the assessment of these fees and determining the party liable for payment.
It is not permissible to interpret selected provisions of this regulatory framework in isolation from the rest in a way that contradicts the overall legislative intent. If the fees are imposed in consideration of judicial services requested, then the requesting party is required to pay the prescribed amount, which does not constitute an impediment to accessing the courts or an infringement of the guaranteed right to litigation. Accordingly, in a recent case, the court decided— sitting in chambers—not to admit the appeal and to confiscate the guarantee.
By Jaber Al-Hamoud Al-Seyassah/Arab Times Staff
