Legal Victory: Appeal Court nullifies travel ban order

This news has been read 15829 times!

KUWAIT CITY, Sept 21: The Court of Appeal has nullified a travel ban order, deeming it inappropriate due to the absence of conditions outlined in Article “297” of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code.

This article states that the “creditor has a right of existence in the event of payment, even before filing.” In substantive cases, the director of the Execution Department or their authorized representative from the court’s agents should be consulted to issue an order preventing the debtor from traveling and to temporarily estimate the debt if it is not of a specific amount.

The order is granted upon a petition submitted by the concerned parties to the Execution Department if valid reasons exist. It should reflect a serious concern that the debtor might escape from paying the debt despite demonstrating the ability to do so. The officer may conduct a brief investigation if the supporting documents for the request are inadequate.

Lawyer Omar Al-Hammadi emphasized during his plea that citizens should not be restrained from traveling in accordance with the constitution, and freedom of movement should not be curtailed.

Several months ago, the Court of Cassation rendered a ruling canceling the decision to confiscate a citizen’s passport. The court affirmed that “restricting freedoms in general and freedom of travel in particular is impermissible. The relevant state authorities do not possess the right to prolong depriving a citizen of their right to movement and travel.”

This underscored that “the right to movement is one of the fundamental rights stipulated in the Constitution and guaranteed to citizens.” It emphasized that “freedoms are a cornerstone of the country’s stability and must be upheld and not infringed upon in any manner or extent. Violating the freedom of citizens is a breach of the Constitution.”

Nearly a year ago, the Court (Civil Circuit) affirmed in a lawsuit seeking to lift a travel ban that “the substantial amount of debt is not, in itself, a substantial reason to evade debt.” The Court stated, “Assessing the reasons for issuing a travel ban on the debtor and the grievances against them is within the judge’s discretion and, subsequently, the court’s discretion.

However, it is imperative that the conditions for the travel ban order are substantiated with justifiable reasons proven in the documents and sufficient to support the ruling. The travel ban order is not punitive; it does not coerce the debtor into addressing procrastination.

The legislator’s necessity to estimate that exception is limited to its extent, without broadening its interpretation or analogy. This understanding prompted the legislator, being aware of the seriousness of this procedure and to prevent it from becoming a tool against the debtor, to enclose it with a framework of rules and provisions that obligate those seeking it to abide by specific conditions that warrant its issuance.”

By Jaber Al-Hamoud, Al-Seyassah / Arab Times

This news has been read 15829 times!