KUWAIT CITY, Aug 4: The Court of Cassation has established a new principle regarding travel bans, ruling that mere procrastination in paying a debt does not automatically justify a travel ban. The court emphasized that a desire to travel may be considered a necessity.

The case involved a Kuwaiti citizen who sought to lift a travel ban imposed by his ex-wife, who had filed a lawsuit against him over a debt in a personal status case. Both the initial court and the appeals court had previously rejected his request.

The complainant's lawyer, Dr. Fawaz Al-Khatib, argued before the Court of Cassation that the lower courts had misapplied the law, prompting the need for a review of the case. The Court of Cassation agreed with the defense, stating that the previous ruling did not adhere to the legal standards outlined in Articles 297 and 298 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law.

According to the court, a travel ban order can only be issued if the creditor proves the debt is valid and due, demonstrates that there are serious grounds to believe the debtor is attempting to flee, and shows that the debtor has the means to pay. The assessment of these conditions is a matter of judicial discretion and must be supported by evidence.

The court criticized the previous judgment for basing the travel ban solely on the debtor’s failure to pay or provide a guarantee, without adequately proving his ability to settle the debt. The ruling highlighted that suspicion of evasion and the debtor’s intent to travel are insufficient grounds for a travel ban if the debtor's financial capacity is not properly demonstrated.