Court: Fate of Housing Requests and Evictions Depends on Law Application, Not Constitutionality
The Constitutional Court ruled to reject the appeal against the cancellation of Article 29 bis of the Housing Care Law, stating that the fate of requests and evictions pertains to the application of the law, not its constitutionality.
Translated by Qiyas from الأنباء — Original source
Kuwait officials: The advisory chamber of the Constitutional Court ruled to reject a petition filed by a number of citizens challenging the constitutionality of Article 1 of Legislative Decree No. 83 of 2025, which abolished the provision of Article 29 bis of Law No. 47 of 1993 concerning housing assistance, commonly known in the media as the “He Who Sold His House Law.”
The repealed article had allowed the Public Authority for Housing Assistance, on one occasion only, to provide suitable housing on a usufruct or rental basis to a category of citizens who had previously obtained a loan from the Credit Bank to build or purchase a residence, and who had subsequently sold it and repaid the loan amount, in accordance with the controls and timeframes specified in the law.
The Court clarified in the reasoning of its judgment that accepting a constitutional petition by way of direct allegation requires the petitioner to have a direct personal interest, and that the challenged legislative provision must have caused harm to the petitioner as a result of its application to them. Mere allegations that the provision violates constitutional provisions are insufficient.
It further stated that the challenged Legislative Decree was limited to abolishing Article 29 bis of Law No. 47 of 1993 concerning housing assistance, without including provisions regulating the status of beneficiaries to whom the article had previously been applied, or determining the fate of submitted applications and residences that had been handed over to their owners.
The Court added that the issues raised by the petitioners regarding administrative authorities retaining previously accepted applications and notifying some beneficiaries to vacate the residences they had received do not stem from the law’s text itself, but rather concern how the administrative authority applies it.
It emphasized that its oversight is confined to verifying the conformity of legislation with constitutional provisions, and does not extend to monitoring how provisions are applied or to allegations of error in their interpretation and construction, affirming that an error in applying the law does not, in itself, constitute a constitutional defect.
The Court concluded that the conditions for accepting the petition were not met due to the failure to establish a direct personal interest as required by a constitutional petition.
