Official: Decree Issued Amending the Civil Law

Decree-Law No. 121 of 2026 amending Article (830) of the Civil Law issued by Decree-Law No. (67) of 1980 was published in the Official Gazette “Kuwait Today.” Its provisions are as follows:

Article One: Two new paragraphs, numbered (3) and (4), with the following text, are added to the text of Article (830) of the aforementioned Civil Law:

Article (830):

3 - If the co-owned property is a residential building, the court, upon the request of one of the co-owners, may order that the co-ownership be maintained or continued for a period it determines, provided that the applicant proves that the property is his sole residence and that his financial means are insufficient to purchase a suitable residential property. Any of the co-owners may request the termination of the co-ownership if he proves that either of these conditions has ceased to exist.

4 - During the proceedings of a partition lawsuit, each co-owner of the residential property may request to acquire the share of the party who filed the partition request, according to the value determined by an expert appointed by the court for this purpose. If multiple co-owners request to acquire the share, the co-owners may agree on the proportion of each of them in that share, and each of them is obliged to deposit the amount corresponding to his proportion in the court’s treasury within the period specified by the court. If they fail to reach an agreement, the share shall be divided equally among them, and the court shall grant them a period to deposit the amount.

If any of the co-owners fails to deposit the amount within the specified period without a valid excuse accepted by the court, his request shall be dismissed, and the right to acquire the share shall be restricted to the remaining co-owners. The proportion of what each of them is required to bear shall be re-determined in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, and the court shall grant them a new period for deposit. If the full value of the share is deposited, the court shall rule that the share be transferred to the depositors, each according to the proportion of the value he has paid, and the partition lawsuit shall be concluded. Otherwise, the court shall continue to hear the lawsuit.

Article Two: The provisions of this Decree-Law shall apply to partition lawsuits that have not been finally adjudicated as of the date of its implementation, unless a ruling confirming the award of the auction regarding the property subject to partition has been issued prior to this date.

Article Three: The Ministers shall each implement this Decree-Law within their respective areas of competence. It shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall take effect from the date of its publication.

The explanatory memorandum for Decree-Law No. 121 of 2026 amending Article (830) of the Civil Law issued by Decree-Law No. (67) of 1980 states the following:

The Constitution has placed the institution of property ownership under a protective shield, rendering it inviolable; thus, no one may be prevented from disposing of their property except within the limits prescribed by law. It regards property as an individual right with a social function, and stipulates that mutual compassion is a strong bond among citizens, and that the family is the foundation of society, sustained by religion and morality, with the law safeguarding its integrity and strengthening its ties. Collectively, these constitutional principles reveal an approach that balances the protection of property as an individual right with its social function. Consequently, the legislator, while regulating property rights, must not violate other constitutional principles, such as preserving social stability, fostering compassion among members of society, and safeguarding the family unit.

The practical reality of lawsuits concerning the partition of residential real estate has revealed humanitarian and social considerations worthy of the legislator’s attention. The unqualified application of general partition rules may, in certain cases, lead to outcomes that extend beyond merely ending a state of co-ownership and allowing each partner to claim their share of the asset. Its effects may reach the residential and social stability of some partners. This is because the value of a property is not limited to its status as co-owned wealth; for one of the partners, it may constitute their only home and the foundation of their life. Therefore, the consequences of its partition do not end with the mere termination of a legal relationship between co-owners. If physical partition is impossible and the matter proceeds to a public auction sale, the effects may extend to depriving the partner of their shelter, without them having the financial capacity to secure an alternative, suitable residence. These considerations become even more evident when the co-owned property is a family home; for its value to family members extends beyond its material worth, encompassing moral and social significance closely tied to their stability. It is the vessel that sheltered them under one roof, preserved their memories, witnessed their upbringing, and, as years passed, remained the place for their gatherings, the abode of their affection, and the setting for maintaining family ties. Insistence by one partner on requesting partition—when physical division is impossible—may lead to its sale at a public auction, thereby removing it from the ownership of the family as a whole.

Given that the rules governing co-ownership are detailed in the Civil Law issued by Law Decree No. (67) of 1980, and in light of all the aforementioned considerations, a legislative amendment was deemed necessary to Article (830) of the aforementioned law, to achieve a degree of balance between the partners’ rights to partition their residential property and the humanitarian and social considerations previously outlined.

Since the Emiri Amiri Order dated May 10, 2024, stipulated that laws are to be issued by law decrees, the present Law Decree was prepared to amend Article (830) of the aforementioned Civil Law.

Article 1 of the law stipulates the addition of two new clauses to the text of this article. The legislator’s objective in enacting the added clause (3) to the aforementioned article was to protect the weaker partner among co-owners—specifically, the person who uses the property, regardless of its type (whether a house, villa, or apartment), as their sole residence and whose financial means do not allow them to secure a suitable alternative dwelling. This is achieved by granting such a person the right to request to remain in co-ownership or to continue doing so for a specified period, with the court exercising discretionary authority over such a request. The court may determine this period by taking into account the individual’s family, social, and financial circumstances, thereby enabling them to arrange their affairs, provided that this does not permanently deprive the other co-owners of their right to partition, thus ensuring that this exception does not become a means to indefinitely delay partition.

While the provision, which safeguards these considerations, did not overlook the rights of the other co-owners, nor did it make remaining in co-ownership an absolute right, it surrounded it with controls that reveal the genuine need for such an arrangement. It therefore stipulated that the property must be the sole residence of the person seeking to remain in co-ownership, and that their funds are insufficient to purchase a suitable residential property. This ensures that the exception remains within justified bounds, grounded in care and necessity, rather than serving as a means to obstruct the rights of others regarding their assets.

Since a court judgment ordering the continuation of co-ownership under this clause is considered a provisional ruling subject to modification and replacement due to changing circumstances, the law permits any co-owner to request the termination of the continuation of co-ownership once it is established that either of these two conditions has ceased to exist.

Continuing with the legislator’s desire to prevent the auction sale of residential property held in co-ownership—whether among family members or others—by public tender when physical partition is impossible, and to mitigate the potential adverse effects on the interests of the remaining co-owners, the added clause (4) to the aforementioned Article 830 strikes a balance between the co-owner’s right to exit co-ownership and receive the fair value of their share, and the interest of the other co-owners in retaining their residential property. It subjects the request to acquire the share of the partition applicant to controls that ensure the seriousness of the request and prevent it from being used as a means to prolong litigation or delay the resolution of the partition lawsuit. Specifically, it allows any co-owner, during the pendency of the partition lawsuit, to request the acquisition of the partition applicant’s share in exchange for its value, as assessed by an expert appointed by the court for this purpose. This ensures that the partition applicant receives fair compensation for their share, while simultaneously enabling the other co-owners to retain their residential property.

This added provision also addressed situations involving multiple applicants for ownership, requiring that, upon their agreement to distribute the share subject to ownership among themselves, each applicant deposit an amount corresponding to their respective share of the value into the court’s treasury within a specified period. This requirement was intended to confirm the seriousness of the ownership request and to conclude the proceedings within a reasonable timeframe. If the applicants disagreed on determining each person’s share, the court would resolve the dispute by dividing the shares equally and grant them a new deadline for deposit. To prevent the failure of one applicant to make the deposit from jeopardizing the requests of the other partners or delaying the lawsuit proceedings, the provision stipulated that, in the event of a deposit default without a court-accepted excuse, only the defaulting applicant’s request would be dismissed, and the distribution would proceed with the remaining applicants, who would be granted a new deadline to complete the deposit. Thus, the defaulting party alone would bear the consequences of their delay, without prejudicing any partner who had demonstrated seriousness in pursuing ownership. If the full value of the share was collected, the court would order the ownership of that share to be transferred to the depositors in proportion to the amounts each had contributed, thereby concluding the partition lawsuit. If the full value was not collected, the basis for ownership would lapse, and the court would continue hearing and adjudicating the partition lawsuit in accordance with applicable legal provisions.

Article Two of this decree-law determined that its provisions would apply to partition lawsuits that had not yet been resolved by a final judgment as of the date of its implementation. It excluded cases where, prior to that date, a judgment confirming the award of the auction for the property subject to partition had already been issued.

Article Three of the decree-law entrusted the ministers, each within their respective areas of responsibility, with implementing the decree-law, and provided for its publication in the Official Gazette, specifying that it would take effect from the date of such publication.