10 Judicial Rulings Canceling Evictions of “Those Who Sold Their Homes”

Several administrative departments of the Supreme Court issued ten judicial rulings today annulling contract termination decisions issued by the Public Authority for Housing Welfare in a lawsuit filed by a group of citizens through lawyer Hamoud Al-Hajeri.

The annulled decisions included orders for the eviction of citizens, following the cancellation of the “Law on Those Who Sold Their Homes,” which the Authority intended to implement. However, the Administrative Court annulled the eviction orders.

Lawyer Al-Hajeri stated in his lawsuit that the Housing Welfare Authority had concluded a lease agreement with the plaintiff for a property located in East Timaa, Plot 9, House No. 142. However, the plaintiff was surprised to receive a notification via the “Sahl” program announcing a decision by the Authority to terminate and cancel the lease agreement and to evict him from the rented house. The eviction date was set for September 1 of the coming year. He emphasized that the decision contradicted the correct provisions of the law and unjustly infringed upon the plaintiff’s rights.

Al-Hajeri affirmed to the court that the notification issued by the Authority via the “Sahl” program, announcing the termination and cancellation of the lease agreement, the eviction from the house, and the setting of an eviction date for September 1, 2026, represented an imminent danger. It would lead to the homelessness of the student’s family, resulting from the administrative body’s violation of the law, its deviation from the right path, and the issuance of its decision arbitrarily and tainted by an abuse of authority.

He clarified that the Authority issued its decision to terminate and cancel the contract and evict the house designated for the plaintiff in violation of the correct provisions of the law, citing Article 29 as the legal basis. He pointed out that the challenged decision was arbitrary, contrary to the Constitution and the law, and marred by illegality, as the decision under appeal constituted a breach of the student’s legal status and acquired rights, which cannot be infringed upon.

He continued: “The decision under appeal, issued by the Housing Authority, represents a breach of the acquired and established legal statuses that the student obtained through the implementation of Article 29 bis, which was added to Law No. 47 of 1993 concerning Housing Welfare by Law No. 2 of 2015.”

He added that the cancellation of the aforementioned Article’s text pursuant to Law No. 83 of 2025 does not detract from this, as the law applies only from the date of its implementation and is not retroactive; it does not apply to past events.

Al-Hajeri noted that Article 179 of the Kuwaiti Constitution stipulates that “the provisions of laws shall not apply except to events occurring from the date of their implementation, and they shall not have any effect on events that occurred before this date. It is permissible, in non-penal matters, to stipulate otherwise in the law with the approval of the majority of members constituting the National Assembly.” He elaborated: “This was also affirmed by the Court of Cassation in its rulings, in addition to the contradiction between the decision under appeal and the provisions of the Constitution and the justifications for issuing Article 29 of Law No. 2 of 2015.”

He explained that, considering that Law No. 47 of 1993 mentioned above was limited to providing this welfare to its beneficiaries only once, there is a clear distinction between private ownership and state-provided ownership for a specific purpose. Consequently, the law did not grant the person disposing of the residential unit designated for them the right to sell. However, the actions of those who sold their residential units were driven by social changes in the family’s situation and their urgent need for more space or a change in the alternative housing pattern to meet their needs.

In conclusion of his lawsuit, Al-Hajeri urgently requested the suspension of the implementation of the challenged decision issued by the Housing Authority, which included the eviction of the house rented to the plaintiff, due to the serious and irreparable harm that would result, until a final and binding judgment is rendered on the merits of the case. He requested that the judgment include immediate enforceability without bail and that it be implemented based on its draft.

He also requested, in the subject matter, the annulment of the contested decision issued by the institution and its nullification ab initio, along with all legal consequences thereof, particularly the continued validity of the contract concluded between the plaintiff and the second defendant, as against both defendants. He further sought that the judgment be granted immediate enforceability without the requirement of a security bond, and that it be executed provisionally, while ordering the defendants to bear the litigation costs and actual attorney’s fees. The court accepted these requests in its ruling.

The operative part of the judgment issued in Case No. 2026/3862 Administrative stated that, since the contested decision’s effects extend beyond the recovery of a single detached residence and instead fall within the framework of evicting a large number of homes occupied by Kuwaiti families who have resided there for years pursuant to allocations and contracts concluded with the State, the consequences of its enforcement—namely, uprooting these families from their homes and forcing them to seek alternative accommodation, along with the ensuing disruption to their family and livelihood stability—constitute, in themselves, considerations of public interest that cannot be overlooked or excluded from the proportionality assessment.

The judgment further added that public interest is inseparable from safeguarding social stability, protecting the family, and avoiding exposing it to the loss of its residence, which it occupies based on State authorization. It is untenable to invoke public interest as a basis for the collective eviction of families whose need for housing has not been proven to have ceased, without the administrative authority providing legally admissible evidence of a countervailing public interest that must outweigh the severe harm inflicted upon those families. Consequently, invoking public interest does not constitute a valid ground that would sustain the contested decision or rescue it from the defect in its reasoning.