Kuwait’s Public Authority for Housing Affairs has relieved families from homelessness
“Family and livelihood stability are a public interest.” This phrase itself constitutes the core of the issue on which the court ruled in the case of evicting tenants who had sold their homes. According to the reasoning of the judgment, public interest is not determined by an administrative authority in isolation from the judiciary.
The justice underpinning Kuwaiti court rulings is a path from which no one can deviate. The reasoning in this case is clear in establishing a legal status that cannot be bypassed; rather, it is fundamental to the process of achieving justice. Evicting 509 families from their homes is considered, according to the ruling, contrary to justice. This is not a matter of official caprice or an interpretation that contradicts the letter of the law. Therefore, it was more appropriate for those with usufruct rights to continue residing in their homes, while the administration should seek reasonable alternatives for eligible beneficiaries, without threatening the family stability that is secured by a valid legal status.
Seasonal Holidays and Occasions
News Video
Indeed, there are several observations regarding the approach adopted in allocating residential care. The most significant is the failure to take into account developments that have occurred over the past 40 years, particularly those witnessed in neighboring Gulf and non-Gulf countries. In Kuwait, this care is based on “land and a loan,” which draws citizens into a cycle of construction and borrowing from commercial banks to build. In contrast, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Oman employ other methods that are more beneficial to both the state and citizens. In these countries, the state builds cities and designates beneficiaries, relying on diverse financial and housing solutions that include self-construction, purchasing from the market, residential land, and developmental housing for the most vulnerable groups, while providing the land itself.
Conversely, these countries have resolved a crisis that was considered complex until recently. In Kuwait, however, the need for housing remains akin to an enigma, as existing applications exceed the capacity for resolution under the current model.
It is true that at one point, the domestic political path controlled this crisis, causing delays in solutions. However, the situation has changed today. This does not preclude working on two fronts: first, adopting a modern vision that aligns with prevailing developments in the region and the world, and relies on abandoning old habits in residential care; and second, benefiting from the plans of neighboring countries that resolved their crises within a few years.
The state is well, and since liberation, it has been following a development plan aimed at making citizens feel social stability, which is the foundation of the development process. On this basis, much can be done for sustainable development that is not subject to the whims of any official or to interpretations that threaten the legal status of Kuwaiti families, especially those affected by the “He Who Sold His House” law. These individuals did not take this step out of choice, but due to needs beyond their means, forcing them to sell their homes and rent, through usufruct rights from the state. As stated in the reasoning of the judgment issued yesterday, “The cancellation of a provision does not lead to the termination of contracts concluded correctly before the cancellation of the text.”
The judgment clearly stipulated the stabilization of rights that no one can dispute, so as not to violate Article 9 of the Constitution. Therefore, this judgment, in its reasoning and essence, is a foundation upon which to build and achieve justice in its highest form. Thus, we say to the judiciary: Thank you for having treated families fairly and spared them from homelessness.
