The Court of Appeal nullified the travel ban order against a Kuwaiti debtor who owed KD 2.4 million to a local bank, ruling that the measure did not meet the criteria set out in Article 297 of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code. The decision overturned a lower court judgment that had upheld the restriction, which originated from an execution file initiated by the bank. According to the ruling, a substantial debt amount alone does not provide sufficient grounds to suspect that the debtor plans to evade payment, and the creditor must demonstrate both the debtor’s ability to settle and concrete reasons for fearing flight.
The case reached the appeal level after the debtor filed a grievance against the ban, with legal representation arguing that the order infringed on constitutional protections for freedom of movement without adequate justification. A similar assessment in a ruling approximately a year earlier by the civil circuit had already established that the size of a debt in itself does not constitute evidence of intent to evade, the court noted in its review. The appeal judgment emphasized that evaluating the grounds for a travel ban and any objections falls within judicial discretion but must adhere strictly to the statutory thresholds.
Legal texts require that a travel ban petition demonstrate compelling reasons indicating severity and a likelihood that the debtor might flee despite having the means to pay, an evaluation the Execution Department may support with a brief investigation if documents are insufficient. The Court of Appeal found these elements lacking in the bank’s submission, leading to the order being voided as if it had never been issued. Al-Seyassah daily reported on the outcome, highlighting the lawyer’s plea that citizens should face no undue impediments to travel in line with constitutional guarantees.
This ruling arrives months after a July 2026 amendment to Article 297, published in Kuwait Alyoum, which expanded authority to issue such orders beyond the Execution Department director to any qualified court designee in order to reduce delays amid rising application volumes. A government explanatory memorandum accompanying the change cited shortages of deputy judges as a key factor hindering timely decisions on creditor petitions. The amendment aims to improve efficiency in handling debt enforcement while higher courts continue to scrutinize whether issued bans satisfy all required conditions.
Court of Cassation precedents reviewed in comparable grievances over the past several years have consistently required creditors to provide documented proof of both debt capability and evasion risk rather than relying on payment delays alone. In one such case detailed by Times Kuwait, the court overturned a ban after determining that the appellant’s need to travel did not inherently signal an attempt to avoid obligations. These decisions underscore the exceptional character of travel restrictions, which limit a fundamental right and therefore demand rigorous justification at every level of review.
The debtor can now travel without the previous restriction in place, as the appeal court compelled the creditor to cover litigation costs at both levels along with nominal attorney fees. Such outcomes reflect ongoing judicial efforts to balance creditor rights in debt recovery with protections against overly broad use of preventive measures. Legal observers note that grievances against travel bans have formed a steady portion of civil dockets, particularly as economic conditions have affected repayment capacities across various sectors.
