first issue: a friend told me that a kuwaiti diplomat arrived in kuwait with his wife to participate in a two-day conference. he then wanted to extend his stay for a few days at his expense, to pursue some work. he was told that the security instructions did not permit that and then he was also asked to show proof that the woman with him was his wife and as a result, he had to travel the same day.
i inquired with some hotel owners. i was told that they often do not ask the guest for a marriage certificate, but they check his identity and that of the woman with him and if the address matches the two identities, they are allowed to stay. this, of course, contradicts what is practiced in saudi arabia. is there a solution to this situation?
the second issue: s.h. says that his uncle was working in the government. the uncle retired one year ago and died after a few months in a car accident leaving behind an elderly and sick widow. the widow discovered that she was not covered by the afya health insurance card of her husband who served the country for thirty years.
she checked with concerned departments but to no avail. is there a solution for the likes of this woman, or even the widower who is not covered by afya of wife/husband who worked for the government?
third issue: a woman who was in dispute with her husband asked for a divorce. the husband refused, and she sued him before the courts. the personal status court ruled in her favor. the husband did not like the verdict and appealed.
the court of appeal upheld the ruling of the personal status court and ruled in favor of the wife. immediately after the end of the waiting period, the wife got a copy of the verdict and married another person. the husband took the case to the court of cassation and after long deliberations overturned the verdict of lower courts and ordered the wife to return to her husband. what must have been her situation given this scenario is anybody’s guess.
in a similar incident, the court of appeals ruled in favor of a family and ordered the authorities to pay the family of the victim (son) who had died in suspicious circumstances half a million dinars. five years later, the court of cassation reduced the amount to only kd 50,000 and the family had to return kd 450,000 to the state. what is strange is that the family was penniless when the court of cassation issued its verdict because all the money that they got they spent to build a mosque in the name of their dead son.
in the context, lawyer fahad alhabbini says more than 70 percent of the population is expatriates. we also have a large number of foreign companies working with us and given the current situation, whereby appeals are enforced immediately upon issuance of the verdict without waiting for the court of cassation to give its verdict which is damaging to individuals and waste of public money.
if when the court of appeal issues a verdict in favor of an expatriate and the latter leaves the country immediately for some reason, or the company moves its activity to another country, and later when the court of cassation overturns the verdict of the court of appeal, how can the state or individuals regain their rights from those who have left the country? the issue is a catastrophe since we know there are more than 32,000 appeals waiting for the cassation court verdict.
we call on the government and lawmakers to pay attention to these matters, rather than engage in malicious interrogations.