In a ruling highlighting the impact of the new residency law, the Court of First Instance fined a company owner KD 5,000 for failing to pay a worker’s dues. The decision cites Article 19 of the law, which prohibits employers from using foreign workers for purposes other than those for which they were recruited, allowing them to work for third parties without a license, or withholding their dues, reported Al Jarida newspaper.

The Public Prosecution charged the employer on 15 July 2024 at the Criminal Investigation Department in Kuwait for unlawfully refusing to pay the worker during his employment. Investigations confirmed the accused’s role as employer and manager, and the prosecution requested penalties under Articles 1/19, 7/27, and 29 of Law No. 114 of 2024 concerning the Foreigners’ Residence Law.

The Court of First Instance, under the chairmanship of Counselor Mishari Al-Buaijan, issued a ruling stated that “the incident, as established by the court’s conviction and reassured conscience, is evident from the review of all case papers and conducted investigations. The victim had joined a limited liability company managed by the accused, who served as the company’s manager and was responsible for its administration, as confirmed by the commercial register issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

The accused refused to pay the victim’s dues for the relevant period, despite the issuance of Appeal No. 2024/115 Labor/5 on July 15, 2024, amounting to KD 5,336.309, without justification. This delay prevented the victim from filing his complaint with the Public Prosecution on December 2, 2025.”

The court clarified that the date of the offense was amended to span from December 1, 2024 to December 2, 2025, instead of July 15, 2024, since Decree-Law No. 114 of 2024 concerning the Foreigners’ Residence Law was not published in the Official Gazette and came into effect on December 1, 2024. The court noted that this amendment does not violate the defendant’s right to defense.

“The Court of Cassation has established that in criminal trials, the court’s conviction and confidence in the presented evidence are paramount. Evidence need not individually prove every detail, as criminal evidence is interdependent and complementary. The court may rely on any element or indication it finds sufficient, assessing witness statements and circumstances at its discretion, regardless of challenges or doubts raised.”

Regarding the civil suit, Article 22 of Decree-Law No. 78 of 2025, amending provisions of Law No. 17 of 1973 on court fees, stipulates that courts adjudicate cases only after fees are paid or a temporary exemption is granted. If fees are unpaid, the court grants the plaintiff a period to pay; failure to do so renders the suit null and void. Since the plaintiff did not pay within the allotted period, the court ruled the civil suit as if it had never been filed.

The court ruled in absentia: first, fining the accused KD 5,000 for the criminal charge; and second, declaring the civil suit invalid and void.