The decision issued in the appeals filed by the Public Authority of Industry against Agility and the appeals filed by Agility against the Public Authority of Industry

Date 21/02/2021
Company Name Agility Public Warehousing Company KSCP “Agility”
Case Number 314/2019 Commercial/Civil/Government/5 and its appeals
Case Subject End of the contract No. (157) between Public Authority of Industry (PAI) and Agility as of 30 June 2018 and to force Agility to vacate the land and expel it as a beneficiary of the location  as trespasser and occupier of the land without any valid ground, and the PAI’s recovery of possession of this land and to obligate Agility to pay 80 Kuwaiti dinars for each day of delay from 1/7/2018 until the handing over of the land, in compensation to PAI and the inclusion of the judgement for expedited enforcement, and the rejection of the counterclaim filed by Agility against PAI.
Date of the decision 18/02/2021
Court Decision Court of Cassation
Parties involved The general director of the Public Authority of Industry against Agility in the original case No. 314/2019.

In a counterclaim, Agility against the (i) general director of the Public Authority of Industry, (ii) the Minister of Commerce and Industry and Chairman of the PAI, (iii) the undersecretary of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the (iv) general director of the Kuwait Municipality.

And in the appeals No. 1847,1990, 2015 of 2019, Agility is the appellant against PAI and the general director of the Public Authority of Industry and others which act as a appellee.

Decision in favor of Public Authority of Industry
First Instance court decision   On 25/4/2019, the court of first instance resolved in case 314/2019 that the lease agreement no. (157) between Agility and PAI has ended as of June 30, 2018 and Agility to vacate the location as trespasser and occupier of the land without any valid ground, and to return the ownership of the land to PAI and to pay 80 Kuwaiti dinars for each day of delay from 1/7/2018 until the handing over of the land, in compensation to PAI, and the inclusion of the judgement for expedited enforcement and the rejection of the counterclaim filed by Agility against PAI.
Appeal court decision   On 8 December 2019, judgment No. 1847, 1990, 2015 for the year 2019 Commercial, Civil, Government/1 was issued resolving (1) to accept in form the three (3) appeals numbers 1847, 2015, 1990 for the year 2019, (2) to accept in form the joining of joined adverse parties, and (3) in substance, to overturn the appealed judgment in respect of the outcome in the original case and to resolve to reject the case for failure to have it filed by a person acting with capacity and to uphold the appealed judgment in every other aspect and to compel the appellant to settle the appropriate amount of expenses of the 3 appeals and the off-set in attorney fees.
Cassation Court Decision   On 18/2/2021, the Court of Cassation has ruled in the appeals as follows:

  1. Accepting in form the appeals Nos. 3900/2019, 186, 562, 335, 348, 560, and 561 of 2020 cassation commercial/4.
  2. In the two appeals number 560 and 561 for the year 2020 commercial / 4 to partially overturn the appealed judgment as ruled in the original lawsuit and obligated the company to pay the expenses.
  3. In the subject matter of the two appeals Nos. 335, 348 of 2020 commercial / 4 ruled to close the dispute.
  4. In the appeal No. 3900 for the year 2019 Commercial  4, and 186, 562 for the year 2020 Commercial / 4 , to partially overturn the appealed judgement in the secondary case.
  5. In the appeals Nos. 1847, 1990, 2015 for the year 2019, to reject the appeals and confirm the appealed judgment.
Financial Impact Revenues will be negatively impacted by around KD 6.5 million, which is the annual revenue from this site, in addition to a negative impact on the company’s assets around KD 28 million, which is the book value of the site.

Note that the allocation of Scrap Amghara site is still in the name of Agility and the company was still managing the site until now. We have previously submitted a request to renew the contract and no decision has been taken yet on this regard. The company is following up the renewal procedures and will provide the market with any developments in this regard.