Two appellants said in their grounds of appeal that the appealed ruling by which they were convicted of having sex with a female had erred in the application of law. They said that the flagrancy status did not exist in their case. They said that the court established its ruling on the grounds of the confession of the first appellant though it was not related to the incident.

The court of cassation said that this argument was valid. The court said that Article 194 of Kuwait Law No. 16/1960 stipulated that the acceptable proof to validate the existence of such a crime iwasthe existence of the flagrancy status. The court said that in case of a lack of the flagrancy, the confession should be considered as proof. The court said that the documents of the case revealed that flagrancy did not exist in the case and that the confession made by the first appellant had nothing to do with the incident. The court said that the court therefore established its ruling on an invalid basis.

The court repealed the ruling.