حدائق التمر المملوكة لشيوخ الكويت والمحمرة في العراق. نطاق الالتزامات الممنوحة من حكومة بريطانيا في ١٩١٤. قضية مقدّمة لمعرفة رأي المسؤولين القانونيين الملكيين ورأي ت. و. هـ. إنسكيب و ب. ب. ميريمان، إدارة المسؤولين القانونيين، ٢٩ مارس ١٩٣٣ وتشمل حدائق التمر المملوكة لشيوخ الكويت والمحمرة في العراق. ملخص تاريخي [غير مؤرّخ] [ظ‎‎١‎٢] (٧٠/٢٤)

22
and at this stage of the political development of Iraq, the Govern
ment are particularly desirous that there should not be imputations
against the Law Courts and in particular against the Court of
Cassation.
3. I must point out that I occupy the most peculiar position in
this matter, for this report does not consist in my giving a note on
the whole case only, but the honesty ot the personnel ot the Court
' of Cassation is directly challenged by the Sheikh of Kuwait and this
aspect has been pressed by you upon me most torcibly, further you
have put certain questions as regards the Sheikh s position in Law.
I trust I may be able to give you full and accurate information on
most of these matters, but I cannot say what future decisions ought
to lie given by the courts because 1 shall D.\ . most certainly be
required to sit.
4. The letter from Col. Dickson dated 25th June. 1932, shows
that the Sheikh of Kuwait owns five gardens or rather groups of
gardens. The two gardens under reference in this matter are the
Bashiya and the Fadaghiya gardens, these two gardens, with a
third garden called A1 Kharam, form the group of gardens called
Fadaghiyah vide para. (9) of the letter. The case already
decided affects the garden Bashiya and is in respect of a claim to
one-tenth of that garden being the share claimed by Rafia Bint Ali
Pasha A1 Zuhair. I have received information tliat three of the
sisters of Rafia have now filed similar cases in the Court of First
Instance Basrah, cases Nos. 239, 214 and 253, and the Secretariat
of the High Commissioner has been informed. The Sheikh of
Kuwait alleged to Col. Dickson that a case is about to be filed in
respect of the main Fadaghiyah garden, but as regards this no in
formation has reached me.
5. There is a point distinguishing the facts as regards the
possession of the Sheikh in the Bashiya garden and the facts re
garding his possession of the Fadaghiyah garden vide page (3) of
the statement of Abdul Aziz el Salim el Badar, agent for the Sheikh
of Kuwait which is attached to Col. Dickson's letter. This distinc
tion is that no Tapu Sanad was ever issued to the Sheikh of Kuwait
in respect of the Bashiya garden, but it appears that a Taipu Sanad
was issued to the Sheikh of Kuwait in respect of the main Fadag
hiyah garden vide the letter dated 14th June, 1915, from Sir Henry
Dobbs* and statement on page (7) of Col. Dickson's letter. This dis
tinction must be borne in mind when I deal with the Sheikh's
possession as regards the Fadaghiyah garden.
6. I have no knowledge of the conditions under which the
other four groups of gardens were bought by the Sheikh of Kuwait
nor how the third garden A1 Kharam of the Fadaghiyah group was
acquired.
7. Without wishing to minimise the importance of the
Sheikh's allegations, the actual case decided affects one-tenth of the
small garden of 31 jerib and the Sheikh's main fear is as regards
the large garden of A1 Fadaghiyah containing 400 jeribs.
8. As to the history of the proceedings up to the date of filing
the action in the Basrah Court of First Instance in respect of the
Bashiya garden, I see no reason not to accept the statement of
Abdul Aziz el Salim el Badar set out on pages 1 and 2 of the trans
lation of his note, and I agree with the statement on page 2 of the
letter from the Political Resident in, the Persian Gulf dated 11th
July, 1932, that there is no doubt that it was a bona fide transac
tion and that the purchase price was paid.
9. I will now summarise the case and the findings. This will
enable you to follow the complicated series of facts set out in this
report.
* Document No. 7, p. 31.