The Date Gardens in Iraq of the Sheikhs of Koweit [Kuwait] and Mohammerah. Scope of undertakings given by HM Government in 1914. Case for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown and Opinion thereon T W H Inskip and F B Merriman, Law Officers' Department, 29 Mar 1933. inc The date gardens in Iraq of the Sheikhs of Koweit and Mohammerah. Historical summary [undated] [‎15r] (29/70)

27
has been that no sale to foreigners will be allowed and the Govern
ment Mamur was forbidden to allow this transfer. Under the orders
of the Turkish Prime Minister, however, they stretched a point as
regards the known attitude of the Sheikhs of Muhammara and
9 Kuwait towards the Turkish State and offered to allow them to
register their sales if they admitted that they were Turkish subjects.
18. The Court of Appeal disposed of the first appeal on the
9th of November 1931 and papers went back to Basrah and on the
14th of December the Iraqi Vice-President fixed the 23rd of
December for the re-hearing. Since the procsedings in this part of
the case have been attacked because no British judge sat, I must
point out that Mr. Lloyd was President of the Basrah Court and
was in Basrah from 1st of December. All British judges know
that they should sit if possible in foreigners cases and I cannot
believe that any application was made to Mr. Lloyd to sit in this
case and must therefore presume that the advocate Muhammed
Wasfi Effendi and Abdul Aziz Effendi A1 Salim A1 Badar took no
steps to draw the attention of the British President to the case. I
have read the " dhabt " and it is quite clear that the following
points were raised in argument by the Sheikh of Kuwait's advocate.
(a) That in this case limitation ought to run under
section 144 schedule 1 the Indian Limitation Act and that
the period has elapsed.
(b) If the Indian Limitation Act does not apply, limita
tion runs under the Law of the country and also has elapsed.
On 30th December 1931 judgment was given in favour of the
plaintiff on the following grounds :—
(a) That the sale as shewn by the deed of 21st
Muharram 1327 was null and void under section 1 Possession
of Land Law.
(b) Section 1674 of the Majelle lays down that in view
of the admission of the right of the plaintiff's ancestor no
prescription can be pleaded.
Note :—This is the important decision as to limitation and
•will be discussed later on.
(c) That at any event a sale by one " Wasi " will be
invalid.
19. On this judgment appeal is made to the Court of Appeal;
2nd appeal No. 66/932. Iskender Mansour Effendi appeared for the
Sheikh as appellant. It is alleged that I was deliberately kept in
ignorance of this case. Iskender Mansour is an advocate who often
comes to Baghdad on appellate work and is quite well aware that
he may at any time have access to the President if he wishes to
apply to him. He made no effort to secure my presence in the case.
The case was heard on the 9th May. There were 5 cases in the list
including one concerning a foreigner on which I sat. The partiea
in the appeal by the Sheikh of Kuwait were described :
Appellant: A1 Sheikh Ahmad A1 Sabah, Advocate Tskender
Effendi Mansour.
Respondent: Rafia bint Ali Zuhair, her advocate Kamal
Effendi A1 Sinawi.
I note that you apprehend that this omission to inform me that it
was a foreigner's case was intentional. In view of the extremely
sharp nature of your conjectures I have asked the Minister to hold
special enquiry vide my letter to the Minister dated 16.8.32 copy
attached. I will only observe that the grounds of appeal filed by
Iskender Mansour do not state that the Appellant was the Sheikh
of Kuwait nor does the copy of the judgment of the First Instance
filed with those grounds state that but the Sheikh is described by
the title of His Highness and the advocate's Power of Attorney
state that he was the Ruler of Kuwait.