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] [‎14r] (27/70)

that this was not done because the Turkish Government wanted a
declaration that the Sheikh of Kuwait was a Turkish subject where
as he is independent under the protection of Britain. On the
4th of May 1931 (probably an error for 4.7.1931) defendant put in
letter fom Dafterkhana Istana to Dafterkhana Basra ordering him
to do the registration on the lines of the communication from the
Prime Minister. He also filed a translation of letter from
Prime Minister Mahmud Shawkat Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. to Ministry of Finance
Istana ordering it to carry through the business of Sheik of Muham-
mera and that of the Qaimmaqam of Kuwait if they admit that
they were Turkish subjects and agree to have this endorsed in
the Sanads. During the hearing on 9.7.31 the plaintiff filed an
argument in writing which recapitulates the points on which he
relies.
13. I have set out at length the points made by plaintiff
and defendant because at the rehearing no additional pleadings
were filed and the case proceeded on these original proceedings and
on the arguments recorded in the " dhabt " i.e. record of the case.
You will notice that there does not appear to be raised the matter
of limitation on which you have laid so much stress but in fact
in the second hearing this point was expressly raised and re
corded in the " dhabt and formed the main grounds of appeal
taken in the second appeal.
14. At this stage I will set out the dates of the different
decisions. They are :
14.4.31 claim dismissed by Mr. Hooper for lack of prosecution.
This is a very ordinary step in a case and I see no reason to comment
on the remarks of the defendant's agent to the effect that at that
date i.e. before judgment, Mr. Hooper was convinced of the justice
of defendant's case and for that reason plaintiff withdrew her
power of attorney from her advocate and allowed the case to be
dismissed for default. If Mr. Hooper really was unwise enough
to shew his intentions before giving final judgment, it is quite
understandable why the plaintiff dropped the case but 1 really
have no grounds on which to say that this was the reason why the
plaintiff dropped the case. There may be a dozen reasons.
On 6.5.31 the plaintiff applied to continue the case by opposi
tion to the judgment of dismissal. The case was heard on the
7th of July 1931 by the \ ice-president and the judgment was
given on 15.7.1931, in favour of the defendant i.e. of the Sheikh
of Kuwait dimissing the case on the ground that an action must
firstly be filed to cancel the deed of sale of the 21st Muharram before
any action could be filed based on ownership claiming mana'
mu'aradha. So far as the allegation of the Sheikh of Kuwait
against the bona fides of the Iraqi judges is concerned, I cannot see
that he can complain of this judgment in his favour but I now draw
your attention to fact that although Mr. Hooper was known to
be leaving Basrah no application was made to me as President
Court of Cassation by Mohammed Effendi Wasfi, the Sheik's ad
vocate, to transfer the case to another court. If the Sheikh's agent
had then any reason to suspect an intrigue either with lawyers
or with Government officials I find it difficult not to suppose that
lie would have gone to the British Consul and information brought
to me or after I went on leave to Mr. Drower who acted for me.
15. I attach copy of judgment of the Civil Court of First
Instance Basrah which I paraphrase as follows: '' The defendant
relies on a contract of sale which purports to transfer ownership
to him. The plaintiff relies on inheritance through the person
who made the Sanad of sale. Therefore the plaintiff cannot claim
ownership until he has cancelled the sale, she must therefore first
file an action to cancel the Sanad. If that succeeds, she may then
claim in respect of the share of the estate which she has inherited