A woman and her ex-husband fight over a plot of land

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that ruled that the divorced woman has a right to the land in dispute with her ex-husband, and referred the dispute to the Court of Appeal for its consideration again in light of the disregard for the defense response that the plaintiff’s former husband paid the price of the land.

In detail, a woman filed a lawsuit demanding proof of her ownership of a residential commercial plot of land, and forcing the defendant to transfer her ownership of her to the competent authorities.

She said that she bought the property from the first defendant and agreed with him to keep it in his name, and it was time to recover the land, which prompted her to file her lawsuit.

The Court of First Instance ruled to reject the plaintiff’s claim and the attacking intervene’s lawsuit (the plaintiff’s former husband) on the basis that the land may not be disposed of in the first place. Then, the Court of Appeal ruled to annul the first ruling, and the court ruled again to establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the residential commercial plot of land and to oblige her former husband to transfer ownership in the name of the plaintiff.

The two defendants (the plaintiff’s former husband and the seller) appealed this ruling by cassation, as their defense confirmed that the judgment violated the law and violated the right of the essential defense when it ruled to annul the first ruling and the judiciary again to prove the plaintiff’s ownership of the residential commercial plot of land, and to oblige the current owner to transfer ownership in the name of the plaintiff, with their submission Legal evidence, including the testimony and the plaintiff’s acknowledgment that the real buyer of the property is the former plaintiff’s husband, and that he paid the price and construction value to the contractor, and that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the plot of land and the construction on it, and that the case is not referred for investigation in this regard.

For its part, the Federal Supreme Court affirmed that the verdict must include what reassures the insider that the court obtained an understanding of the reality and surrounded the elements of the case and the evidence presented, examined the litigants ’defense and confronted it with an adequate and acceptable response, and that omitting the judgment in a defense would, if it is correct, change his opinion in the case impinging it with a defect. Failure to cause causation, and that the essential defense must ensure that the court responds to it in installments, and does not enrich the fuse of adhering to the abstract reassurance that sends a presumption, because the court’s assurance must not contradict the conclusive evidence, otherwise it is devoid of its legal source.

She indicated that the two defendants adhered to the request to refer the case to investigation to prove that the plaintiff does not own the residential commercial plot of land and that the real buyer of the property is the husband of the former plaintiff and that he paid the price and the construction value to the contractor and that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the commercial residential plot of land or the constructions on which it is, but the ruling ignored this. The essential defense, and neglecting its research and scrutiny to the extent necessary, resembled a failure to cause and breach the right of defense that necessitates its repeal with the referral.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news