Unregistered sales contracts have no effect and are not a title deed

"Dubai discrimination" recognizes a decisive legal principle in selling lands of "grants"

Dubai’s discrimination, by a majority of its nine judges, overturned the ruling of the “Appeal” court.

Archives

In a judicial precedent, the General Authority of the Court of Cassation in Dubai, by a majority of its nine judges, overturned a ruling by the Court of Appeal not to hear a lawsuit demanding the return of a land granted by His Highness the Ruler of Dubai to the heirs of a citizen who sold it to another 27 years ago.

And it decided that the legal texts collectively in this lawsuit stated that it is impossible to implement contracts for the sale of lands granted to citizens in the Emirate of Dubai, whether it was before the issuance of His Highness the Ruler's decision prohibiting the disposal of it without the permission of His Highness, or after the issuance of the decision.

These contracts are considered to have no effect, and they lose their title as a title deed, and then it is not permissible for the one who seizes them to cling to the passage of time that prevents hearing the lawsuit brought by the person to whom the land was granted or his heirs.

In detail, a judicial dispute over land granted by His Highness the Ruler of Dubai to a citizen witnessed remarkable transformations in the three stages of litigation, as the first instance court ruled invalidating the sale contract and obligating the defendant (the buyer) to return the land to the heirs of the seller, as it is a grant that may not be disposed of without the permission of His Highness the Ruler, and obligated him to hand it over free of persons and occupations.

For his part, the buyer appealed against the ruling before the Court of Appeal, attributing his appeal to the passage of more than 15 years since the sale process, which cancels the right of the other party to a legal claim, so the court accepted the appeal and ruled in his favor not to hear the case due to the passage of time, based on Article 210 of the Law Civil affairs.

After that, the case moved to the Court of Cassation, which witnessed a legal debate. The attorney of the heirs (appellant) Badr Abdullah Khamis stated, in the appeal memorandum, that the main request of his clients in the case is not the nullity of the contract concluded between their father and the defendant in 1994, but they insisted on proving the nullity of the contract. As legal payment for restitution of their land, defenses are not subject to statute of limitations.

He explained in his memo that Article 210 of the Civil Status Law stipulates that a void contract has no effect, and everyone who has an interest may adhere to its invalidity, pointing out that the same article stipulates that the invalidity lawsuit will not be heard after 15 years have passed from the time of the conclusion of the contract. There is an interest in defending the nullity of the contract at any time, meaning that the claim of the absolute nullity of the contract is not heard in all cases if 15 years have passed since its conclusion, but the defense of this nullity is not forfeited by the statute of limitations because the void contract remains non-existent and does not turn over valid with time.

He pointed out that the first article of the instructions of His Highness the Ruler regarding the lands granted to the citizens of the Emirate of Dubai for the year 1994 stipulates that it is prohibited to dispose of the grant lands by sale, mortgage, exchange, investment or leasing for a period of more than three years without the approval of His Highness, and this is what the defendant has not proven. .

Khamis proved that his clients were not aware of the sale and assignment contract dated the second of August 1994 on which the contested relied, except when the ownership of the land was transferred to them after the death of their father in 2014 according to the ownership certificate issued by the Land Department, and then the last date is the date The maturity, and not the date of the conclusion of the contract by their father with the defendant, which makes the judgment of the Court of Appeal not to hear the case tainted with a mistake in the application of the law, demanding that this ruling be revoked, the disputed land be handed over, and the payment of its proceeds during the period of usurping it by the respondent, estimated at about four Millions and 400 thousand dirhams.

For its part, the General Authority of the Court of Cassation headed by Judge Abdul Qadir Musa Muhammad stated, in the merits of its ruling, that although the date of the contract had preceded the instructions issued by His Highness the Ruler of Dubai on the second of September 1994 published in the Official Gazette on November 18, 1994 regarding the invalidity of disposal of lands Granted to citizens without the permission of His Highness, and that the actions that preceded this date are not nullified, pursuant to the general rule of non-application of legislation retroactively. However, since the provisions of these instructions are related to public order, they must be implemented with immediate and direct effect from the date of their implementation, and their application to antiquities This means that it is not permissible to register or transfer ownership of these lands after this date as long as the contract is not documented or formally registered before it, or it is proven that a special permission has been issued by His Highness the Ruler, and this has not been realized in the case even if the contract is valid, because according to the two articles 1275 and 1277 of the Civil Transactions Law, and what happened in the court of cassation judiciary, ownership of real estate and other real property rights does not transfer between the contracting parties except by registering contracts.

The Court of Cassation indicated that Article 1321 of the Civil Transactions Law stipulated that “no one shall adhere to the passage of time to prevent hearing the lawsuit of the absolute king, if he is placing his hand on a property with a bond other than title deeds.”

She emphasized that the applicant of these texts together is that it is impossible to implement contracts for the sale of lands granted to citizens in the Emirate of Dubai, whether they were before the issuance of His Highness the Ruler's decision to prohibit disposing of them without the permission of His Highness, or after the issuance of the decision, and these contracts are considered to have no effect and lose their title as a title deed. Hence, it is not permissible for the one who has the hand to cling to the passage of time, which prevents hearing the lawsuit filed by the person to whom the land was granted or his heirs.

The commission concluded that the heirs of the landowner in this case have the right to insist on the invalidity of the contract, and their request for prescription does not affect the statute of limitations, and if the contested judgment issued by the Court of Appeal contravenes this consideration, then it is considered defective in a manner that necessitates its revocation. In it again.

- The

Court of Appeal ruled not to hear a lawsuit demanding the return of a grant of land to the heirs of a citizen who sold it to another 27 years ago, and “Dubai discrimination” overturned the ruling.

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