“Dubai Discrimination” approves a decisive legal principle in the sale of “grant” lands

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

It decided that the combined effect of the legal texts in this case indicates the impossibility of implementing 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 prohibiting disposal of them without His Highness’s permission, or after the issuance of the decision.

These contracts are deemed to have no effect and lose their status as a title deed. Therefore, the person who seized them may not cling to the passage of time that prevents the hearing of the lawsuit filed 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 court of first instance ruled that the sales contract was invalid and obligated the defendant (buyer) to return the land to the seller’s heirs, as it is a grant that may not be disposed of except with the permission of the His Highness the Ruler, and obliged him to deliver it free of people and occupants.

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 negates the right of the other party to make a legal claim. The court accepted the appeal and ruled in his favor not to hear the case due to the passage of time, basing this on Article 210 of the Law. Civil status.

The case was then moved to the Court of Cassation, which witnessed a legal debate, and the representative of the heirs (appellants), lawyer Badr Abdullah Khamis, stated in the appeal memorandum that the main request of his clients in the case was not to invalidate the contract concluded between their father and the defendant in 1994, but they insisted on proving the invalidity of the contract. As a legal defense to return their land, and defenses do not lapse according to the law.

He explained in his memorandum that Article 210 of the Civil Status Law stipulates that a void contract has no effect, and every interested party has the right to uphold its invalidity, pointing out that the same article, even if it stipulates that a claim for invalidity shall not be heard after 15 years have passed from the time the contract was concluded, every He has an interest to argue that the contract is invalid at any time, meaning that the claim for absolute invalidity of the contract is not heard in all cases if 15 years have passed since its conclusion, but the claim of this invalidity is not waived. By statute of limitations, because the invalid contract remains non-existent and does not become valid with time.

He pointed out that the first article of His Highness the Ruler’s instructions regarding lands granted to 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 exceeding three years without the approval of His Highness, and this is what the defendant did not prove. .

Khamis proved that his clients did not know about the sale and assignment contract dated August 2, 1994, on which the respondent relied, except when 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 Entitlement, and not the date of concluding the contract by their father with the defendant, which makes the Court of Appeal’s ruling not to hear the case tainted by an error in applying the law, demanding that this ruling be overturned and the disputed land be handed over. And the compensation for its proceeds during the period of its usurpation by the appellant, estimated at approximately four million 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 preceded the instructions issued by His Highness the Ruler of Dubai on September 2, 1994, published in the Official Gazette on November 18, 1994, regarding the invalidity of land disposal granted to citizens without the permission of His Highness, and that the actions that preceded this date are not subject to invalidation, in implementation of the general rule that legislation does not apply retroactively, however, since If the provisions of these instructions are related to public order, they must be implemented with immediate effect from the date of their implementation, and applied to the effects that result from them, that is, it is not permissible to register or transfer ownership of these lands after this date as long as the contract is not documented or officially registered before that, or proven. The issuance of a special permission from His Highness the Ruler, and this was not achieved in the case even if the contract was valid, because according to Articles 1275 and 1277 of the Civil Transactions Law, and what was decided by the Court of Cassation, ownership of real estate and other real estate rights It shall not be transferred between the contracting parties except by registering the contracts.

The Court of Cassation indicated that Article 1321 of the Civil Transactions Law stipulates that “no one has the right to invoke the passage of time that prevents the hearing of an absolute ownership claim, if he has possession of a property with a deed other than ownership deeds.”

She stressed that the effect of these texts taken 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 prohibiting disposal of them without His Highness’s permission, or after the issuance of the decision, and these contracts are considered to have no effect and lose their status as a title deed. Therefore, the person who seized it may not cling to the passage of time that prevents the hearing of 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 claim the invalidity of the contract, and their request is not subject to the statute of limitations. If the appealed ruling issued by the Court of Appeal violates this view, it is considered defective and requires it to be overturned. Therefore, the court ruled to overturn the ruling and refer the case to the Court of Appeal to decide. In it again.

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