Real Estate Dispute Over Villa Location and Market Value

This case involves a claim for compensation due to an alleged discrepancy between the agreed-upon and delivered location of a real estate unit, resulting in a claimed loss of market value.

📋 Case Background

The Appellant (purchaser) filed a lawsuit against the Respondent (seller), seeking compensation of AED 749,168.00. The Appellant claimed this amount represented the difference in market value between a 'first-row' residential unit, which he alleged was contracted for, and the 'second-row' unit that was actually delivered in a project in Abu Dhabi. The claim was based on a sale and purchase agreement dated May 29, 2021.

The Appellant argued that the change in the unit's location from the first to the second row diminished its investment value. He calculated the market price of a first-row unit at AED 5,618,760.00, while the delivered second-row unit was valued at AED 4,869,592.00, leading to the claimed difference.

Procedural History

• Court of First Instance (Case No. 2698/2025): On November 7, 2024, the court dismissed the lawsuit.

• Court of Appeal (Case No. 1159/2025): The Appellant appealed the initial judgment. On December 11, 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal.

• Court of Cassation (Current Appeal): The Appellant challenged the appellate court's decision, leading to the present cassation proceedings.

⚖️ Legal Analysis and Court's Reasoning

The Court of Cassation reviewed the Appellant's grounds for appeal, which primarily argued that the lower courts erred by failing to appoint a technical expert to assess the property's design and value, and by misinterpreting the contractual obligations.

The court based its reasoning on established legal principles:

• Burden of Proof: Citing Article 1 of the Law of Evidence and Articles 113 and 118 of the Civil Transactions Law, the court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. The claimant must substantiate their claim, as the default assumption is the absence of liability.

• Court's Discretion: The trial court has the full authority to interpret contracts and assess evidence to understand the parties' intent and determine if a contractual breach occurred. The appointment of an expert is at the court's discretion and not an obligation if the existing evidence is sufficient to form a judgment.

Key Findings

Upon examining the sale and purchase agreement, the Court of Cassation found that the contract specified the villa number and the project name but contained no clause, condition, or description indicating that the villa was to be located in the 'first row' or adjacent to a green area. The Appellant's entire claim rested on this alleged condition, for which he provided no contractual evidence.

The court concluded that the Respondent had fulfilled all its contractual obligations by delivering the specified villa and registering it in the Appellant's name. Since there was no contractual term stipulating a 'first-row' location, there was no breach of contract by the Respondent. The Appellant's claim was deemed an unsubstantiated assertion.

Therefore, with no contractual fault established, the essential elements for liability (fault, damage, and causation) were not met, and the claim for compensation was unfounded. The court affirmed that the lower courts' refusal to appoint an expert was justified as the contract's clear terms were sufficient to decide the case.

⚡ Final Judgment

The Court of Cassation ruled as follows:

Verdict

The court dismissed the appeal as it was based on meritless grounds.

Orders

• The Appellant is ordered to pay all court fees and expenses.

• The Appellant is ordered to pay AED 1,000 in attorney's fees to the Respondent.

• The security deposit for the appeal is to be confiscated.