| Date: |
12/02/2025 |
| Name of listed company |
Al Mazaya Holding Co. K.S.C. P |
| Automated Lawsuit number
Lawsuit Number
|
633/2023 Real Estate (Dubai Courts of First Instance)
380/2024 Real Estate Appeal (Dubai Courts Appeal)
384/2024 Real Estate Appeal (Dubai Courts Appeal)
|
| Subject of the Lawsuit |
Some buyers of real estate units in one of the group’s projects in the Emirate of Dubai filed a lawsuit against the company and one of its subsidiaries in the Emirate of Dubai, demanding the annulment of the reservation forms for the subject real estate units of this lawsuit between the parties, and demanding that the defendants be jointly obliged to refund a total amount of AED 5,530,321 (equivalent to almost KD 462,000), which includes a claim amount of AED 4,030,321 as well as an amount of AED 1,500,000 being a compensation for material and punitive damage in addition to the legal interest of 9% until full payment. |
| The Court Judgement / Verdict date
Court circuit
|
11/02/2025 |
| The name of the Court that issued the Judgement / Verdict |
Court of Cassation |
| Parties of the Lawsuit |
Helen Jane Tatham and Pauline Mary Leale (plaintiffs)
against
Mazaya Real Estate Free Zone LLC and Mazaya Holding (defendants)
|
| The Judgment / Verdict in favor of |
Plaintiffs (Affirmation of the Appeal Judgment) |
| Court of First Instance Judgment / Verdict |
The court ruled in the presence of defendants to oblige them jointly to pay to the plaintiffs an amount of AED 2,944,129.57 (equivalent to almost KD 247,000) and the legal interest thereon at the rate of 5% annually from the date of the judicial claim on 07/06/2023 until full payment in addition to the proportionate legal expenses and a legal fee amounting to AED 1,000,while rejecting all other claims. |
| Court of Appeal Judgment / Verdict |
The court ruled: First, by accepting both appeals in form; second, by rejecting them on the merits, upholding the appealed judgment, and obliging each appellant to bear the costs of their appeal. The court also ordered a set-off of attorney fees and the forfeiture of the security deposit in both appeals. |
| Court of Cassation Judgment / Verdict |
The court ruled: To dismiss appeals numbers 641 and 646 for the year 2024 in the real estate case, and to oblige each appellant to bear the costs of their respective appeal. It also ordered the offsetting of legal fees and the confiscation of the security deposit in both cases. |
| The expected financial impact on the company as a result of the Judgment / Verdict |
The company had booked full provision against the total value of that claim during 2023 (which exceeds the value ruled for the plaintiffs in the court verdict) on the basis of conservatism, and hence, there is no financial impact on the company’s results of operations upon execution of that court verdict. |