In my previous article, I discussed the concept of pre-emption (Shuf’a) and defined it as a legal right restricting a property owner’s ability to sell their property. It allows an adjacent neighbour to replace the buyer by paying the same price. The Qatari Civil Code, in Articles 927 and 933, sets two deadlines for exercising this right: 15 days from the date the neighbour becomes aware of the sale and six months from the date of registration. But which of these deadlines applies if the neighbour was unaware of the sale and more than six months have passed since the contract was registered?
I encountered a similar case in the Qatari courts. A property was sold in March 2022, and the neighbour expressed his desire to exercise the right of pre-emption in February 2023. He claimed he was unaware of the sale and cited Article 927, asserting that he had declared his intention within the 15-day period. The lower court ruled that the right of pre-emption had expired due to the passage of time.
The pre-emptor appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that both the seller and buyer must notify the neighbour of the sale for the six-month deadline stipulated in Article 933 to apply.
We decided to appeal the judgment, mainly because the implementation of the Court of Appeal’s ruling could lead to severe consequences, in my opinion, such as:
First: Notify the neighbour about the sale. If there are multiple adjacent neighbours, which one should be notified?
Second: Undermining confidence in the real estate registration by extending deadlines for the neighbouring pre-emptor to exercise their right of pre-emption simply by claiming they were unaware of the sale. This could lead to instability in real estate transactions, especially considering that property values tend to rise. Imagine a neighbour coming forward ten years after the sale, claiming they were unaware of it—how could they replace the buyer with the amount paid ten years ago?
The legislature has emphasized the authority of what is recorded in the real estate registers, but the Court of Appeal’s ruling effectively nullified any rule of the real estate register.
The scholar Al-Sanhouri addressed a similar situation over 60 years ago, stating: “The deadline begins immediately after the day of registration so that it is not incomplete. The buyer may invoke the expiration of the right of pre-emption, and they only need to prove that the sale was registered and that four months have passed since the registration without the pre-emptor exercising their right. They do not need to prove that the pre-emptor was aware of the sale, as the law presumes, without the possibility of rebuttal, that the pre-emptor knew of the sale as long as it was registered.”
These were our arguments before the Court of Cassation, which accepted them and directly addressed the issue. This direct intervention is an exception to the general rule that prevents the Court of Cassation from ruling on the case’s merits, as it is not a third level of litigation.
The Court of Cassation’s direct intervention was due to the clear nature of the disputed issue. It upheld the lower court’s ruling and overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision.
In conclusion, the rules of pre-emption are specific provisions that deviate from general principles. Therefore, the legislature sought to limit this right to prevent it from becoming a tool to restrict the property owner’s right to dispose of their property. These rules were confined to specific procedures and deadlines. Some legal scholars have aptly described the right of pre-emption as unwelcome, much like divorce!
