How a land dispute in Shymkent became the reason for a protracted trial
Land disputes often lead to lengthy court proceedings and become materials for detailed reviews of events in Kazakhstan, especially when large sums and interests of various parties are at stake. One of these cases attracted the attention of the general public and was the subject of a hearing in the Shymkent Court of Appeal.
The trial centered on a plot of land on Kunaev Avenue, which was put up for auction after being secured by a bank. The issue of the legality of the sale, as well as the authenticity of the documents related to this site, became the reason for the protracted proceedings. We are talking about a dispute between the former owner of the land and the new owner, as well as the bank that secured the collateral.
History of the conflict: Who is right in the bail dispute?
In 2024, citizen A. Zh. won an electronic auction for the purchase of a land plot located in Shymkent. The land was put up for auction due to the debts of its previous owner. In March of the same year, after winning the auction, A. Zh. transferred an amount equivalent to 817 million tenge and signed a purchase and sale agreement with the bank, which became the legal owner of the property.
However, soon the former owner of the land, a citizen of the U.
S., filed a lawsuit with the court, stating that she had not consented to the pledge of her land. She claimed that she had not signed any documents regarding the bail. In response, the court of first instance reviewed old documents that confirmed that U.
S. had indeed pledged the land. The documents were notarized, and the woman herself confirmed their authenticity during the trial. The main factors that caused the dispute:
- The pledge agreement signed by U.
S. in 2018.
- The documentary confirmation of the pledge of the land from the bank.
- The statute of limitations expired in 2021, but the lawsuit was filed only in 2024.
Problems with the examination and appeal
However, the most controversial point arose during the forensic handwriting examination. The court of first instance accepted the results of the examination, which partially satisfied the requirements of U.
S., despite the statement that important aspects were not taken into account in the examination. The appellant, the new owner of the site, drew attention to several violations that could affect the results of the examination. Arguments of the appeal:
- Violations during the examination of handwriting.
- Application of the limitation period.
- Recognition of U. S. notarial consent to the pledge.
In addition, the appeal raised questions about possible errors by the judge of the first instance and his alleged bias. A. Zh. argued that the court did not take into account all the facts and did not take into account all the petitions of the bank.