Judicial principles and studies
Opening or widening a street - source of the claimed right
Settled case law treats harm from opening or widening streets that alters ground level as arising under the Real Property Ownership Law rather than civil torts, and assigns subject-matter jurisdiction to the Court of First Instance.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The issue concerns whether damage caused by opening, widening, reconstructing or paving a road adjacent to a land parcel—where such works lower or raise the free ground level and affect its use—should be treated as a civil tort or as damage arising from expropriation works outside the expropriated area.
Summary
Jurisprudence has settled that these effects are classified as damages resulting from expropriation works outside the expropriated area, and that the right to compensation stems from the Real Property Ownership Law rather than civil tort provisions. As such, these harms fall within Article (190/z) of the Real Property Ownership Law, and the Court of First Instance has subject-matter jurisdiction regardless of the estimated compensation amount pursuant to Article (2) of the same law.
Practical significance
Parties should frame compensation claims under the Real Property Ownership Law when damages arise from adjacent road works that alter ground levels, noting that jurisdiction for such claims lies with the Court of First Instance irrespective of the claimed sum. This content is an educational summary and does not constitute judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.