Nullity of Property Transactions Under Jordanian Law: Its Grounds and Its Effect on Ownership
A rightful owner may discover years later that their share in a property was registered in someone else's name through a transaction tainted by a legal defect, and a buyer may discover, on the other side, that the property they paid for and built on has become the subject of a nullity lawsuit filed by someone claiming an earlier right. In Jordan these disputes are governed by the provisions of the Real Estate Ownership Law No. 13 of 2019, alongside the general rules of the Jordanian Civil Code No. 43 of 1976 and its amendments, and the litigation rules of the Civil Procedure Law. The difference between leaving this lawsuit with a property that has been re-registered and leaving it with a cash sum that does not buy today what it bought yesterday is usually decided when the lawsuit is characterized and its requests are drafted from the very first moment, and this is work that should not be left to anyone but a lawyer specializing in property disputes.
1. What Nullity of a Property Transaction Means
Nullity of a property transaction means that the legal disposition produces no effect at all, because it breaches the provisions of the law or because it was made by someone who did not have the right to make it. In practice this appears in disposing of another person's property, in concluding a transaction without the consent of one of the co-owners or heirs who hold rights, and in the presence of a fundamental defect affecting the validity of the disposition itself or the procedures for its registration.
The general rule is that nullity results in returning the contracting parties to the position they were in before the disposition was made, unless this is impossible in law or in fact. However, this general rule is not absolute in property matters.
Degrees of Defect in a Transaction
The Jordanian Civil Code does not stop at a single description of the defect; it distinguishes between degrees whose effects differ markedly, and this is where the seriousness of the characterization begins:
| Point of comparison | Void transaction | Voidable (defective) transaction | Suspended transaction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source of the defect | One of the elements of the contract is missing, or public policy is breached | Lawful in its origin, defective in its attributes | Made by someone without authority to conclude it, such as disposing of another person's property |
| Effect on ownership | It is not formed and does not transfer ownership | It is formed and is subject to rescission | Its effect is suspended pending ratification by the person concerned |
| Who may rely on it | Any interested party | The party for whose benefit the defect is established, depending on the characterization of the facts | The original rightful owner |
| Effect of later ratification | Ratification cannot cure it | Varies with the form of the defect | Ratification cures it, and it takes effect as a result |
| Its impact on the registration transaction | Opens the way to a claim to annul the transaction and what followed from it | Depends on the characterization and the conduct of the contracting parties | The fate of the registration remains dependent on the rightful owner's position |
Determining the degree at which the disposition falls is not a theoretical exercise; it is what shapes the requests in the statement of claim, determines who has standing to sue, and is reflected in the remedy the court ultimately reaches. This determination is one of the first things the lawyer examines on opening the file, before any procedural step.
2. How the Jordanian Legislature Has Dealt With Nullity of Property Dispositions
The Jordanian legislature recognized that applying the traditional rules of nullity to property dispositions could cause widespread disruption to the stability of ownership, especially where the dispute concerns a property whose ownership has passed several times, on which large projects and investments have been built, or on which third parties acting in good faith have acquired rights.
For this reason, Article 13 of the Real Estate Ownership Law provides for a flexible approach that balances protection of the original right against the stability of the land register, rather than giving one absolute priority over the other.
One of the most common misconceptions among rightful owners is that establishing nullity inevitably means the property returns to its owner. The provision did not make re-registration an automatic result of nullity; it made it one of two paths between which the court chooses according to its assessment. That is why a lawsuit built on the assumption that proving the defect is enough to recover the property itself has neglected half of the battle.
3. Limitation Does Not Run Against Registered Property
One of the fundamental principles established by the Real Estate Ownership Law is that the passage of time does not prevent a rightful owner from claiming their rights relating to property registered in the land register. Accordingly, any rightful owner may file a lawsuit seeking to annul dispositions or registration transactions that breach the law, however much time has passed since their registration, provided a legal ground for nullity is established.
The effect of this principle is practical more than theoretical: an heir who discovers twenty years later that their share was registered in someone else's name is not met with the answer that time has closed the door to them.
However, the fact that the right is not lost through limitation does not mean that time works in its holder's favor. The longer the period, the more subsequent dispositions are made on the property, the more third-party rights accumulate on it, and the more the documents and witnesses scatter, until the file reaches a point where re-registration becomes impossible in fact even though the right remains in place in law. This paradox, the survival of the right while the means of recovering the property itself erode, is what makes delay in presenting the file to a specialist lawyer more costly than it first appears.
4. The Court's Power Once Nullity of the Disposition Is Established
If the court finds that the disposition or the registration transaction is void, it balances the right of the original owner on the one hand against the principle of good faith and the stability of property ownership on the other. The legislature gave the court the power to choose one of two solutions, and the difference between them goes to the heart of what the rightful owner comes away with:
| Point of comparison | Annulling the disposition and re-registering | Awarding compensation |
|---|---|---|
| When the court takes this path | When performance in kind is possible | If restoring the previous position is impossible or would harm the stability of ownership and rights acquired in good faith |
| Content of the judgment | Annulling the disposition or the registration transaction and the transactions that followed from it, and re-registering the property or the share awarded in the rightful owner's name | Ordering the party who caused the damage to pay fair compensation to the injured party |
| What goes to the rightful owner | The property itself, with whatever changes it has undergone | The equivalent of the property's real value on the date the lawsuit was filed |
| Focus of the lawyer's work | Proving that performance in kind is possible and tracing the chain of subsequent transactions | Proving that performance in kind is impossible, identifying the party who caused the damage and setting the basis of assessment |
This approach is one expression of a modern legislative policy that protects confidence in the land register without sacrificing the rights of the original owners. Yet what looks like a balance from the legislature's point of view appears, from the litigant's point of view, as a tangible financial difference: compensation remains a cash sum that does not give its holder back a specific piece of land, and its assessment and the limits of the damage it covers are subject to the rules of civil compensation under Jordanian law, rules the lawyer presents to the court in the way that serves the client's position.
Practical note: The court's choice between re-registration and compensation is not an arithmetic exercise but an assessment that changes with the facts of each file: the number of subsequent transactions, the nature of what has been built on the property, and the position of the current possessor. This is why two files that look similar on the surface may end in two different remedies, which calls for reviewing the entire chain of land register entries before setting the requests, or consulting a specialist lawyer.
5. Stopping Dispositions of the Property While the Lawsuit Is Pending
To preserve rights and prevent ownership from passing to third parties while the lawsuit is in progress, the legislature allowed the court to issue a decision prohibiting any disposition of the disputed property at the request of the interested party, and this prohibition continues until a final judgment is issued in the lawsuit.
This measure aims to preserve the legal position of the property and to prevent the dispute from becoming more complicated or new rights from arising that could affect enforcement of the judgment. A property that is disposed of while the lawsuit is pending may reach a stage at which performance in kind becomes impossible, so the claim turns from a claim for the property into a claim for money, without this ever having been the plaintiff's choice.
Assessing whether the file can support a request to prohibit disposition, and when to raise it before the court, is itself a legal point that merits consultation, since the matter varies with the nature of the dispute, the position of the possessor and the degree of risk facing enforcement of the judgment.
6. The Effect of Possession on Registered Property
The Real Estate Ownership Law confirms that ownership of property that has undergone land settlement and been duly registered cannot be acquired through possession, however long it lasts. This rests on the principle of the conclusive force of the land register, which makes the title deed the final reference for proving ownership and real rights, and provides stability and certainty in property transactions.
A consequence follows that many overlook: physical possession of land registered in another person's name does not build a right however long it lasts, and the fact that the possessor built on the land or paid the fees due on it does not change what is entered in the land register. Conversely, this same conclusive force protects the person in whose name the property is registered against anyone claiming an earlier right, unless a legal ground for nullity is established. The means of proof here differ depending on whether or not the property has undergone land settlement, which is set out in a separate article on proving property ownership in Jordan.
7. The Position of the Jordanian Court of Cassation
The case law of the Jordanian Court of Cassation has settled on the need to apply the provisions of Article 13 of the Real Estate Ownership Law in a way that achieves a balance between the protection of ownership, good faith and the stability of transactions.
The Court has affirmed that the judiciary has discretionary authority in choosing the appropriate remedy, whether by re-registering the property when performance in kind is possible, or by awarding compensation when performance in kind becomes impossible in law or in fact.
The Court has also explained that cases of expropriation for public benefit differ from voluntary dispositions, as they are not considered a sale, a gift or an optional disposition, and re-registering the property may therefore be impossible, with compensation being the appropriate legal means of redressing the damage.
Reading this case law against a particular file is delicate work: a decision that on its face seems to support the opponent's position may contain, in its reasoning, something that serves the client. Distinguishing what can be relied on from what cannot, and linking it to the specific facts of the file, is at the core of the work of a lawyer specializing in property disputes.
8. The Importance of the Correct Legal Characterization
Lawsuits for the nullity of property transactions are among the most complex lawsuits, as they involve the interplay of the rules of the Civil Code, the Real Estate Ownership Law and the Civil Procedure Law, in addition to the case law of the Court of Cassation.
For this reason, identifying the ground for nullity, setting out its legal effect, and determining whether performance in kind is possible or whether compensation is the more appropriate solution are a fundamental element in the success of the lawsuit and in securing legal protection for rights.
Among the points the lawyer examines before bringing the lawsuit:
- The chain of entries and transactions recorded on the property since its first registration, to identify where the defect occurred and who acquired rights after it.
- The position of the current possessor and whether good faith exists on their part, since this is one of the things against which the court measures whether performance in kind is possible.
- What has been built on the property in the way of buildings or projects, and the effect of this on the impossibility of restoring the previous position.
- The party from which the error originated, to determine who bears the compensation if re-registration is impossible.
- Drafting the requests in a way that does not close off the alternative remedy to the client if the primary remedy is impossible.
Do not sign any acknowledgment, waiver or settlement relating to a disputed property before showing the documents to a lawyer, since some things signed in good faith are later read as ratification of the defective disposition or as a waiver of a right to performance in kind.
9. Frequently Asked Questions
Is the right to claim nullity of a registration transaction lost through the passage of time?
No. The Real Estate Ownership Law provides that the passage of time does not prevent a rightful owner from claiming their rights relating to registered property, provided a legal ground for nullity is established, however many years have passed since registration.
Can ownership of registered property be acquired through long possession?
No. Ownership of property that has undergone land settlement and been duly registered cannot be acquired through possession, however long it lasts, on the basis of the principle of the conclusive force of the land register.
If nullity is established, does ownership necessarily return to the rightful owner?
Not necessarily. The court may award compensation instead of re-registration if restoring the previous position is impossible or would harm the stability of ownership and rights acquired in good faith.
On what basis is compensation assessed when re-registration is impossible?
The party who caused the damage is ordered to pay fair compensation equal to the property's real value on the date the lawsuit was filed. Setting this basis before the court is one of the points the lawyer gives particular attention to, because of its direct effect on what goes to the client.
Does good faith protect the buyer from a nullity lawsuit?
Good faith is an essential consideration that the court weighs against the original owner's right, but it does not prevent the lawsuit from being heard. Its effect on the outcome varies with the facts of each file and the documents of the transaction, an assessment the lawyer builds after reviewing the chain of entries.
Is expropriation for public benefit treated in the same way as voluntary dispositions?
No. The Court of Cassation has explained that expropriation is not a sale, a gift or an optional disposition, and re-registering the property may be impossible in such a case, so compensation is the appropriate legal means of redressing the damage.
Can dispositions of the property be prohibited while the lawsuit is pending?
The legislature allowed the court to issue a decision prohibiting any disposition of the disputed property at the request of the interested party, and this prohibition continues until a final judgment is issued in the lawsuit.
Legal Consultation
A dispute over the nullity of a property transaction is a heavy file for both of its parties: on one side is the original rightful owner, who may find that their property has passed through a chain of transactions, been built on and become subject to third-party rights; on the other is the possessor or buyer acting in good faith, who faces a lawsuit affecting ownership they paid for and duly registered in their name. What usually decides the outcome is not the strength of the right in the abstract but the precision of the legal characterization and the timing of the procedures, and any mistake in either may turn a right to a specific property into a cash sum assessed as of the date the lawsuit was filed, or miss the opportunity for performance in kind after it had existed. For specialist legal consultation in property disputes and enforcement cases, or to read related material on debt collection in Jordan, arbitration under Jordanian law and the difference between personal and real actions under Jordanian law, you can contact Alabwini Law Firm.
