The discussion on the question of whether Jareis still has rights, from which Haj can derive rights under the sale agreement, should be divided into several stages: The first stage is a discussion of the question of competition between Hajj and Munir's claims, according to which there is a reckoning between him and the other brothers. This includes a hearing on the claim that Munir sold rights to third parties forand for Jerais, and that Munir is supposed to receive rights in kind from Jerais's share. In the second stage, the question of competition between Hajj's rights and the Council's alleged rights on the roads, whether statutory or private roads, will be discussed. I will discuss later whether the agreement between Jarays and Hajj can be enforced in the near future. Before I hold a discussion of these two issues, I will preface and rule on the preliminary arguments according to which all the necessary parties were not added to the disputes before me, as well as to the consequences of the judgments that were given in the previous proceeding.
Failure to Join Required Parties
- The case came to me for a judgment in early May 2025 after the parties submitted their summaries. At that stage, I decided to hold an additional and separate hearing on the grounds that all the necessary parties had not been joined, and that they were the other registered owners of the plot. After hearing the arguments of the parties, I decided on June 16, 2025, that the plaintiff must amend the statement of claim, by adding all the registered owners of the plot, if only for the reason that the plaintiff's claims against the council in everything related to the private road can have an impact on the issue of ownership in the same way. After amending the statement of claim, some of the defendants announced that they were leaving the decision in the claim to my discretion, after it was clarified that the judgment that would be given would not affect their rights registered with the Land Registry Office.
With the exception of defendants 15-16, 19 and defendant 28, who responded to the amended claim, the other defendants did not file a statement of defense.