Civil Case (Jerusalem) 50032-12-23 Hussein Abd al-Qader v. Nasser Garala - part 2

Each party shall pay the taxes applicable to it by law.

If the defendants do not pay the agreed consideration, then this will be considered an admission by the defendants of the plaintiff's claims in this suit.

The plaintiff will produce the documents regarding the rights within six months. Failure to produce the documents is not a breach but a failure to implement the agreement."

3. Following these agreements, the defendant's counsel (the plaintiff in the previous proceeding) approached the Chairman of the Jerusalem District Committee of the Israel Bar Association for the purpose of appointing an appraiser. On May 31, 2023, the agreed appraiser, Mr. Yaakov Beer (hereinafter: "the appraiser") was appointed for the purpose of determining the value of the rights. On June 4, 2023, the defendant's attorney sent an email to the appraiser Shmona, in which he detailed the essence of the appraisal – "determining the value of the rights sold as an empty area".
4. On the same day, the appraiser received a letter of consent for the appointment.
5. On June 15, 2023, the appraiser announced that he had received documents from the defendant's attorney (registration and registration documents) and that the parties would announce whether they wished to transfer additional documents.
6. On June 19, 2023, the defendant's counsel sent a letter to the appraiser in which he informed the appraiser that "on Mr. Nasser's part, it seems to me on the face of it that all the documents have been forwarded to you. " The defendant also clarified that the appraiser's fees, as raised by the appraiser, are acceptable to him.
7. On June 20, 2023, the plaintiffs' counsel contacted the appraiser and asked to correspond with him by means of another email that was given to the appraiser. Accordingly, the appraiser sent the plaintiffs' attorney his last letter.
8. On June 21, 2023, the appraiser sent a reminder to the plaintiffs' attorney. On June 28, 2023, a second reminder was sent to the plaintiffs' attorney, in which the appraiser clarified that "if I do not receive a response by the end of this week, I will be forced to inform the court that I do not receive cooperation from the defendants. (I will reiterate that the defendants in the previous proceeding are the plaintiffs in this proceeding).
9. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916On July 2, 2023, the appraiser sent another letter in which he clarified that he was not receiving a response from the plaintiffs' attorney (the defendants in the previous proceeding).

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)

10. On November 8, 2023, counsel for the plaintiffs sent a notice to the appraiser, explaining that he had tried to contact him several times and that he wanted to hand over to him the check for the fees he had received from his clients.
11. On the same day, counsel for the defendant replied that "since the date has passed, my client objects to accepting the transfer of the venue of the hearing and therefore irrelevant."
12. Against the background of the aforesaid, the claim before me was filed on December 24, 2023, in which the plaintiffs petition for enforcement of the agreement. The defendant, on the other hand, claims that the plaintiffs did not act in accordance with the timetables set out in the agreement, and therefore the right to purchase expired after the allotted time had passed.

The plaintiffs' arguments in brief

13. According to the plaintiffs, at the evidentiary hearing in the previous proceeding, which took place on March 12, 2023, the parties reached a valid and binding agreement that received the force of a judgment. According to the plaintiffs' position, the essence of the agreement is to grant them the right to purchase the rights of Muhammad Hussam (Hussam) al-Din Muhammad Jar Allah and Ibrahim Hussam (Hussam) al-Din Muhammad Jar Allah (the defendant's father and uncle) in the land.
14. According to them, the agreement imposed a clear obligation on the defendant to produce the registration documents of the rights within six months for the purpose of transferring his father's and uncle's parts in the land registry.

The plaintiffs claim that the agreement that was entered into has two independent stages that are independent of each other in a way that cancels the transaction – the appraiser's stage and the purchase stage. In accordance with the agreement, and since the parties did not reach an agreement, the appraiser was appointed, whose job it was to assess the value of the rights as vacant land according to the documents that would be placed before him, even if they were not ideal.

15. The plaintiffs clarify that after the appraiser contacted the parties at the beginning of July 2023, their attorney contacted him by phone several times and asked to transfer his salary to him, but the appraiser was on vacation and did not respond to the plaintiffs' attorney's inquiries. After the telephone requests were not answered, the plaintiffs' attorney emailed the appraiser in November 2023 and was surprised to receive the plaintiff's attorney's reply, according to which the deadline had passed. Following these words, the appraiser stopped his work.
16. The plaintiffs are of the opinion that the agreement should be enforced and the appraiser should be allowed to carry out his work.
17. The plaintiffs claim that they were the ones who acted to promote the agreement, while the defendant was the one who torpedoed it, and therefore refer to all the correspondence that the appraiser submitted to the case on January 26, 2025. They further claim that the defendant is now silenced from claiming that the agreement expired after he had already begun to execute it with the appraiser.

The defendant's arguments

18. The defendant petitioned to dismiss the claim in limine or on its merits, arguing that the present claim is a frivolous claim that does not constitute any agreement that can be enforced. The defendant admits that he filed the previous lawsuit against the plaintiffs for unlawful invasion and takeover of land that he partially owns, but emphasizes that the judgment given in the previous proceeding was only for deletion and does not give judicial validity to the agreements.
19. The defendant argues that the procedural agreements of March 12, 2023, are a temporary and non-binding "option" for the purchase of the land, which was limited to a period of six months until September 11, 2023. The defendant relies on the sentence formulated in the agreement, according to which "failure to produce the documents is not a breach but a failure to implement the agreement," and argues that the parties chose these words consciously and with legal advice, so that if the documents are not produced within six months, the agreement will expire without it being considered a breach.
20. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs were the ones who deliberately neglected and torpedoed the appraisal process and did not cooperate with the agreed appraiser for many months. The defendant refers to the appraiser's letters of June 28, 2023 (Appendix 8 to the statement of defense) and July 2, 2023 (Appendix 2 to the statement of claim), in which the appraiser warned that he did not receive any response or cooperation from the plaintiffs. The defendant vehemently rejects the plaintiffs' claim regarding "unused email", and clarifies that this is an excuse, since the plaintiffs' attorney made active use of the email address in question.
21. The defendant clarifies that since the plaintiffs did not comply with the provisions of the agreement and there is no guarantee that they will ever comply with the agreement, it would be useless to try and implement the agreement. Therefore, he announced that since the dates specified in the agreement had passed, he was no longer interested in its realization.
22. The defendant emphasizes that he acted to implement the agreements, found an appraiser, acted to produce documents, while the plaintiffs showed complete disregard, did not cooperate in the appraisal process, and therefore since the plaintiffs abandoned the issue of the purchase of the land, he relied on it in good faith. In view of the above, according to him, it is not possible to act to enforce the agreement today (paragraphs 26-28 of the statement of defense).
23. The defendant emphasizes that once the six-month period has passed and the plaintiffs have not paid the consideration, a clause came into effect stating that the failure to pay the consideration constitutes an admission by the plaintiffs of his claims in the previous lawsuit. Therefore, according to him, the plaintiffs admit that they illegally invaded the land and therefore they must vacate it immediately and pay proper usage fees as of February 9, 2019.

Discussion and Decision