APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT

Home / Forms / APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT

APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT

6 October 2026

APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT

To the Civil Cases Judicial Panelof the Almaty Regional Court
From the Defendant: N.A.B.
IIN: ....
+7 775 ....
Authorized Representative, Attorney-at-Law:Galymzhan Turlybekovich Sarzhanov
Law Office “Zan zhane Kұқық” (“Law and Justice”)
BIN 201240021767
Republic of Kazakhstan, 050002, Almaty,Almaly District, 79/71 Abylai Khan Avenue, Office 304
info@zakonpravo.kz www.zakonpravo.kz
Tel.: +7 708 578 57 58 / +7 727 978 57 55
APPEAL
against the Judgment of the Karasay District Court of the Almaty Region dated 26 March 2026
On 26 March 2026 (the date on which the judgment was issued in final form being 12 April 2026), the Karasay District Court of the Almaty Region, composed of Presiding Judge Zh.G. Zhumadilova, with the participation of the Plaintiff’s representative A.K. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), Defendant N.A.B. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”), and the Defendant’s representative G.T. Sarzhanov, having considered Civil Case No. 1952-25-00-2/5853 concerning the claim for the compulsory alienation (purchase) of a land plot or other immovable property for state needs, and guided by Articles 223–226 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, ruled as follows:
The claim of the Akim of Karasay District against Defendant N.A.B. for the compulsory alienation (purchase) of a land plot or other immovable property for state needs shall be partially satisfied.
The land plot with a total area of 0.0600 hectares, belonging to N.A.B., located at: Almaty Region, Karasay District, Irgeli Rural District, Koksay Village, Quarter 13, 26/39, cadastral number 03-047-097-2557, together with the residential house, canopy, trestle bed/platform (topchan), outdoor toilet and green spaces located thereon, shall be compulsorily alienated for state needs.
The amount of compensation for the land plot belonging to N.A.B., with a total area of 0.0600 hectares, located at: Almaty Region, Karasay District, Irgeli Rural District, Koksay Village, Quarter 13, 26/39, cadastral number 03-047-097-2557, together with the registered residential house, canopy, trestle bed/platform (topchan), fence and green spaces (apple trees, grapes, four lilac trees and roses) located thereon, shall be determined in the amount of KZT 52,490,624 (fifty-two million four hundred ninety thousand six hundred twenty-four).
The claim shall be dismissed in the remaining part.
Upon payment of the compensation, the private ownership rights of N.A.B. to the land plot with a total area of 0.0600 hectares, located at: Almaty Region, Karasay District, Irgeli Rural District, Koksay Village, Quarter 13, 26/39, cadastral number 03-047-097-2557, together with the registered residential house, canopy, trestle bed/platform (topchan), fence and green spaces located thereon, shall be terminated.
KZT 3,932 (three thousand nine hundred thirty-two) shall be recovered from N.A.B. in favor of the State as a state duty.
KZT 131,403.02 (one hundred thirty-one thousand four hundred three tenge and 02 tiyn) in expert examination costs shall be recovered from N.A.B. in favor of the State.
We consider the judgment of the court of first instance to be unlawful and unfounded for the following reasons.
Pursuant to Article 223 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (the “CPC”), a judicial act of the court of first instance resolving a case on its merits shall be issued in the form of a judgment. The judgment in its final form must be prepared no later than five working days after the announcement of the operative part of the judgment.
However, the above provision was violated, since the judgment was announced on 26 March 2026, whereas the judgment in its final form was issued only on 12 April 2026.
The court stated in its judgment that Defendant N.A.B. is the owner of the land plot with an area of 0.0600 hectares and the residential house located thereon with an area of 153.0 sq. m.
The judgment further states that, for the construction of the “Ryskulov” motorway, based on the documents submitted by the State Institution “Department of Passenger Transport and Highways of the Almaty Region”, as well as the explication and cartographic materials provided by a branch of the “Government for Citizens” State Corporation, the Akimat of Karasay District adopted Resolution No. 232 dated 18 July 2019 “On the compulsory alienation of land plots for state needs, including by way of purchase”.
There are no available free land plots in the territory of Karasay District; therefore, it is impossible to provide the Defendant with an equivalent land plot.
In this regard, the Plaintiff conducted an appraisal of the disputed land plot. According to the Real Estate Appraisal Report of “Dom Otsenki” LLP dated 17 October 2025 No. 1480/25/ALM-68, the market value of the land plot and residential house subject to purchase amounted to KZT 46,045,700.
Since the Defendant disagreed with the said appraised value, the Plaintiff requested the compulsory alienation of the land plot belonging to the Defendant based on the above valuation.
The Defendant did not submit a written response to the court.
The court also stated in its judgment that the Defendant requested the court to appoint a forensic commodity examination for the purpose of determining the market value of the land plot belonging to him.
On 30 January 2026, the court issued a ruling appointing a forensic commodity examination.
According to Expert Report No. 4027 dated 3 March 2026 issued by an expert of the Almaty Institute of Forensic Examinations of the Republican State Enterprise on the Right of Economic Management “Center for Forensic Examinations of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, the market value of the land plot belonging to the Defendant, the residential house, canopy, trestle bed/platform (topchan), outdoor toilet, fence and green spaces located thereon could amount to KZT 52,490,624.
At the court hearing, the Defendant and his representative partially agreed with the claim, while disagreeing in full with the market value of the land plot and residential house stated in the Plaintiff’s appraisal report. They stated that they disagreed with the forensic expert opinion and supported the appraisal report submitted by the Defendant.
On this basis, the court reached its conclusion.
Pursuant to Article 224 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a court judgment must be lawful and well-founded and must be based only on the evidence submitted by the parties and examined at the court hearing.
In its judgment, the presiding judge stated that:
the Defendant had not submitted a written response to the court;
at the court hearing, the Defendant requested the appointment of a forensic commodity examination for the purpose of determining the market value of the land plot belonging to him.
These findings are unfounded.
During the court proceedings, at the stage of the preliminary court hearing, the Defendant and his legal representative submitted a response to the statement of claim through the “Judicial Office” system on 12 March 2026 at 11:28, document No. 191952907011824.
The following documents were attached to the response:
Conclusion of Specialists No. 2 of “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP dated 23 January 2026;
Valuation Report No. 413 of “Assessment Group ‘Bakyt’” LLP dated 2 December 2025.
The above documents were also sent to the group created through the WhatsApp application and were announced during the court hearing and brought to the attention of the court.
Furthermore, during the court proceedings, the Defendant and his legal representative submitted an application to the court through the “Judicial Office” system on 29 January 2026, document No. 191952906805426, requesting that the following documents be admitted to the case file as additional evidence:
Conclusion of Specialists No. 2 of “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP dated 23 January 2026;
Valuation Report No. 413 of “Assessment Group ‘Bakyt’” LLP dated 2 December 2025.
One of the clearly unreasonable aspects of the case is the court’s statement that the Defendant requested the appointment of a forensic commodity examination for the purpose of determining the market value of his land plot. This statement has no basis whatsoever and is false.
During the court hearing, since the Defendant had submitted his own commission-based expert opinion to the court, the Defendant’s side categorically objected to the appointment of any additional examination and requested that the court refrain from appointing an additional examination.
Pursuant to Article 226 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a court judgment consists of introductory, descriptive, reasoning and operative parts. The descriptive part of the judgment shall contain a brief summary of the Plaintiff’s claims, the Defendant’s explanations and the explanations of third parties participating in the case, together with the evidence on which they base their arguments.
The court grossly violated the above provision, since, despite the documents having been duly submitted in accordance with the law, it stated information that did not correspond to reality, attributed statements to the Defendant that he had never made, and deliberately failed to reflect and assess the evidence submitted by the Defendant in the descriptive and reasoning parts of the judgment.
Circumstances of the civil case considered by the court of first instance
Since there were no available free land plots in the territory of Karasay District and it was therefore impossible to provide the Defendant with an equivalent land plot, the Plaintiff relied on the Real Estate Appraisal Report of “Dom Otsenki” LLP dated 17 October 2025 No. 1480/25/ALM-68, according to which the market value of the land plot subject to purchase amounted to KZT 46,045,700.
On this basis, the Plaintiff requested the court to order the compulsory alienation (purchase) of the land plot for state needs, determine its value, and establish the value of the alienated land plot at KZT 46,045,700.
We disagree with the Plaintiff’s request to determine the value of the land plot at KZT 46,045,700 for the following reasons.
Pursuant to Articles 4–6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Constitution has the highest legal force and has direct effect throughout the territory of the Republic, and private property is recognized and equally protected.
Article 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides that no one may be deprived of his or her property except by a court decision. Compulsory alienation of property for state needs in exceptional cases provided for by law may be carried out subject to equivalent compensation for its value.
Pursuant to Article 257 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, upon termination of ownership rights, unless otherwise provided by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the value of property shall be determined based on its market value.
Taking the above into account, the Defendant submitted Valuation Report No. 413 dated 2 December 2025 prepared by “Assessment Group ‘Bakyt’” LLP concerning the market value of the house with the land plot located at: Almaty Region, Karasay District, Irgeli Rural District, Koksay Village, Quarter 13, 26/39, in connection with compulsory alienation for state needs. According to the report, the property was valued at KZT 100,640,000.
The Defendant, in order to assist the court in determining the objective value of the property, submitted the following documents:
the appraisal report submitted by the Plaintiff — “Dom Otsenki” LLP, dated 17 October 2025: KZT 46,045,700;
the valuation report submitted by the Defendant — “Assessment Group ‘Bakyt’” LLP, Report No. 413 dated 2 December 2025: KZT 100,640,000.
Due to the substantial discrepancy between the above valuations, and pursuant to Article 88 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, according to which an expert examination may be conducted by a single expert or by a commission of experts, while a commission examination is appointed where complex expert studies are required and is conducted by at least two experts of the same specialty, the Defendant applied to “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP requesting a commission-based specialized construction and commodity examination.
The examination was conducted by the following specialists:
Tatyana Yuryevna Tsoy, holder of Qualification Certificate No. 318 dated 28 March 2003, issued by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan authorizing the performance of forensic examinations in specialty 10.4 “Forensic Construction and Commodity Examination”, with 28 years of expert work experience, including experience in forensic examination bodies;
Gulnaz Tursynkyzy Alayeva, holder of Qualification Certificate No. 316 dated 28 March 2003, issued by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan authorizing the performance of forensic examinations in specialty 10.4 “Forensic Construction and Commodity Examination”, with 32 years of expert work experience, including experience in forensic examination bodies.
On 23 January 2026, “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP issued Conclusion of Specialists No. 2, in which the specialists were asked the following questions:
What is the market value, excluding structures, of the land plot located at: Almaty City, Karasay District, Irgeli Rural District, Koksay Village, Quarter 13, Street 26/39?
What is the market value of the residential house, utility and other structures, as well as the fencing?
What is the market value of the green spaces located on the land plot at the above address?
What is the amount of potential expenses associated with the taking of the immovable property located at the above address?
The specialists reached the following conclusions:
The market value, as of the date of the examination, of the land plot excluding structures, located at the above address, may amount to KZT 20,916,000.
The market value, as of the date of the examination, of the residential house, utility and other structures, as well as the fencing, may amount to KZT 53,512,196.
The market value, as of the date of the examination, of the green spaces located on the land plot may amount to KZT 291,486.
The amount of potential expenses (losses) associated with the taking of the immovable property, as of the date of the examination, may amount to KZT 1,064,678.
Total: KZT 75,784,360.
On 30 January 2026, in the civil case concerning the claim of the Akim of Karasay District against Defendant N.A.B. for the compulsory alienation of the land plot for state needs, the court issued a ruling appointing a forensic commodity examination.
The examination was entrusted to experts of the Almaty Institute of Forensic Examinations of the Republican State Enterprise on the Right of Economic Management “Center for Forensic Examinations of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan”.
The following question was submitted to the experts:
What is the market value of the land plot with a total area of 0.0600 hectares, located in the Irgeli Rural District of Karasay District, Almaty Region, cadastral number 03-047-097-2557, together with the fencing, residential house (153 sq. m), outdoor toilet, trestle bed/platform (topchan), canopy and planted vegetation (rose bushes and thuja trees) located thereon?
According to Expert Report No. 4027 dated 3 March 2026 of the Republican State Enterprise on the Right of Economic Management “Center for Forensic Examinations of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Institute of Forensic Examinations of the City of Almaty”, expert A.G. Zholseitova concluded that the market value of the fencing, residential house (153 sq. m), outdoor toilet, trestle bed/platform (topchan), canopy and planted vegetation (rose bushes and thuja trees) located on the land plot may amount to KZT 52,490,624.
Pursuant to paragraph 8 of Chapter 2 of the Valuation Standards approved by Order No. 519 of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 5 May 2018, the following sequence of actions shall be applied to determine the value of a real estate property using the comparative analysis method.
Methods of the comparative approach:
comparative analysis method — determination of value by comparing recent sales and asking prices of properties comparable to the property being valued, after making appropriate adjustments that take into account the differences between them;
market information method — determination of the value of movable property using information on asking prices published in price lists of manufacturing plants, dealers or other sources of information on asking prices;
statistical modeling method — treating the property being valued as a representative of a certain set of homogeneous properties for which prices are known, although no exact comparable exists within that set. After bringing the prices of comparable properties to uniform conditions by making adjustments, a mathematical model of the dependence of price on one or more parameters is developed using statistical methods based on information about comparable properties included in such set;
correlation model method — a mathematical model of the dependence of price on one or more parameters. Under this model, the estimated value of the property is determined taking into account the parameters of each of the properties being valued.
At the same time, the report under consideration does not provide justification for the adjustments (adjustment coefficients) used in calculating the value under the comparative approach.
Furthermore, in accordance with the requirements of the valuation standard, the report does not contain a detailed calculation of the value of the property and is limited to the data presented in the tabular section of the report, which constitutes a violation of the valuation standards.
When determining the final value, there is no justification for the weighting coefficients assigned to the results obtained using the comparative method, and the hierarchy analysis method recommended in methodological literature was not applied.
Failure to Determine the Losses Caused to the Owner
No assessment of the losses caused to the owner of the residential house and land plot was conducted.
Pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 9 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and paragraph 4 of Article 67 of the Law “On State Property”, the losses caused must be compensated in full.
Losses caused in connection with the taking of a residential house and land plot include expenses incurred or to be incurred by the person whose ownership right has been violated (actual damage), as well as income that such person could have received under normal conditions of civil circulation but did not receive because his or her ownership right was violated (lost profit).
Calculation of Actual Damage
Actual damage means expenses incurred or to be incurred by the person whose ownership right has been violated as a result of the taking of property for state needs.
The amount of actual damage is determined on the basis of payment documents submitted by the owner, and in their absence, based on average market prices for similar expenses.
Actual damage includes:
expenses associated with relocation to a new place;
expenses associated with registration of rights to a new real estate property;
expenses associated with realtor services;
expenses associated with renting property during the period of searching for replacement real estate (temporary storage of property);
attorney’s (lawyer’s) fees, which constitute expenses borne by the owner.
Pursuant to paragraph 13 of Regulatory Resolution No. 8 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 25 December 2006 “On Certain Issues of Application by Courts of Legislation on Compulsory Alienation of Land Plots for State Needs”, when resolving disputes concerning the determination of the amount of monetary compensation, courts shall resolve all issues concerning compensation for losses caused to the owner by termination of ownership rights in connection with the compulsory alienation of a land plot for state needs. In this regard, except for the cases provided for by paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law “On State Property”, the property shall be valued based on its market value.
The court failed to resolve the issue of expenses/losses incurred by the Defendant in connection with the compulsory alienation of the property and failed to provide any legal assessment of this issue in its judgment.
According to the Real Estate Appraisal Report of “Dom Otsenki” LLP No. 1480/25/ALM-68 dated 17 October 2025, the market value of the land plot subject to purchase is KZT 46,045,700.
According to Expert Report No. 4027 of the Republican State Enterprise on the Right of Economic Management “Center for Forensic Examinations of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Institute of Forensic Examinations of the City of Almaty” dated 3 March 2026, the market value is KZT 52,490,624.
The above circumstances were not taken into account in the conclusions of the expert/specialist. The valuation of the market value of the land plot and residential property was carried out with numerous, including gross, violations concerning the selection of comparable properties and the application of the calculation methodology.
As a result, the two conclusions — KZT 46,045,700 and KZT 52,490,624 — cannot be used as an evidentiary basis, since the calculations contain material indications of unreliability.
Dear Court, we disagree with the Real Estate Appraisal Report of “Dom Otsenki” LLP No. 1480/25/ALM-68 dated 17 October 2025 and Expert Report No. 4027 of the Republican State Enterprise on the Right of Economic Management “Center for Forensic Examinations of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Institute of Forensic Examinations of the City of Almaty” dated 3 March 2026, as we consider that the valuation contained therein was performed improperly and objectively inadequately.
The fundamental principles of valuation activity are objectivity and reliability. However, these principles were not complied with in conducting the valuation.
The identified violations directly affect the Defendant’s interests, since the valuation concerns privately owned property and is connected with the compulsory termination of ownership rights and eviction from the residential house for state needs.
Furthermore, in accordance with the requirements of the valuation standards, neither the report of “Dom Otsenki” LLP No. 1480/25/ALM-68 dated 17 October 2025 nor Expert Report No. 4027 dated 3 March 2026 contains a detailed calculation of the value of the property; the reports are limited to the information contained in the calculation tables, which constitutes a violation of the valuation standards.
There is no justification for the weighting coefficients assigned to the results obtained using the comparative method, nor was the hierarchy analysis method recommended by methodological literature applied.
The areas of the land plots and residential properties selected by the expert as comparable properties are completely incomparable with the area of the Defendant’s land plot and residential property, since the selected comparable properties are significantly smaller in size.
It should be noted that the market is sufficiently large and contains dozens of offers for the sale of land plots.
It is well known that the area in which the Defendant’s residential property is located is considered one of the more comfortable and prestigious residential areas.
However, unfortunately, the appraiser indicated an understated value when determining the value of the property subject to alienation.
Accordingly, the Defendant submitted the following documents to the court:
Valuation Report No. 413 dated 2 December 2025 concerning the market value of the house: KZT 100,640,000;
Conclusion of Specialists No. 2 of “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP dated 23 January 2026: KZT 75,784,360.
We consider this valuation report to be reliable and fair and the market value stated therein to correspond to the actual market value of the real estate subject to alienation.
Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On State Property”, the value of a land plot alienated for state needs, as well as the value of real estate located on such land plot, shall be determined in the amount of their market value, regardless of the grounds on which the rights to the land plot arose.
Pursuant to the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Valuation Activities”, market value means the most probable price at which an asset may be alienated in a transaction under competitive conditions.
At the same time, the actual market price may be determined only where neither party to the transaction is obliged to sell or purchase the property and neither party is subject to coercion to enter into the transaction.
Dear Court, the Defendant’s family had made plans concerning this land plot, invested substantial funds in the real estate, and for a long period incurred expenses for the development of the infrastructure of the land plot.
The actions of the Plaintiff caused significant moral harm to the Defendant’s family and disrupted their established way of life.
Pursuant to Article 255 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, termination of ownership of immovable property on the basis of a decision of a state body not directly aimed at taking the property from the owner, including a decision to take a land plot on which a house, other structures, buildings or plantings belonging to the owner are located, shall be permitted only in the cases and in accordance with the procedure established by legislative acts, by providing the owner with equivalent property and compensation for other losses caused, or by full compensation for all losses caused by termination of ownership rights.
If the owner disagrees with the decision resulting in termination of ownership rights, such decision may not be implemented until the dispute has been resolved by a court.
When considering such dispute, the issue of compensation for all losses caused to the owner shall also be resolved.
Based on the above arguments:
Valuation Report No. 413 dated 2 December 2025 concerning the market value of the house — KZT 100,640,000;
Conclusion of Specialists No. 2 of “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP dated 23 January 2026 — KZT 75,784,360,
the amount stated in the latter conclusion should be accepted as the fair market value of the real estate subject to alienation.
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, actions of individuals and legal entities aimed at causing harm to another person, other abuse of rights, as well as the exercise of rights contrary to their purpose, are not permitted. No person may derive an advantage from his or her own bad-faith conduct.
Pursuant to Article 68 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, each item of evidence shall be assessed in terms of its relevance, admissibility and reliability, while the body of evidence collected shall be assessed in terms of its sufficiency for resolving the civil case.
However, in the present civil case, the Real Estate Appraisal Report of “Dom Otsenki” LLP No. 1480/25/ALM-68 dated 17 October 2025 and Expert Report No. 4027 dated 3 March 2026 of the Republican State Enterprise on the Right of Economic Management “Center for Forensic Examinations of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Institute of Forensic Examinations of the City of Almaty” cannot be regarded as proper and reliable evidence.
Pursuant to Article 72 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis of its claims and objections.
However, the Plaintiff has failed to properly comply with this requirement in the statement of claim.
Pursuant to Article 73 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, “Submission of Evidence”, evidence shall be submitted by the parties and other persons participating in the case to the court of first instance at the stage of preparation of the case for trial.
Pursuant to Article 8 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, everyone has the right to apply to a court for protection of violated or disputed constitutional rights, freedoms and legally protected interests.
Pursuant to Article 15 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the parties to civil proceedings independently choose their position and the methods and means of defending it, independently of the court and other bodies and persons.
Expenses related to the payment of attorney’s (lawyer’s) services constitute expenses incurred by the owner.
Pursuant to Article 109 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, “Allocation of Court Costs between the Parties”, the court shall award to the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered all court costs incurred in the case against the other party.
Where a claim is partially satisfied, costs shall be awarded to the Plaintiff in proportion to the amount of the claims satisfied by the court and to the Defendant in proportion to the part of the claims in respect of which the Plaintiff was denied relief.
Pursuant to Article 113 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, upon the application of the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered, the court shall recover from the other party the costs of paying for the assistance of a representative who participated in the proceedings and was not employed by that party, in the amount of the actual expenses incurred by the party.
For claims of a property nature, the total amount of such costs may not exceed ten percent of the satisfied portion of the claim. For claims of a non-property nature, the amount of costs shall be recovered within reasonable limits, but may not exceed three hundred monthly calculation indices.
On the basis of the above provision, the Defendant retained the services of the Law Office “Zan zhane Kұқық” and entered into Agreement No. 0312/22, paying KZT 700,000 to the law office’s bank account.
The Agreement and the receipt issued by the Kaspi Pay application are submitted as evidence of payment.
Pursuant to Articles 401, 402, 403 and 404 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, an appeal may be filed against court judgments that have not entered into legal force.
The right to appeal a court judgment belongs to the parties and other persons participating in the case.
An appeal shall be heard by the Civil Cases Judicial Panel of the regional or equivalent court in a collegial composition of at least three judges.
An appeal shall be filed through the court that rendered the judgment.
An appeal may be filed within one month from the date on which the judgment was issued in final form, while persons who did not participate in the court proceedings may file an appeal within one month from the date on which a copy of the judgment was sent to them.
Based on the foregoing, and guided by Articles 401, 402, 403 and 404 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
WE REQUEST THE COURT TO:
Grant the Defendant’s appeal against the judgment of the Karasay District Court of the Almaty Region dated 26 March 2026.
Amend the judgment of the Karasay District Court of the Almaty Region dated 26 March 2026 in the proceedings concerning the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the compulsory alienation (purchase) of the land plot and residential house for state needs, and set aside the judgment insofar as it determines the value of the land plot and residential house subject to purchase at KZT 52,490,624.
Determine the amount of monetary compensation payable to the Defendant for the compulsory alienation (purchase) of the land plot and residential house for state needs at KZT 75,784,360.
Recover from the Plaintiff in favor of the Defendant KZT 700,000 in legal fees paid for attorney’s services.
Respectfully,
Defendant: __________________ N.A.B.
Attorney-at-Law: __________________ G.T. Sarzhanov
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases

APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT

APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT

APPEAL

against the Judgment of the Karasay District Court of the Almaty Region dated 26 March 2026

Circumstances of the civil case considered by the court of first instance

Methods of the comparative approach:

Failure to Determine the Losses Caused to the Owner

Calculation of Actual Damage

Based on the foregoing, and guided by Articles 401, 402, 403 and 404 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

WE REQUEST THE COURT TO: