APPEAL against the Judgment of the Karasai District Court of Almaty Region dated 26 March 2026 in the case concerning compulsory acquisition (purchase) of a land plot or other immovable property for state needs

To the Civil Cases Judicial Panelof the Almaty Regional Court

From the Respondent: N.A. ....

Individual Identification Number (IIN): ..Tel.: +7 775 ..

Representative, Attorney-at-Law:Galymzhan Turlybekovich Sarzhanov

“Zan zhane Kұkyk” Law OfficeBusiness Identification Number

 (BIN): 20124002176779/71 Abylai Khan Avenue, Office 304,Almaly District, Almaty,

 050002,Republic of KazakhstanE-mail: info@zakonpravo.kzwww.zakonpravo.kz

Tel.: +7 708 578 57 58 / +7 727 978 57 55

APPEAL

By the Judgment of the Karasai District Court of Almaty Region dated 26 March 2026 (the final form of the judgment was prepared on 12 April 2026), the court considered the claim of the Akim of Karasai District against the Respondent N.A. .... for the compulsory acquisition (purchase) of a land plot or other immovable property for state needs and partially granted the claim.

The court held as follows:

The land plot with a total area of 0.0600 hectares, cadastral number 03-047-097-2557, belonging to the Respondent N.A. .... and located at 26/39, Block 13, Koksai village, Irgeli Rural District, Karasai District, Almaty Region, together with the residential building, canopy, tapchan, outdoor toilet and greenery located thereon, shall be compulsorily acquired for state needs.

Compensation for the said land plot and the registered residential building, canopy, tapchan, fence and greenery located thereon (apple trees, grapes, four lilac trees and roses) was determined in the amount of KZT 52,490,624 (fifty-two million four hundred ninety thousand six hundred twenty-four).

The remainder of the claim was dismissed.

Upon payment of the compensation, the Respondent's ownership rights to the above-mentioned land plot, residential building, canopy, tapchan, fence and greenery shall be terminated.

The court also ordered the Respondent to pay to the State a state duty in the amount of KZT 3,932 (three thousand nine hundred thirty-two) and expenses incurred for the expert examination in the amount of KZT 131,403.02 (one hundred thirty-one thousand four hundred three tenge and two tiyn).

We disagree with the Judgment of the court of first instance and consider it unlawful and unfounded for the following reasons.

1. Violation of the statutory time limit for preparing the final form of the judgment

Pursuant to Article 223 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter — the “CPC RK”), a judicial act of the court of first instance deciding a case on its merits shall be rendered in the form of a judgment.

The final form of the judgment shall be prepared within a period not exceeding five working days after the operative part of the judgment has been announced.

However, the court of first instance failed to comply with the above statutory requirement.

Although the operative part of the judgment was announced on 26 March 2026, the final form of the judgment was prepared only on 12 April 2026.

Therefore, the procedural time limit established by law for preparing the final form of the judgment was violated.

2. The court of first instance failed to reflect and properly assess the evidence submitted by the Respondent

The court of first instance stated in its judgment that the Respondent N.A. .... was the owner of a land plot with a total area of 0.0600 hectares and a residential building with a total area of 153.0 square meters located thereon.

The court also stated that, for the construction of the “Ryskulov” highway, Resolution No. 232 of the Akimat of Karasai District dated 18 July 2019, “On the Compulsory Acquisition of Land Plots for State Needs, Including by Purchase,” was adopted on the basis of documents submitted by the State Institution “Department of Passenger Transport and Highways of Almaty Region,” as well as the explication and cartographic materials provided by the relevant subdivision of the “Government for Citizens” State Corporation.

The court concluded that there were no free land plots within Karasai District and therefore it was impossible to provide the Respondent with an equivalent land plot.

In this regard, the Claimant submitted the valuation report of “Dom Otsenki” LLP dated 17 October 2025 No. 1480/25/ALM-68, according to which the market value of the land plot and residential building subject to acquisition amounted to KZT 46,045,700.

The Respondent disagreed with the results of that valuation.

The court stated in its judgment:

“The Respondent did not submit a written response to the court.”

The court also stated:

“At the hearing, the Respondent requested that a forensic commodity examination be appointed for the purpose of determining the market value of the land plot belonging to him.”

These findings are inconsistent with the case materials and do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the proceedings.

The Respondent and his representative submitted a written response to the statement of claim through the Judicial Office system on 12 March 2026 at 11:28, document unique number No. 191952907011824.

The following documents were attached to the response:

1. the Experts’ Opinion No. 2 of “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP dated 23 January 2026;
2. the Valuation Report No. 413 of “Assessment Group ‘Bakyt’” LLP dated 2 December 2025.

The above documents were submitted to the court and announced during the court hearing.

In addition, on 29 January 2026, the Respondent and his representative submitted an application to the court through the Judicial Office system, document unique number No. 191952906805426.

The application requested that the following documents be attached to the civil case file as additional evidence:

• the Experts’ Opinion No. 2 of “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP dated 23 January 2026;
• the Valuation Report No. 413 of “Assessment Group ‘Bakyt’” LLP dated 2 December 2025.

Accordingly, the court's statement that the Respondent failed to submit a written response is contrary to the case materials.

Furthermore, the court's statement that the Respondent requested the appointment of a forensic examination is also factually incorrect.

During the court hearing, the Respondent expressly objected to the appointment of an additional forensic examination and requested that no additional examination be appointed, since the Respondent had already submitted an expert assessment obtained on his behalf.

Nevertheless, the judgment attributes to the Respondent a procedural position that he did not take.

These circumstances directly affect the legality and validity of the judgment.

3. Violation of Article 226 of the CPC RK

Pursuant to Article 226 of the CPC RK, a judgment shall consist of an introductory part, a descriptive part, a reasoning part and an operative part.

The descriptive part of the judgment shall contain a summary of the claims of the Claimant, the explanations of the Respondent and the explanations of third parties participating in the case, together with the evidence on which they based their arguments.

However, the court of first instance failed to properly reflect in the descriptive and reasoning parts of the judgment the evidence duly submitted by the Respondent.

In particular, the court failed to properly consider:

• the Respondent's written response;
• the Valuation Report No. 413 dated 2 December 2025;
• the Experts’ Opinion No. 2 dated 23 January 2026;
• the application dated 29 January 2026 requesting that the above documents be attached to the case file.

The judgment also contains procedural statements allegedly made by the Respondent which do not correspond to his actual position.

The failure to properly reflect and assess the Respondent's evidence calls into question the objectivity, legality and validity of the judgment.

4. The market value of the property subject to compulsory acquisition was improperly determined

Initially, the Claimant relied upon the valuation report of “Dom Otsenki” LLP dated 17 October 2025 No. 1480/25/ALM-68, according to which the value of the land plot and residential building amounted to KZT 46,045,700.

The Respondent disagreed with this amount.

The Respondent submitted to the court the Valuation Report No. 413 of “Assessment Group ‘Bakyt’” LLP dated 2 December 2025.

According to that valuation report, the market value of the residential property with the land plot located at 26/39, Block 13, Koksai village, Irgeli Rural District, Karasai District, Almaty Region, amounted to:

KZT 100,640,000.

In addition, according to the Experts’ Opinion No. 2 of “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP dated 23 January 2026:

1. the market value of the land plot, excluding structures, amounted to KZT 20,916,000;
2. the market value of the residential building, auxiliary and other structures, and the fence amounted to KZT 53,512,196;
3. the market value of the greenery located on the land plot amounted to KZT 291,486;
4. the potential losses associated with the acquisition of the immovable property amounted to KZT 1,064,678.

The total amount is:

KZT 20,916,000 + KZT 53,512,196 + KZT 291,486 + KZT 1,064,678 = KZT 75,784,360.

Thus, the Experts’ Opinion submitted by the Respondent separately assessed the components of the property subject to acquisition and also took into account potential losses resulting from the compulsory acquisition.

5. Objections to the forensic expert examination report

By the court ruling dated 30 January 2026, a forensic commodity examination was appointed.

The examination was entrusted to experts of the Almaty City 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 expert was asked the following question:

What is the market value of the fence, residential building (153 sq. m.), outdoor toilet, tapchan, canopy and planted vegetation (rose bushes and thuja trees) located on the land plot with cadastral number 03-047-097-2557 and a total area of 0.0600 hectares located in Irgeli Rural District, Karasai District, Almaty Region?

According to Expert Report No. 4027 dated 3 March 2026, the market value of the specified property could amount to KZT 52,490,624.

The Respondent disagrees with this expert report.

6. Failure to comply with valuation methodology

Pursuant to the valuation standards approved by Order No. 519 of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 5 May 2018, where the comparative approach is used to determine the value of an immovable property, appropriate comparisons must be made and adjustments must be introduced to account for differences between the valuation object and comparable properties.

However, the valuation report under consideration does not provide adequate justification for the adjustments and adjustment coefficients applied in calculating the value using the comparative approach.

Furthermore:

• no detailed calculation of the value of the property is provided;
• the report is limited to tabular data;
• there is no justification for the weighting coefficients assigned to the results obtained using the comparative method;
• the methodological basis for selecting comparable properties is not disclosed;
• the hierarchical analysis method recommended in methodological literature was not applied;
• the losses incurred by the owner of the residential property and land plot were not fully assessed.

The comparable properties selected by the expert differ substantially from the Respondent's property in terms of the area of the land plots and residential buildings.

Accordingly, the correctness of directly comparing those properties and the objectivity of the resulting valuation are questionable.

7. Principle of full compensation in cases of compulsory acquisition for state needs

Article 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides that no one may be deprived of his or her property unless otherwise provided by a court decision.

Compulsory alienation of property for state needs in exceptional cases provided 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, unless otherwise established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the property shall be valued on the basis of its market value.

Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On State Property,” the value of a land plot subject to compulsory acquisition for state needs, as well as immovable property located on such land plot, shall be determined in the amount of their market value, irrespective of the grounds on which the rights to the land plot arose.

Accordingly, the compensation payable to the owner must correspond to the actual market value of the property.

8. Compensation for losses caused by compulsory acquisition

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,” losses caused to the owner must be compensated in full.

Losses associated with the acquisition of a residential building and land plot for state needs include expenses incurred or to be incurred by the person whose ownership rights have been infringed, as well as income that such person could have received under normal conditions of civil turnover but did not receive as a result of the termination of his or her ownership rights.

Actual damage may include, inter alia:

• expenses associated with moving to a new location;
• expenses associated with registration of rights to new immovable property;
• real estate agency expenses;
• expenses for renting temporary accommodation during the search for new immovable property;
• expenses associated with temporary storage of property;
• expenses for legal assistance provided by an attorney-at-law or lawyer.

Such expenses should be considered as actual losses resulting from the compulsory acquisition of the owner's property.

9. Valuation reports submitted by the Respondent

The Respondent submitted to the court:

1. Valuation Report No. 413 of “Assessment Group ‘Bakyt’” LLP dated 2 December 2025

According to this report, the market value of the immovable property amounted to:

KZT 100,640,000.

2. Experts’ Opinion No. 2 of “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP dated 23 January 2026

According to this opinion, the total amount of the market value of the property and potential losses amounted to:

KZT 75,784,360.

The Respondent considers these valuation documents to constitute objective and substantiated evidence capable of determining the actual market value of the property subject to compulsory acquisition.

10. Assessment of evidence

Pursuant to Article 68 of the CPC RK, each item of evidence shall be assessed in terms of its relevance, admissibility and reliability, while the entirety of the evidence collected must be sufficient to resolve the civil case.

However, the court of first instance failed to properly compare and assess:

• the valuation report of “Dom Otsenki” LLP No. 1480/25/ALM-68;
• Expert Report No. 4027;
• the Valuation Report No. 413 of “Assessment Group ‘Bakyt’” LLP;
• the Experts’ Opinion No. 2 of “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP.

The court failed to provide adequate legal assessment of each item of evidence and their aggregate evidentiary value.

The court did not state specific reasons for rejecting the evidence submitted by the Respondent or for reducing its evidentiary value.

11. Burden of proof

Pursuant to Article 72 of the CPC RK, each party shall prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections.

Pursuant to Article 73 of the CPC RK, 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.

The Respondent complied with this obligation and timely submitted valuation documents and the Experts’ Opinion supporting his position.

Nevertheless, the court of first instance failed to properly reflect and assess this evidence in its judgment.

12. Right of the parties to independently determine their procedural position

Pursuant to Article 15 of the CPC RK, the parties independently determine their position, methods and means of defending it during civil proceedings, independently of the court and other bodies and persons.

Accordingly, the Respondent's objection to the appointment of an additional forensic examination and his reliance on the valuation documents submitted by him constitute the exercise of his procedural rights.

The court's misrepresentation of the Respondent's procedural position is inconsistent with the requirements of the CPC RK.

13. Legal representation expenses

Pursuant to Article 109 of the CPC RK, the court shall award all court expenses incurred in the case to the party in whose favor the judgment has been rendered and recover such expenses from the other party.

Pursuant to Article 113 of the CPC RK, upon the application of the party in whose favor the judgment has been rendered, the court shall recover from the other party the actual expenses incurred for the services of a representative who participated in the proceedings and was not in an employment relationship with that party.

The Respondent engaged the services of “Zan zhane Kұkyk” Law Office for legal assistance and entered into Agreement No. 0312/22.

The cost of the legal services amounted to:

KZT 700,000.

Payment of the above amount is confirmed by:

• the legal services agreement;
• the receipt confirming payment through Kaspi Pay.

Accordingly, the Respondent's legal expenses in the amount of KZT 700,000 shall be included in the court costs and recovered from the Claimant in favor of the Respondent.

14. Right and time limit for filing an appeal

Pursuant to Articles 401, 402, 403 and 404 of the CPC RK, appeals may be filed against judgments of courts that have not entered into legal force.

The right to appeal a judgment belongs to the parties and other persons participating in the case.

An appeal shall be filed through the court that rendered the judgment and shall be considered by the Civil Cases Judicial Panel of the relevant regional or equivalent court in accordance with the procedure established by law.

This appeal is being filed within the statutory time limit.

BASED ON THE FOREGOING,

and pursuant to Articles 401, 402, 403 and 404 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and other applicable provisions of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

WE REQUEST THE COURT TO:

1. Grant the Respondent's appeal against the Judgment of the Karasai District Court of Almaty Region dated 26 March 2026.

2. Amend the Judgment of the Karasai District Court of Almaty Region dated 26 March 2026 rendered in the case concerning the claim of the Akim of Karasai District against the Respondent N.A. .... for the compulsory acquisition (purchase) of the land plot and residential building for state needs, and set aside the part of the judgment determining the value of the land plot and residential building subject to acquisition in the amount of KZT 52,490,624.

3. Determine the amount of monetary compensation payable to the Respondent for the compulsory acquisition (purchase) of the land plot and residential building for state needs in the amount of:

KZT 75,784,360(seventy-five million seven hundred eighty-four thousand three hundred sixty).

4. Recover from the Claimant in favor of the Respondent KZT 700,000 (seven hundred thousand) in legal expenses incurred for the services of the attorney-at-law.

5. Provide appropriate legal assessment at the appellate stage to the circumstances that the court of first instance failed to properly assess the evidence submitted by the Respondent and misrepresented the Respondent's procedural position.

Attachments:

1. Copy of the Appeal;
2. Valuation Report No. 413 of “Assessment Group ‘Bakyt’” LLP dated 2 December 2025;
3. Experts’ Opinion No. 2 of “Center for Expertise and Valuation” LLP dated 23 January 2026;
4. Copy of the application dated 29 January 2026;
5. Copy of the written response dated 12 March 2026;
6. Legal services Agreement No. 0312/22;
7. Document confirming payment of KZT 700,000;
8. Other evidence relevant to the case.

Respectfully,

Respondent: __________________ N.A. ....

Representative, Attorney-at-Law: __________________ G.T. Sarzhanov

“___” __________ 2026

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