STATEMENT OF CLAIM for Recovery of Damage Caused to Property
To the Maktaaral District Court of the Turkestan Region
17 Madikhodzhaev Street, Myrzakent village, Maktaaral District.
Plaintiff: EHA
IIN ...
Al-Farabi village, Maktaaral District, Turkestan Region, ...
Represented under Power of Attorney by:
Law Firm “Zakon i Pravo”
BIN 201240021767.
Office 304, 79/71 Abylai Khan Avenue, Almaly District,Almaty, 050002, Republic of Kazakhstan.
info@zakonpravo.kz; www.zakonpravo.kz
+7 708 971 78 58 / +7 727 978 57 55.
Defendant: BII
IIN ....
Maktaaral Rural District, Maktaaral District, Turkestan Region, ...
8-775-....
Claim amount: KZT 4,166,285.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
for Recovery of Damage Caused to Property
EHA (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) is the lawful owner of the residential house located at: 51 Tauelsizdik Street, Al-Farabi village, Maktaaral District, Turkestan Region.
The residential house owned by the Plaintiff and located at 51 Tauelsizdik Street is directly adjacent to the residential house located at 49 Tauelsizdik Street and owned by BII (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”).
Residential houses Nos. 49 and 51 are directly adjacent to each other, with their structural elements being interconnected.
The Defendant carried out demolition and dismantling works at the residential house No. 49 owned by him.
However, such works were carried out without the Plaintiff’s consent and without taking into account the structural characteristics and safety requirements of the adjacent residential house No. 51.
Following the Defendant’s demolition works, cracks and other damage appeared in the walls and other structural elements of the Plaintiff’s residential house No. 51, as a result of which the technical condition of the residential house significantly deteriorated.
The fact that the Defendant carried out demolition works was officially recorded by a state authority. In connection with the violation of her property rights, the Plaintiff applied to the local executive authorities of Maktaaral District.
Following the Plaintiff’s application, A. Dzhumataev, Akim of the Maktaaral Rural District, T. Orazov, Chief Legal Specialist of the Akim’s Office of the Rural District, and T. Asilkhanov, Chief Specialist of the Department of Architecture, Urban Planning and Construction of Maktaaral District, visited the location of the disputed property and conducted an inspection.
Following the inspection, on 23 July 2026, Inspection Report No. 3 “Regarding the Fact of Demolition of Part of a Residential House” was prepared.
The said report established that:
firstly, parts of residential houses Nos. 49 and 51 are directly adjacent to each other;
secondly, the part of the residential house owned by the Defendant had been demolished;
thirdly, the other part owned by the Plaintiff remained intact;
fourthly, as a result of the demolition works, the former junction area between the parts of the residential houses remained open;
fifthly, construction materials and demolition waste were located on the property;
sixthly, the Plaintiff had not given her consent to the demolition of the adjacent part of her residential house;
seventhly, the Defendant had not provided any written consent of the Plaintiff authorizing the demolition works.
Furthermore, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the report establish that the design documentation, a conclusion regarding the technical condition of the residential house structures, and other permitting documents relating to the demolition works were not submitted to the inspection commission. It was also established that the Defendant did not have design and cost-estimate documentation, technical documentation, architectural and planning documentation, design sketches, or other permits constituting the legal basis for carrying out the demolition of the residential house.
These circumstances confirm the fact that the Defendant carried out the demolition works not merely on the basis of the Plaintiff’s unilateral statement, but also by means of a written report prepared by officials of a state authority.
The official response of the Deputy Akim of Maktaaral District likewise states that, following the inspection, the part of the residential house owned by the Defendant had been demolished and that the Plaintiff had not given written consent to the demolition of the adjacent part of the residential house.
The Defendant carried out the demolition works without the Plaintiff’s consent. Pursuant to Article 4 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Housing Relations,” the use of apartments, non-residential premises and other parts of a residential house must not result in their destruction or damage, violate the living conditions of other owners, and must comply with construction, sanitary, environmental, fire-safety and other mandatory norms and regulations.
Furthermore, Article 40 of the said Law provides that works involving alterations to the structural part of a residential house shall be carried out in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on architectural, urban planning and construction activities. In cases prescribed by law, written consent of the owners is required for redevelopment and alteration works affecting structural elements.
However, prior to commencing the demolition of residential house No. 49, the Defendant failed to obtain the Plaintiff’s written consent.
On the contrary, the absence of such consent is expressly confirmed by Inspection Report No. 3 dated 23 July 2026.
Thus, in exercising his ownership rights, the Defendant failed to take into account the property rights and legitimate interests of the owner of the adjacent residential house and took actions that affected the structural safety of the directly adjacent residential house.
Following the demolition works, the technical condition of residential house No. 51 deteriorated. Since cracks and other damage appeared in residential house No. 51 as a result of the Defendant’s actions, the Plaintiff was forced to engage a specialist possessing the necessary specialized knowledge in order to determine the actual technical condition of the residential house and the causes of the damage.
On 7 August 2026, a technical inspection of residential house No. 51 was conducted. The Defendant was duly notified in advance of the scheduled inspection and was given the opportunity to participate in it.
The examination established that mechanical impacts and vibration loads caused by construction tools used during the dismantling and demolition works at house No. 49 affected the integrity of the bonds within the adobe material of the adjacent residential house No. 51, which contributed to the occurrence of damage and subsequent cracks in the load-bearing and self-supporting walls.
The specialist classified the technical condition of residential house No. 51 as Category IV — pre-emergency condition.
The residential house requires repair and restoration works, including appropriate seismic strengthening measures.
Of particular importance is the fact that the state authority itself had previously recommended conducting a similar accredited technical inspection.
The official response of the Deputy Akim of Maktaaral District states that a visual inspection cannot determine the actual technical condition of residential house No. 51, the strength and stability of its load-bearing structures, the causes of the damage, or the amount of the damage. Therefore, it was necessary to obtain an appropriate technical report.
The Akimat also stated that such technical report should, in particular, establish the causal relationship between the identified damage and the demolition works carried out, as well as the necessity of restoration works or structural strengthening.
The Plaintiff complied with the said recommendation and arranged for a specialized technical inspection to be conducted.
The amount of property damage caused to the Plaintiff is KZT 4,166,285. According to the results of the examination conducted by the specialist, the cost of the necessary repair and restoration works required to restore residential house No. 51 amounts to KZT 4,166,285 (four million one hundred sixty-six thousand two hundred eighty-five tenge).
Pursuant to Article 917 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, damage caused to the property of a citizen by unlawful actions shall be compensated in full by the person who caused such damage.
Pursuant to Article 934 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, when granting a claim for compensation for damage, the court may oblige the person responsible for causing the damage to fully compensate the losses incurred or to compensate the damage in kind, including by obliging such person to repair the damaged property.
In the present case, the Defendant’s actions, their unlawfulness, the damage caused to the Plaintiff’s property, and the amount of expenses necessary for its restoration are confirmed by a body of mutually consistent evidence.
The Defendant refused to voluntarily satisfy the Plaintiff’s claims prior to the commencement of court proceedings. For the purpose of pre-trial settlement of the dispute, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a pre-trial demand.
The Defendant was requested to voluntarily compensate the damage caused.
However, in his written response, the Defendant disagreed with the claims and refused to satisfy them voluntarily.
At the same time, the Defendant’s statement in his response that he had asked the Plaintiff for consent to take joint action concerning the houses confirms that the parties had discussed the structural condition of the adjacent houses even before the demolition works were carried out.
The Defendant’s argument that residential house No. 49 was in an emergency condition does not give him the right to cause damage to the adjacent residential house No. 51.
The right of an owner to use his property does not include the right to cause damage to another person’s property.
Furthermore, the Defendant’s allegation that residential house No. 49 was in an emergency condition is not supported by objective and proper evidence. In particular, the emergency condition of the said residential house was not established by an authorized state authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, and no official decision to that effect was issued. Consequently, the Defendant’s position that the residential house was initially in an emergency condition cannot be accepted as an undisputed fact.
Moreover, even such an allegation, in itself, does not give the Defendant the right to violate the rights of the owner of the adjacent residential house No. 51 or cause damage to her property.
Accordingly, it was impossible to resolve the dispute out of court.
Determining the nature of the damage caused to the Plaintiff, the causes of its occurrence, the technical condition of the residential house, and the cost of restoration works requires specialized technical knowledge.
Therefore, the Plaintiff incurred expenses in the amount of KZT 400,000 (four hundred thousand tenge) for the specialist’s examination.
These expenses were directly necessitated by the need to protect the violated right and to determine the amount of damage caused as a result of the Defendant’s actions.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, losses also include expenses that the person whose right has been violated has incurred or will have to incur in order to restore the violated right.
Accordingly, the expenses in the amount of KZT 400,000 incurred for the specialist’s examination are necessary expenses and are subject to recovery from the Defendant.
In order to obtain judicial protection of her violated rights, the Plaintiff was forced to seek professional legal assistance.
Pursuant to Article 109 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the court shall award the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered the court costs incurred in the case against the other party.
Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 113 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, upon the application of the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered, the court shall award from the other party the actual expenses incurred for payment for the assistance of a representative who participated in the proceedings and was not employed by that party.
The Plaintiff paid KZT 1,000,000 for legal assistance provided by her representative.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks recovery from the Defendant of the expenses incurred for the representative’s legal assistance, as well as the state duty paid.
Based on the foregoing and guided by Articles 917 and 934 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Article 40 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Housing Relations,”
THE PLAINTIFF REQUESTS THE COURT TO:
- Recover from the Defendant, BII, in favor of the Plaintiff, EHA, KZT 4,166,285 (four million one hundred sixty-six thousand two hundred eighty-five tenge) as compensation for property damage caused to the residential house;
- Recover from the Defendant, BII, in favor of the Plaintiff, EHA, KZT 400,000 (four hundred thousand tenge) in expenses incurred for the specialist’s technical examination;
- Recover from the Defendant, BII, in favor of the Plaintiff, EHA, KZT 1,000,000 (one million tenge) in expenses incurred for payment for the assistance of the representative;
- Recover from the Defendant, BII, in favor of the Plaintiff, EHA, KZT 41,663 (forty-one thousand six hundred sixty-three tenge) in expenses incurred for payment of the state duty.
Respectfully,
Representative under Power of Attorney:I.M. Kenesbek
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
