Kazakhstan court orders developer to pay 10.5 million tenge over delayed handover
This digest was compiled by AI from multiple sources — links to the originals are below.
A Kazakhstan court has ordered a developer to pay 10.5 million tenge to an Almaty buyer for missing construction deadlines. The cassation court overturned lower court rulings that had rejected the claim. The buyer had fully paid for an apartment, commercial space, and parking spot under three preliminary agreements signed in 2021.
Key Facts
- The cassation court awarded 10.5 million tenge in penalties to the buyer.
- The buyer signed three preliminary agreements in 2021 for an apartment, commercial space, and parking spot.
- The developer was required to complete construction and sign main sale agreements by the end of 2023.
- The property was commissioned only in October 2024, with transfer acts signed in January 2025 and main agreements in March 2025.
- The preliminary agreements stipulated a penalty of 0.1% of the property value per day of delay, capped at 10%.
Court Ruling
The cassation court ruled that signing the main agreements did not release the developer from liability for earlier delays. The court emphasized that the buyer had fully and timely fulfilled payment obligations, while the developer missed deadlines for commissioning and concluding main contracts. The penalty was calculated at 0.1% of the property value per day of delay, capped at 10%.
Case Background
In 2021, the Almaty resident entered into three preliminary agreements with the developer for an apartment, commercial space, and parking spot. The buyer paid the full amount on time, while the developer was to complete construction and sign main sale agreements by the end of 2023. The property was commissioned only in October 2024, with transfer acts signed in January 2025 and main agreements in March 2025.
Lower Court Rejections
The first instance and appellate courts rejected the claim, reasoning that obligations under preliminary agreements ceased once main agreements were signed. They also considered Article 353 of the Civil Code inapplicable because the developer's obligation was not monetary. The cassation court disagreed, stating that concluding the main agreement does not exempt the developer from liability for violations committed before its signing.