A long-running legal dispute between a property owner and Nicosia Municipality over damage to a building has ended, at least at appeal level, with the Court of Appeal rejecting claims that the municipality was responsible.
In a judgment issued on 25 September 2026, the Court dismissed the property owner’s appeal, finding that liability on the part of Nicosia Municipality had not been established.
According to the judgment obtained by Politis, the Court accepted that the problems were primarily associated with shortcomings in waterproofing and stormwater drainage.
The case concerned a three-storey building with a basement in Nicosia, over which ran a privately owned road with a public right of passage.
The original building permit was issued in 1948 and contained specific conditions governing the construction and use of the road, including requirements concerning the load-bearing capacity of the basement slab, the road surface and its gradient.
The appellant became the registered owner of part of the building in 1997, while the damage had begun appearing as early as 1992.
The problems included damp, mould and cracks in the basement.
The owner argued that the damage had resulted from acts and omissions by Nicosia Municipality, both in relation to the construction and maintenance of the road and its use by vehicles.
The court at first instance had dismissed his claim, finding that municipal liability had not been established and that the damage was linked to deficiencies in the building itself.
Waterproofing proved decisive
A central issue in the case was the waterproofing of the basement slab and the management of stormwater.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the first-instance judgment that responsibility for waterproofing and for ensuring an appropriate system to collect and remove rainwater lay with the property owner, not the municipality.
The Court found that the conditions attached to the building permit did not transfer responsibility for ensuring the structure remained watertight to Nicosia Municipality.
Instead, it accepted that weaknesses in the construction and waterproofing allowed water to enter the basement, causing damp and other damage.
One of the appellant’s main arguments was that heavy vehicles used the road above the basement, placing additional strain on the structure and contributing to the damage.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument because insufficient evidence had been presented regarding the weight and volume of the vehicles or whether their use of the road could be causally linked to the damage.
The judgment also noted that the road had from the outset been intended as a public passage and that specific load-bearing requirements had been set for the basement slab.
On that basis, use of the road could not in itself be considered the cause of the damage.
No municipal obligation established
The property owner also argued that Nicosia Municipality had an ongoing obligation to maintain the particular section of road.
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument as well, finding that Section 84 of the Municipalities Law, under the circumstances of this particular case, did not create such an obligation towards the property owner.
Claims of unlawful interference with immovable property and private nuisance were also dismissed.
The Court held that public use of the road was not arbitrary, as it was provided for under the legal arrangements governing the building and the particular passage.
It was also not established that such use had caused the damage alleged by the owner.
Appeal dismissed in full
The appeal further challenged the assessment of evidence and expert testimony.
The appellant argued that the first-instance court had failed to properly assess the evidence presented before it.
The Court of Appeal, however, found that the original judgment was adequately reasoned and that there was no justification for interfering with its findings on credibility.
It reiterated that assessment of witnesses is primarily the responsibility of the first-instance court and should only be overturned where a material error has occurred.
The appeal was therefore dismissed in its entirety, leaving the original judgment in force.
The property owner was not awarded damages against Nicosia Municipality and was ordered to pay €4,500 in appeal costs, plus VAT where applicable.
