JEDDAH, 26 July 2007 — An owner of a furnished-apartments building in Jeddah has filed a lawsuit against the municipality after an addition of the structure was demolished on the basis that the property was zoned for parking only.

The property owner was building a wedding hall, attached to a residential building. He says the demolition has cost him SR5 million.

The litigant’s lawyer, Abdul Rahman Al-Rifaei, did not divulge the name of his client to Arab News. The lawyer said his client obtained the necessary licenses. Municipal officials, however, said that the project was illegal and unnamed officials should not have issued whatever licensing was obtained.

He also claims that an unnamed official took revenge by ordering the demolition because the property owner refused to expedite his licensing acquisition through the payment of a bribe. “My client did not make any illegal payments because he preferred to play by the rules,” said Al-Rifaei. “He was ready to pay any fee involved as long as it was going to the state rather than somebody’s pocket.”

A source at the municipality who did not want to be named dismissed the bribery allegation, saying a committee determined that the development was illegal because the property was clearly delegated to be a parking lot, not a commercial establishment.

“The committee found that the property owner’s construction was a clear violation of the law,” he said.

The lawyer also contends that the reason for the demolition — because the property was zoned for a parking lot — didn’t apply to his client because he acquired the license before the law was passed requiring portions of property be reserved for parking space.

“He bought 5,000 square meters of property with two buildings in it,” said Al-Rifaei. “He also got the license from the municipality for the reconditioning of the existing building. The municipality’s contention is that the site of the new extension work is originally allocated for the mandatory parking area.”

Al-Rifaei says that regardless of the bribery allegation, the municipality is at fault for issuing a license — which was the green light for his client to move forward in his investment — and is seeking financial compensation from the municipality based on this alleged culpability.

The lawyer contends that his client’s financial losses amount to more than five million if you consider the contracts he allegedly made with tourists and pilgrimage tour groups who agree to rent his apartments because he was offering onsite wedding facilities.