More than 1,400 stakeholders in the scam project in Makkah demanded the ministry pay them SR351 million in compensation because they claim they were led to trust a swindling firm after the ministry issued it a license without the firm fulfilling the required conditions for launching an investment project.
However, the lawyer of the ministry has filed a deposition in the court stating that the ministry fulfilled all the terms and conditions and legal formalities before issuing license to the project.
The ministry permitted the project to issue 40,000 shares of which 20 percent was retained by the firm and the rest was floated at the cost of SR9,900 per share.
The ministry also ordered that the project should have a unified account in a local bank and appoint a certified accountant for auditing and supervising financial operations.
On the other hand, the stake holders said the Domestic Trade Department in the ministry issued the license to the real estate firm in Makkah to launch the project on a plot of land sprawling over 1,200,000 square meters.
The department clarified the nature of the title-deed from the notary public who certified that the title deed was valid but belonged to citizen in Makkah.
The department also clarified from the Urban Planning Department of the municipality that the plot was situated in the area allocated for urban development.
The Urban Planning Department also pointed out that the plot was owned by a Saudi individual and not by the real estate firm applying for project license.
The Domestic Trade Department informed the undersecretary of the ministry that the real estate firm has fulfilled all conditions and there was nothing that justified denying it a permit regardless of the crucial factor that the real estate firm did not own the plot and the owner of the plot never consented to sell his land.
The victims also pointed out that the owner of the plot filed a lawsuit against the firm for using his property without his consent for the firm’s projects.
Muhammad Al-Munis, lawyer of the stakeholders said, the heart of the case was the illegality of the ministry issuing a license to a firm to start a project on a piece of land belonging a third party.
