Trapped buyer in Cyprus: when the liquidator’s objection fails

A developer that sold a flat in Nicosia objected when the buyer applied, as a trapped buyer, to have the flat registered in the buyer’s name. It said the price had not been paid in full, and that property taxes and other charges were outstanding. The Director of the Land Registry rejected the objection and decided to transfer.

The developer, now in liquidation and acting through its liquidator, challenged that decision in the District Court of Nicosia and lost. On 29 October 2026 the Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal in A & G Property Wise Development Ltd v. Athanasiou, and ordered it to pay €4,000 in costs plus VAT. Our page on trapped buyers in Cyprus explains the procedure as a whole.

What happened

The buyer had a receipt saying the flat was paid for. The contract of sale had been deposited at the Nicosia District Land Office, and the buyer applied under the trapped-buyer provisions of the Transfer and Mortgage of Immovable Property Law, Law 9/1965.

The developer objected on 18 September 2017. Its letter said two things: that the buyer had not paid the whole price under the contract, and that immovable property tax, income tax, defence contribution, municipal taxes and sewerage charges were unpaid.

In a report of 15 March 2018 the Director found that the price had been paid. The tax debts had been paid into the special temporary account in the Director’s name. The developer was told that the flat would be registered to the buyer unless it produced a court order to the contrary. The bank holding the mortgage over the land had consented to the release of its mortgage on the issue of a separate title.

The objection is judged on what was put to the Director

A seller cannot widen its objection once the matter reaches court. The challenge was brought under section 80 of Cap. 224, under which the District Court reviews the Director’s decision and may substitute its own discretion.

The trial court held that the Director could not be judged on facts never put to the Director. The objection had spoken only of the price and the taxes, with no mention of interest or of any other ground, and the grounds on which an objection may be made are specific ones, fixed by the Law. The Court of Appeal agreed.

In its current text, section 44ΚΒ(3) of Law 9/1965 allows an objection within 45 days of the Director’s notice on two grounds only:

• that the buyer has not fully performed the contractual obligations owed to the seller;
• that the contract is void or has been terminated by a court order.

Section 44ΚΒ(5) requires whoever objects to produce the evidence that supports the objection.

An unchallenged receipt decides the price

The developer offered no evidence against the buyer’s receipts. A receipt dated 13 June 2008 stated that the payment was the settlement of the purchase of the flat.

The developer simply repeated that the price had not been paid in full. The Court of Appeal said that assertion, made without attacking the genuineness of the receipts, stood in direct contradiction to the receipt itself. The finding that the price had been paid stood.

A seller who says the price is unpaid has to answer the buyer’s receipts with evidence, not with a repeated assertion.

A new point on appeal came too late

The developer’s strongest argument was never properly raised. In an affidavit at first instance, the buyer said that on 25 August 2008 the rights under the contract had been assigned to a third person.

The developer argued that this left the buyer without standing to apply as a trapped buyer at all. It made the point only in its addresses, without taking any procedural step to add it as a ground. The Court of Appeal held that, as a rule, it does not examine a point not raised at first instance, unless it is a matter of public order. It noted that an application under section 80 is an originating proceeding, and dismissed the ground.

The court also rejected a complaint that a charge not registered with the Registrar of Companies is void against the liquidator. Under section 91(3) of the Companies Law, Cap. 113, registration is the company’s own duty, and the point did not affect the substance of the decision.

Only the bank could raise the Constitution

The developer could not borrow the bank’s constitutional argument. It argued that sections 44ΙΘ to 44ΚΒ breach the separation of powers and its freedom of profession under Article 25 of the Constitution.

The court distinguished Bank of Cyprus v. Director of the Paphos Land Registry, Civil Appeal 285/2018, of 20 June 2024. There the Court of Appeal held that section 44ΚΒ could not be supported within paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 23 of the Constitution, in a case where the Director had deleted a bank’s charge.

Here no charge was being deleted against anyone’s will: the bank had consented, and appeared neither at first instance nor on appeal. The trial court was right that only the bank could have raised unconstitutionality. On Article 25, the developer did not identify which of its rights was infringed.

What this means in practice

For a developer or a liquidator, the objection letter is the case. The point to take from this judgment is that a later challenge in court is judged on what that letter said and proved. Before sending one:

• name the ground the Law allows, and every fact relied on under it;
• attach the evidence, including anything that answers the buyer’s receipts;
• raise at once any doubt about who holds the buyer’s rights, such as an assignment.

For a buyer, the receipts carry the application. Keep every receipt for the price, and any receipt that states it settles the purchase. Taxes and charges owed on the property can be paid into the Director’s special temporary account, which is how they were dealt with here.

A buyer who has assigned the contract, or bought by assignment, should have that position examined before applying, because standing may be challenged. Here it was not examined, but only because the developer raised it too late.

The case was decided on the provisions as they stood when the Director acted in 2018. Part VIB has since been rebuilt by Law 110(I)/2025, as our article on a trapped buyer whose bank refused consent explains. Our property lawyers can look at an objection, or at the papers behind an application, before the 45 days run out.

The Director decides on the objection actually made, and the courts will review that objection, not a better one written later.

Questions we are asked

Sources

• A & G Property Wise Development Ltd (in liquidation), through its liquidator v. Athanasiou Athanasiou and another, Civil Appeal 242/2020, Court of Appeal, 29 October 2026
• The Transfer and Mortgage of Immovable Property Law of 1965, Law 9/1965, consolidated text, sections 44ΚΑ and 44ΚΒ
• Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law, Cap. 224, consolidated text, section 80

Kleanthous & Platis LLC Registered law company Cyprus Bar Association HE 441973

Further reading

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and their application can change, and individual circumstances differ. For advice on your own matter, contact Klitos Platis at klitos@kleanthousplatis.com.

Receive legal updates by email

When Cyprus law changes, hear it from us

One short email when something changes that matters: new legislation, a decision worth knowing, a deadline. Written by the partners, no marketing, unsubscribe with one click.

Leave this empty

Subscribe

You are on the list. The next update on Cyprus law will reach your inbox.

That did not go through. Please write to office@kleanthousplatis.com and we will add you.

Your address is used for these updates and nothing else. Privacy notice.