The condominium general assembly vote in Morocco
3 majority regimes (Law 106-12) + case law

1. Vote calculation: shares, not heads

In Moroccan condominiums, voting is never per head. Article 14 of Law 18-00 as amended states that "each co-owner has a number of votes corresponding to the importance of their rights on their private share in the building". A co-owner holding 800 thousandths therefore weighs 8 times more than a holder of 100 thousandths. The condominium bylaws specify, for each lot, the number of votes corresponding to the shares.

Law 106-12 nonetheless introduced, at article 16 decies, an essential anti-domination limitation: if a co-owner has a number of votes greater than half the sum of the votes of the rest of the co-owners, their number of votes is reduced to half of the votes of the whole. This rule protects the condominium against the grip of an ultra-majority co-owner (typically, the developer who has not yet sold everything, or a co-owner who has bought several lots).

2. Quorum and conduct of the assembly

Article 18 of Law 18-00 sets the quorum rules. For a meeting to be valid, at least half of the co-owners or their representatives must be present — meaning half the votes expressed in shares, not half the natural persons. If this quorum is not reached, a second meeting is held within thirty days, and it may take its decisions by majority regardless of the number of co-owners present or represented.

This mechanism is essential: it prevents a condominium from being paralysed by co-owner absenteeism. The common practice is to convene the 1st GA knowing it will not reach quorum, then to hold the 2nd a few days later with no quorum condition. The notice must, however, rigorously respect the legal time limit of 15 days for each convocation (art. 16 quinquies).

3. The relative majority (art. 20) — day-to-day management

The relative majority — meaning the majority of votes expressed by the co-owners present or represented — applies to the day-to-day management decisions listed in article 20:

• Maintenance of the building and safety of the occupants.
• Authorizing certain co-owners to carry out, at their own expense, works affecting the common areas or the external appearance without prejudicing the original purpose (typical case: installing a sign, an air conditioner, an awning).
• Installing common antennas and dishes.
• Fitting out areas for religious sacrificial rituals.
• Accessibility measures for persons with disabilities.
• Appointing, removing and defining the working conditions of the caretaker.

4. The 3/4 majority (art. 21) — important decisions

Many are unaware that the appointment and removal of the syndic fall under article 21 — therefore a qualified majority of 3/4 of the co-owners' votes (and not a simple majority). This is one of the most frequent errors leading to the annulment of GA decisions. Article 21 lists:

• Drawing up or amending the condominium bylaws.
• Carrying out works to improve the building (changing or adding equipment).
• Appointing and removing the syndic and their deputy.
• Revising the allocation of common charges.
• Setting the syndic's emoluments and salary where applicable.
• Approving the syndicate's budget, setting the charges, the spending cap, the reserve for major works.
• Carrying out major maintenance works.
• Subscribing to a collective insurance (fire, explosion, water damage).
• Establishing a right of preference for buildings of at most 20 land titles (art. 39).
• Partial demolition of the building.

5. Unanimity (art. 22) — structural decisions

Unanimity is required for decisions that touch the very structure of the building or its purpose. Article 22 covers:

• Erecting a new building, raising an old building, creating premises for individual use.
• Concluding deeds transferring part of the building or constituting property rights for the benefit of the syndicate.
• Creating or fitting out premises for collective use.
• Transferring the right to add floors (right of elevation).
• Carrying out works intended to transform the common areas.

Article 44 also refers to unanimity for the exercise of the right of elevation or excavation, and article 45 for the decision to rebuild in case of total destruction.

6. The proxy: strict framing (art. 16 decies)

An absent co-owner may give a mandate to another co-owner or to a third party — Law 106-12 clarified this point. But article 16 decies sets two cumulative limits on the proxy:

• A single proxy holder cannot represent more than 3 co-owners.
• The total of the shares represented by the proxy holder cannot exceed 10% of the votes of all co-owners.
• The proxy must be written, dated, signed, and precisely designate the proxy holder and the GA concerned.

Beyond these thresholds, the excess powers are void — that is, the associated votes are not counted. This anti-domination rule prevents a co-owner from collecting blank proxies to control votes. The syndic cannot be designated proxy of any co-owner for a GA they convene (principle of independence).

7. The minutes and the notification (art. 16 nonies and 30)

Every GA gives rise to minutes recording, for each resolution: the exact wording, the number of votes for, against and abstentions, and the outcome of the resolution. The minutes are signed by the chair of the session and the secretary (never by the syndic alone). They are notified to all co-owners — whether present, represented or absent — within a time limit not exceeding eight days from the date the decisions were taken (art. 16 nonies and art. 30).

The notification starts the time limit for an annulment action: two months from the notification of the minutes (art. 59 duodecies). Any co-owner who did not vote in favour of the contested resolution may seize the competent court. Beyond two months, the action is time-barred.

8. Case law: abuse of majority and nullities

The TPI of Marrakech, in its decision no. 22524 of 26 September 2022, annulled a resolution taken at a GA in the particular interest of the majority and to the detriment of the minority — the classic application of the abuse-of-majority theory. The majority cannot do everything: its decisions must serve the collective interest of the condominium, not systematically crush an identifiable minority.

The TPI of Casablanca, in its decision no. 29029 of 30 September 2024, declared void a GA held while the mandate of the serving syndic had expired without renewal. The appointment of the new syndic, organized under this irregular GA, was also struck with nullity — an important reminder: without a serving, duly mandated syndic, there is no valid convocation.

Finally, the TPI of Casablanca, in its decision no. 29032 of 17 July 2024, annulled a GA convocation for lack of prior referral to the syndic under article 16 ter. The mechanism is simple: if the syndic refuses to convene, the co-owners (1/3 of them) must first refer to the syndic; only after a time limit of 8 days without response is a direct convocation by the co-owners valid (art. 16 quater).

To secure your assembly or qualify your resolutions, talk to our condominium advisory service, get your property valued by our independent RICS appraisal service, and browse more analyses on the ReaConsult blog.