Aller au contenu principal
ReaConsult — Expert Immobilier Certifié RICS au Maroc
← Blog
Case law · Encroachment3 June 2026 · 8 min read

Drainage over 1,188 m² on the neighbour's land
356,400 MAD paid by the contractor, not its principal (Casablanca Commercial CA 2023)

A developer contractor builds a drainage pipe. It overflows — first presumed at 700 m², finally measured at 1,188 m² by the judicial appraisal. The landowner sues. The contractor defends itself by pointing to its principal. The Casablanca Commercial Court of Appeal, in its ruling No. 4589 of 18 July 2023 (case 2022/8232/3431), shuts the door sharply: it is the contractor who pays, under article 78 of the DOC. A strong marker for owners who are victims of encroachment.

Encroachment drainage works contractor liability Morocco
The topographic survey doubles the surface initially presumed. Without it, the indemnity would have been divided by 1.7 — the objective measurement on the ground is the crux of the matter.

In brief

  • Ruling: Casablanca Commercial Court of Appeal, No. 4589 of 18/07/2023 (case 2022/8232/3431)
  • Facts: a real estate company builds a drainage pipe that encroaches on the property of another company (neighbouring land)
  • Surface initially presumed: around 700 m² — actual surface after judicial appraisal: 1,188 m²
  • The contractor's defence: its principal should answer in its place
  • The Court's answer: “the one who committed the damaging act” bears the liability — Art. 78 DOC. The contractor remains liable regardless of the principal's capacity
  • Indemnity awarded: 1,188 m² × 300 DH/m² = 356,400 MAD
  • Lesson: without a topographic survey of the encroached perimeter (from 700 to 1,188 m² = +70%), the indemnity would have been divided by 1.7

1. The principle: the contractor cannot hide behind its principal

Article 78 of the Moroccan DOC is unambiguous: it is the author of the damaging act who bears the liability. The Court reaffirms this with a firmness that deserves direct quotation:

“The one who committed the damaging act bears the liability, independently of the principal's capacity.”

For the victim owner, this qualification is valuable — it simplifies the action by avoiding having to sue the contractor and its client (often a local authority or another operator) at the same time. The contractor may then, internally and at its own risk, seek recourse against its principal if it considers it was given erroneous plans or poorly marked-out boundaries. But that recourse action does not suspend its obligation to compensate the victim owner.

2. The measured gap: 700 m² presumed → 1,188 m² actual

The gap between the surface initially announced and the surface actually measured is striking: +70% thanks to the judicial appraisal. This illustrates a reality every practitioner knows: without a contradictory topographic survey, encroachments are systematically under-declared by the author of the works. It is the objective measurement on the ground that changes the result — not the pleadings. On a final indemnity of 356,400 MAD, the gap attributable to the expert's topographic work alone is worth about 146,000 MAD (488 m² × 300 DH/m²).

3. The price per m² — 300 DH, high or modest?

The calculation retained — 300 DH/m² for 1,188 m² — calls for comment. In peri-urban Casablanca in 2023, non-buildable land (or road/pipe strips) is valued at around 200-400 DH/m²; developable land in more central zones easily exceeds 800-2,000 DH/m². The Court retains a low bracket, probably because the encroachment bears on a minor strip of the land, already affected by the pipe. The lesson: the DH/m² ratio must be challenged by an independent appraisal when the author wants to minimise it — the only relevant reference price is the market value of the land in the zone, not a residual use value.

Faced with an encroachment, have the market value per m² established by our independent RICS appraisal service — the figure that supports your position with third parties.

4. The playbook for owners who are victims of encroachment

If you notice works overflowing onto your property (pipe, road, engineering structure, adjacent construction, wall, planting), here is the proven sequence:

  1. IMMEDIATE bailiff report of the current state: geolocated photos, approximate measurement, identification of the visible parties. A certain date is essential
  2. Topographic survey by a chartered surveyor, contradictory (contractor summoned to the measurement). This is the key piece — without a survey, no reliable quantification
  3. Independent real estate appraisal of the value per m² according to use and market — not the residual use value the author of the works will want to impose
  4. Formal notice to the contractor (and to the principal as a precaution) demanding restoration OR compensation up to the appraisal amount
  5. Emergency proceedings to stop the encroachment if it continues, and proceedings on the merits for compensation
Takeaway. Article 78 of the DOC simplifies the action: you sue the executing contractor, full stop. But the result depends entirely on the quality of the topographic measurement and the appraisal of the m² — 700 m² or 1,188 m², 200 DH/m² or 800 DH/m², these are factors of 2 to 4 on the final indemnity.

Encroachment appraisal + indemnity

Coordinated bailiff report · Contradictory topographic survey · RICS market value per m² · Report to support your position with third parties

Appraisal serviceRequest a quote

Faced with an encroachment, get the market value of the affected land established by our independent RICS appraisal service and browse more analyses on the ReaConsult blog.

Quick quoteContact us