The State Commissioners Authority of the Administrative Judicial Court, Fourth Circuit “Urban Communities,” recommended rejecting the lawsuit filed by the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Zamalek Sports Club, challenging the decision of the October Gardens City Authority to withdraw the plot of land allocated to the club to establish a new branch.
Judicial suit No. 5193 of 80 was filed against the Minister of Housing, Utilities and New Urban Communities, the Chairman of the Urban Communities Authority, and the Head of the October Gardens City Authority, in an appeal against Resolution No. 1174 issued on June 11, 2025, which included the withdrawal of plot No. (122) with an area of 129,634 acres, allocated to the club in October Gardens City.
In its lawsuit, Zamalek Club demanded that the implementation of the withdrawal decision be halted as a matter of urgency, then cancel it in the matter, while restoring the situation to what it was before implementing the decision, enabling the club to receive the land and begin implementing the project, and counting the duration of the suspension within the original implementation period.
The club explained that the land was allocated to it according to a contract concluded on July 13, 2014, and it paid its full price. It also obtained the approval of the Ministry of Housing to amend the activity and increase the construction percentage. Ministerial Resolution No. 1084 of 2024 was issued approving the amendment, including the club’s commitment to provide an intensive timetable for the completion of the project.
However, the State Commissioners Authority, after examining the lawsuit papers and documents submitted by both parties, concluded that the decision to withdraw the land was based on serious reasons, foremost of which is the failure to prove seriousness in implementation over many years, despite granting the club several successive deadlines, and the issuance of official decisions and directives regarding the necessity of adhering to the timetable.
The report confirmed that the obstacles raised by the club that prevented the implementation of the project are not based on a valid basis in reality or law, especially since the documents confirm that the club has received the land since 2004 and fully inspected it, in addition to the continued weakness of implementation rates, which did not exceed 2% according to the reports of the competent authorities.
The authority also rejected the argument that there was a conflict with the amended ministerial decision or presidential directives, explaining that these directives required full and precise adherence to timetables, which was not achieved.
In its report, the State Commissioners Authority concluded by accepting the case in form and rejecting it in substance, while obligating the plaintiff in his capacity to pay the expenses, so that the final decision will remain with the Administrative Judiciary Court in future sessions.
