The statute of limitations governing co-ownership charges in Morocco represents a critical legal issue affecting the financial sustainability of the union of co-owners, where retaining a property lawyer in Morocco is essential to safeguard rights. While Law No. 18.00 on the status of co-ownership of built properties establishes the obligation of each co-owner to contribute to common expenses under Article 23, and grants the syndic legal authority to collect debts under Article 25, this special statute remains silent regarding the applicable limitation period.
Addressing this statutory gap in Law No. 18.00 (amended by Law No. 106.12), Moroccan trial courts and the Court of Cassation have rejected the general 15-year limitation period of Article 387 of the Dahir of Obligations and Contracts (DOC), applying instead the 5-year periodic prescription under Article 391 DOC, which provides that periodic dues, pensions, rural and urban property rents, interest and other similar payments are barred by limitation after five years from the due date of each installment.
The judiciary grounds this ruling on the inherently periodic nature of service charges assessed regularly for management, security, and maintenance, fulfilling the legislative purpose of protecting debtors from the compounding of long-dormant periodic claims.
Judicial practice applies the principle of independent periodic terms: the 5-year limitation does not run as a single block for the total debt, but accrues separately for each installment from its due date or from the annual general assembly’s final approval of accounts. Consequently, installments maturing more than five years prior to formal legal action are time-barred. Interruption of prescription is governed by Article 382 DOC. As the statute of limitations is not a matter of public policy, the debtor must explicitly raise it in defense.
The Court of Cassation has reinforced the procedural and substantive framework in several benchmark rulings: Decision No. 2014/518 of 2014-12-28 by the Civil Chamber (Case No. 2013/7/1/3752), establishing that Law 18.00 governs property rights rather than personal obligations, confirming that common expense contributions are personal obligations subject to periodic prescription; Decision No. 2022/99 of 2022-02-10 by the Civil Chamber (Case No. 2020/10/1/5395), confirming the exclusive standing of the syndic to represent the union of co-owners in litigation; Decision No. 2022/72 of 2022-02-01 (Case No. 2019/2/1/9129), affirming the binding authority of general assembly resolutions fixing contributions; and Decision No. 2023/47 of 2023-01-17 (Case No. 2020/2/1/1628), holding that statutory majorities under Article 20 of Law 18.00 are mandatory for valid collective resolutions.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Every matter has its own facts and calls for its own assessment.
