With the outbreak of war in Khartoum in mid-April 2023, most families left their homes under the pressure of fear, direct threats, the cutoff of services, and acts of looting or partial and total destruction. Many tenants were unable to end their legal obligations in an organized manner; they simply fled toward safety. However, when they returned to Khartoum after nearly three years, they were shocked to find that accumulated rent arrears had been haunting them throughout their period of refuge or displacement.
Some were surprised to find judicial rulings mandating payment and maintenance, along with arrest warrants awaiting their return, forming a massive shock that almost equals the shock of the war itself.
Pursuits and Examples
One family returning from abroad was surprised to find a judicial ruling waiting for them and an arrest warrant issued against them as a result of a lawsuit filed by the homeowner demanding payment of late rents, in addition to charging them for the cost of house maintenance.
Through local newspapers, the family appealed to the Chief Justice to form committees to review all rulings issued in absentia or in person in such cases related to the rental of houses and apartments. They demanded a review of the issued rulings and for the tenant to be heard as a second party before a judgment is issued, stating, “It is not rational to issue an absentia ruling with such cruelty.”
The family explained that they continued to pay the rent until the third month of the war, but were then forced to flee the country, just as the homeowners themselves did. they noted that they believed this situation rendered all rents frozen during that period until homeowners could communicate with tenants after the situation in the capital calmed down to discuss available options regarding continuing the rentals or vacating the houses.
Divergent Positions
In the midst of the shock, some examples emerge of owners who dealt with the reality in a spirit of sympathy and humanity, taking into account the circumstances of those who fled and the loss of many tenants’ ability to pay due to the loss of their jobs and sources of income. This is in addition to their refusal to raise rent prices despite the economic complications accompanying the war, such as high inflation rates and the significant deterioration of the national currency’s value throughout the war years.
Azhari Abdul Majeed, a property owner in the Al-Waha neighborhood of Omdurman—which was relatively safe and rented to several families—says that the tenants contacted him and informed him of their inability to pay rent after losing their sources of income. He noted that he agreed to exempt them from rent for an entire year, calling on his fellow owners to show the same spirit in dealing with tenants and to consider the humanitarian, economic, and social conditions that all Sudanese are going through, and the wave of poverty that has hit most sectors of the Sudanese people.
Official Disavowal
On the official level, the Sudanese government has not yet undertaken any commitment regarding the damage that affected citizens’ homes, whether owned or rented.
The Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Gibril Ibrahim, stressed that the government will not intervene regarding rents or impose reductions on owners, and price determination will remain subject to market mechanisms according to demand and supply without direct intervention from the state.
Ibrahim confirmed in press statements that the government will not bear responsibility for the maintenance or rehabilitation of houses damaged by the war, noting that repairing private property remains the duty of its owners. He justified this by saying that the state does not have the capacity to cover the costs of repairing all damaged houses, and that citizens who lost items such as doors or windows can take the initiative to reinstall them at their own expense.
Governmental Appeal
However, the minister appealed to property owners to keep rent prices reasonable. Although property rentals are an open market not determined by law, property owners must contribute to easing the burden on citizens by reducing the high rent prices that exhaust them. He noted that the government is in the process of reconsidering customs duties on building materials so they can serve as incentives for citizens to restore their destroyed properties.
He added, “I believe that every citizen can repair their home gradually, because the government does not have the capacity and does not want to deceive people, but rather faces them with the truth as it is, while at the same time, it is ready to provide any possible facilities.”
Exceptional Circumstances
In this context, legal consultant Al-Samoual Ibrahim Al-Dosougi explains that Sudan is witnessing exceptional circumstances as a result of the armed conflict, which has directly affected the implementation of many contractual obligations, foremost of which are rental contracts. Hence, questions are raised about the legal status of accumulated rents during the war period.
He continues: “In principle, the rental contract is subject to the provisions of the Sudanese Civil Transactions Law and the laws regulating the relationship between the lessor and the lessee. The obligation to pay rent is considered an original debt upon the tenant as long as the benefit from the property exists. The law does not include explicit texts providing for the automatic cancellation of rent entitlements simply because payment stopped due to war or displacement.”
Force Majeure
He adds: “In exceptional circumstances, the law recognizes two important principles. The first is ‘force majeure’ if the war led to the impossibility of benefiting from the property entirely, such as its destruction, its location in a closed military operations zone, or even the issuance of official decisions preventing its use. In such cases, the rent obligation may fall away during the period of impossibility due to the absence of the legal equivalent. As for mere financial distress, it is not considered force majeure in itself to cancel the debt.”
The second principle, according to Al-Samoual, is the “theory of emergency circumstances.” If the war makes the execution of the obligation unusually burdensome, the court may intervene to restore the contractual balance by temporarily reducing the rent or scheduling the arrears in installments to achieve justice and prevent injustice.
Judicial Estimates
Accordingly, per Al-Dosougi, the accumulation of rents does not fall away automatically due to the war, but is rather subject to judicial estimation according to the condition of each property and the circumstances of each contractual relationship. The decisive criterion remains: was the benefit from the property actually hindered or did it remain? Therefore, in light of these conditions, it is advisable to prioritize amicable solutions and phased settlements to maintain the stability of transactions and achieve the purposes of justice in an exceptional circumstance the country is passing through. Also, in cases of armed conflict, many countries tend to adopt exceptional measures related to rental contracts, including freezing rents or total or partial exemptions during periods of forced displacement, in consideration of the humanitarian and economic conditions accompanying wars.
Exceptional Intervention
Al-Dosougi believes that the absence of an exceptional legislative intervention regulating these situations may lead to an escalation of judicial disputes and an increase in eviction lawsuits and financial claims, which burdens the judiciary and increases social tension.
Among the possible solutions in such circumstances, according to the legal consultant, is the issuance of temporary legislation providing for the suspension of judicial claims related to rents during a specific period, and dropping rent for periods in which it is proven that housing or benefiting from the property was actually impossible due to the conflict, while establishing a mechanism to prove cases of displacement or actual impossibility of benefit to prevent abuse of the exception. He noted that temporary legislative treatment represents one of the tools to achieve a balance between protecting private property and ensuring a minimum level of social justice under exceptional circumstances.
War and Transactions
In a related manner, lawyer Ahmed Moussa Omar believes that the ongoing war in the country has left impacts on all aspects of life, including the confirmation of transactions between individuals in general and rental transactions in particular. The 1991 Building Rents Law is a special law that restricts general law like the 1984 Civil Transactions Law with its various amendments. However, there is a governing legal rule and Sharia principles such as the theories of emergencies and force majeure that justify the principle of the tenant’s inability to pay due to the war.
Omar points out that this legal rule certainly affects the obligations of the parties and disrupts obligations in written or verbal contracts. There is another issue related to the suitability of the leased premises for housing; it is known that rent is in exchange for housing and benefit, and this can also restrict the landlord’s right to claim rent for a property that the tenant did not benefit from.
Despite all this, according to lawyer Omar, the question remains: is the tenant obliged to pay rent for a house that is no longer fit for housing due to its need—and the need of the entire area—for maintenance and the return of services? Here will be the focus of the legal discussion that courts find themselves forced to answer. In response to this question, the lawyer says that even with the liberation of Khartoum, the right of owners to claim rent remains restricted by the suitability of the property for housing, and perhaps the judicial authorities should issue a circular to unify court rulings on these matters.
A Great Shock
In turn, social activist and researcher Ezz El-Din Al-Nasih described the rental crisis facing those returning home as one of the direct outcomes of the war, after it transformed from being a mere natural legal obligation into one of the threats to social stability and voluntary return.
What is happening now, according to Al-Nasih, constitutes a major shock to many families who have begun returning to areas that have stabilized relatively, only to find themselves facing demands to pay accumulated rents, with judicial rulings issued against some of them obligating them to pay while bearing the cost of maintaining the rented houses since before the outbreak of the war.
Absence of a Mechanism
The social activist points out that the absence of a unified mechanism to address the effects of the war on people’s lives within a comprehensive transitional justice framework makes the vulnerable citizen a victim for the third time by leaving them alone to bear the cost of a war they were not a party to starting. Since the disaster was general, the resulting burdens must be distributed in the same way.
Al-Nasih believes that the social and humanitarian dimensions are among the most dangerous complications on the ground. The displaced person or refugee did not leave by choice; furthermore, demanding rent for three years from financially exhausted families places them before harsh choices, the least of which is staying outside Khartoum, which hinders voluntary return and slows down social reconstruction.
He continues: “The state plays the role of the regulator of transactions between citizens under normal conditions, but in exceptional cases and disasters, it must intervene by enacting legislation, issuing decisions, or forming committees to conduct settlements that alleviate such crises, in order to prevent the expansion of the phenomenon of rampant poverty in cities, because the continuation of this situation will increase the pace of social tension.”
