Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,362 of 30 December 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 2035
2035IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 19th December, 2014, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Miriam Hayman LLD), after an application filed by Angelo Zahra, dated 26th November, 2014, Compilation number 427/2001 in the case:
The Police
(Assistant Commissioner Norbert Ciappara)
Versus:
ANGELO ZAHRA, 65 years, pensioner, son of Joseph and Grazia née Zammit, born in Santa Venera, Malta, on the 29th August, 1949,residing at ‘Shekinah’, Bidnija Road, Bidnija, Malta, and holder of identity card bearing number 751849M.
AUTHORISED the accused Angelo Zahra to appear on the final contract of exchange concerning the immovable at Marsaskala on the basis of the promise of sale dated 24th November, 2014, in the acts of Notary Charles Mangion, and after hearing Margaret Falzon from the Lands Department.
The publication of this order is being published in terms of the second proviso of Article 22A (1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta, and Article 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta, following another publication made on the 21st July, 2014, after an application given by the same Court on the 3rd July, 2014, following another application on the 12th November, 2013, after a decree given by the same Court on the 7th November, 2013, following another publication made on the 13thAugust, 2013, after a decree given by the same Court, differently presided on the 23rdFebruary, 2012, following another publication made on the 25th February, 2013, after a decree given by the same Court, differently presided on the 13th January, 2013, following another publication made on the 6th October, 2009, after decrees given by the same Court, differently presided on the 28th May, 2009, and 1st September, 2009, following another publication made on the 23rd December, 2008, after a decree given by the Court, differently presided on the 12th December, 2008, and following another publication made on the 27th July, 2001, after a decree given by the Court of Magistrate as a Court ofCriminal Inquiry on the 21st July, 2001, where the Court ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in a general manner, all monies and other movable and immovable property which may be due to, or belonging to Angelo Zahra.
Marvic Psaila
Deputy Registrar Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals
Court Warrant
2036By means of a decree given by the Civil Court (Family Section), on the 22nd October, 2014,in the records of the Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction, in the names Stevanovic Stojanka vs Stevanovic Mladen, Warrant number 258/14 AL,the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Stevanovic Mladen, in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Application filed in the Civil Court (Family Section), in the names (Applicant) Stevanovic Stojanka (ID 32581A), against the respondent Mladen Stevanovic (ID 32580A), on the 6th October, 2014, the applicant Stojanka Stevanovic (ID 32581A) respectfully pleaded:
That the applicant has an interest that the minor hereunder mentioned is not taken abroad.
That the respondent is a person who has the legal or actualcustody of the said minor.
Thus, the applicant humbly prays that this Honourable Court orders the issuing of a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction against the respondent whereby he is ordered not to take or permit any person to take the said minor outside Malta.
Details of the minor. A boy aged 14, born on the 4th October, 2000, in Serbia, and who has green/brown eyes, brown hair with yellow streaks, long and thin (see Doc. A), and who has the name of Mijadrag Stevanovic.
Sgd. Advocate Dr Lara Dimitrjevic
Confirmed before under oath after I read its contents in the presence as witness of identity, and presented by the applicant.
Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction so that a person be stopped from taking the minor outside Malta.
Republic of Malta
To the Court Marshall
Whereas the above mentioned application was presented, and there recur all the elements required by law for the under mentioned orders.
And after doing this, or if you encounter any difficulty in the execution of this warrant, you are to inform this Court immediately.
Given by the Civil Court (Family Section), with the witness of the Hon. Madam Justice A. Lofaro, LLD, Dip. Stud., Rel. Mag. Jur (Eur Law).
Applicant: Dar Qalb ta’ Ġesù, Triq il-Kbira San Ġużepp, Santa Venera.
Respondent: Mladen Stevanovic, 65, Flat 1, Magmal Court, Sliema Road, Gżira.
Execution: 1. Virtu Ferries, Xatt l-Għassara tal-Għeneb, Marsa.
2. Malta International Airport, Non-Schengen Area, Ħal Luqa.
3. Immigration Police, Police Headquarters, Floriana.
4. Air Malta, Passenger Handling and Ground Operations Services,Level 2, Sky Parks, Business Centre, Ħal Luqa.
The Application Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction number 258/14 AL, Stevanovic Stojanka vs Stevanovic Mladen, has been deferred for hearing to the 14th January, 2015, at 9.15 a.m., in order that the respondent be notified.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2037
2037IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 19th December, 2014, given by the Criminal Court (Judge Dr Antonio Mizzi, BA, LLD), following an application dated 12th December, 2014, by Francis Portelli (Compilation number 175/2013) in the names:
The Police
(Assistant Commissioner Michael Cassar)
(Superintendent Paul Vassallo)
(Inspector Angelo Gafà)
Versus
ANTHONY CASSAR
AND
FRANCIS PORTELLI, 65 years, Director, son of John Joseph Andrew and Maria Dolores née Camilleri, born in Sliema, Malta, on the 4th December, 1949,residing at 14, ‘Aidengrove’, Sir Augustus Bartolo Street, Ta’ Xbiex, Malta, and holder of identity card bearing number 986249M.
AUTHORISED the accused Francis Portelli to renounce to the usufruct existing in his favour on the property in Ta’ Xbiex referred to in his application on the condition that every contract has to be exhibited in the acts of this case, and the sum of €370,000 has to be deposited in the account number MT28 LBMA 0500 0000 0000 0117 2108 434 with Lombard Bank (Valletta), which account is also affected by the freezing order. The Court ordered also that when the money are deposited, the accused has to inform the Court which is hearing this case.
This variation was made following a freezing order dated 21st February, 2013, which was duly published in the Government Gazette on 26th February, 2013, in terms of Article 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Cap. 373 of the Laws of Malta, and Article 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.
Marvic Psaila
Deputy Registrar Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals (Malta)
Notice 2038
2038By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 3rd December, 2014, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Bonnici John et, application number 939/14 LM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of John Bonnici and Elizabeth Dickson Bonnici in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of a Sworn Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names, 1. John Bonnici (ID 26151M), and 2. Elizabeth Dickson Bonnici (ID 225500L), as heirs of the deceased Elizabeth Bonnici, on the 28th October, 2014, the applicant Bank of Valletta plc asked the defendants to state why this Honourable Court should not uphold the demands of the plaintiff company by:
Declaring and deciding that there occured one or more of the events mentioned in the contracts mentioned in this applicationparticularly but not exclusively as John Bonnici and Elizabeth Dickson Bonnici as heirs of the deceased Elizabeth Bonnici: (a) failed to pay the payments due to the interpellant company, as stipulated in the said contracts, (b) was in default in other obligations assumed by them in the same contracts and for other reasons mentioned in the application, and condemn the same John Bonnici and Elizabeth Dickson Bonnici as heirs of the deceased Elizabeth Bonnici, to pay together and in solidum between them to the plaintiff company, the sum of seventy-five thousand, eight hundred and twelve Ewro and eighty cents (€75,812.80), which sum is due as explained in the same application.
With costs as demanded against the defendants summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.
Applicant company: Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833), 1/5, Misraħ San Ġorġ, Valletta VLT 1190.
Defendants: 1. John Bonnici, 44, Flat 3, Triq il-Moll tal-Ħatab, Mosta.
2. Elizabeth Dickson Bonnici, Carmen, Triq il-Moll tal-Ħatab, Mosta.
The Sworn Application in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Bonnici John et, application number 939/14 LM, was appointed for hearing to the 12th January, 2015, at 12.45 p.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2039
2039It is hereby notified that by a decree dated the 24th November, 2014, the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, ordered the publication of the extract reproduced hereunder for the purpose of service in terms of Articles 187 (3) and 931 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.
Whereas by a decree dated the 24th November, 2014, by the said Court upon an application of Joseph Portelli (identity card number 30488G), whereby it was ordered that deputy curators be nominated in terms of law to represent the unknown persons who are entitled to receive the herein mentioned groundrent, and this in the records of schedule of deposit and concurrent redemption of groundrent bearing number 323/2014, in the names, Joseph Portelli versus deputy curators to represent the unknown persons who are entitled to receive the herein mentioned groundrent, filed on the 29th October, 2014, in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, as well as in all the other related and subsequent acts.
This schedule of deposit relates to the redemption of groundrent imposed on the premises bearing number 12, in Ramla Road, Nadur, Gozo, consisting of a garage with its own airspace, and a dilapidated house with its own airspace, with a garden in between which extends behind the house. The whole measures 495 square metres, and is bounded on the South East by the street, on the South West and North West by an alley which abuts on the said street, and on the North East by property of the Said family. The garden is subject to the annual and perpetual groundrent of €0.12c, and this as results from the deed of acquisition of applicant’s father dated 6th December, 1972, in the records of Notary Giuseppi Cauchi.
Whoever is interested to be nominated as a curator is hereby called upon to call at this Registry within six (6) days, and make known their interest through a declaratory note to accept such an assignment and in default, this Court will proceed to nominate an official curator.
Issued by the aforementioned Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, under the signature of Dr Paul Coppini, a Magistrate of the said Court.
Anthony Mizzi
For the Registrar Gozo Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2040
2040By means of a decree given on the 2nd October, 2014, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Simon Galea vs Samah Mansour, application number 325/08, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Appeal Application filed in the Court of Appeal, in the names Simon Galea (ID 113371M) vs Samah Mansour (ID 148406L), on the 17th June, 2014, the applicant Samah Mansour (ID 148406L) respectfully pleaded:
That by means of the procedures in the names premised before the Civil Court (Family Section), the plaintiff asked this Honourable Court:
(a) To entrust the care and custody of the minor ...omissis...to his father the applicant.
(b) To fix if this Court upholds the first demand the modalities of access which the respondent should have to the minor.
(c) To take all the necessary and opportune provisions in the best interest of the minor.
(d) Order the respondent in terms of the contract of separation to return to the applicant the passport of the minor within a short and peremptory period which shall be fixed by this Honourable Court.
That by means of a sworn reply, the applicant appellant strongly rejected and contested the plaintiff’s demands.
That by means of its judgement in the names above referred to decided on the 28th May, 2014, the CivilCourt (Family Section) decided the plaintiff’s claim by:
1. Upholding the first demand and entrusted the care and custody of the minor ...omissis... exclusively to the father.
2. Rejected the second demand.
3. Authorised the plaintiff so that alone he applies for the passport of the minor ...omissis...
4. Abstain from taking further cognisance of the fifth demand.
According to thejudgement the costs of the cause are to be paid in their entirety by the defendant.
That the applicant feels strongly aggrieved by this judgement, and is thus humbly filing this appeal.
That the grievances are clear and manifest, and consist in the following:
(1) That in the first place in the humble opinion of the applicant, the Court of First Instance was very mistaken when it rejected completely the right of access that the applicant appellant should have to her minor son ...omissis...
(2) That in the second place with the due respect, the Court of First Instance was not correct when it ordered that there was no need of the consent of the mother so that her minor son can leave these Islands.
The First Grievance
In its judgement, the Court of First Instance concluded that the care and custody of the minor be entrusted to the respondent plaintiff, and the applicant appellant shall have no right of access to the minor ...omissis... The applicant humbly points outthat it shall be very harmful that this sole relationship,the so called as the mother-child bond between her as a mother and her minor son is being so severed and destroyed because during these last four years she was completely excluded from the life of her son. The applicant humbly points out that in its judgement, the Court of First Instance completely denied this relationship with her minor son.
...........omissis...........
The Psychoterapist Melissa Agius who presented her report on the 21st December, 2010, did not agree with the conclusions of the Children’s Advocate Dr Stephanie Galea, that the access in favour of the applicant appellant should be suspended, and recommended that the applicant should have access to the minor under supervision every two weeks for two hours.
On the other part, the Children’s Advocate Dr Tatiane Cassar in her report dated 6th October, 2008, points outthat if ever there was a desire on the part of the minor not to continue to reside with the mother in her residence with her new family, this was not due to any default of the applicant appellant, and remarks that it shall be opportune to reach a consensual agreement between the parties regarding access of the mother to the minor’.
...........omissis...........
That thus it should be pointed out that the the only expert from the experts appointed to report on the procedures in the names premised which concluded that the applicant appellant should not have access to the minor was the children’s Advocate Dr Stephanie Galea.
The applicant humbly points out that the Court of First Instance in its judgement did not give the due consideration to the reports of the experts appointed except for the report of Dr Stephanie Galea which was quoted at length.
Regarding the evidence with all due respect, it has to be pointed out that the Court of First Instance seems to have chosen what was best for it.
In its considerations, the Court of First Instance declared that it was of the opinion that the difficulties so that the applicant appellant holds the minor commenced when she started her relationship with Holbie Aleaddin. The Court further adds that the violent and dominant character of this Holbie Aleaddin did not permit that the relationship between the defendant and the minor develop, so much so that the defendant found herself in the extremity that she had to choose between her son and the person with whom she choose to form a new family.
...........omissis...........
With all due respect, the Court of First Instance was not correct when it concluded that the applicant had to choose between her son and her husband. It appears that the Court of First Instance, completely ignored the legal letter, dated 12th June, 2008, in virtue of which it had asked the boy’s father to hold her son Amar for a short period.
...........omissis...........
In paragraph 9 ofhis note ofsubmissions, the respondent plaintiff declared that the applicant reappeared three months after according to him on the 1st September, 2008, to collect her son. This is a completely untrue declaration and intended to continue to deviate the Court of First Instance, as unfortunately it managed to do. Infact, the applicant made various attempts to take her son from the plaintiff’s house, which attempts brought about a series of reports at the Police Station ...omissis... Thus, in the light of all this, the Court of First Instance was incorrect in its conclusions that the applicant found herself in the extremity that she had to choose between her son and the person with whom she choose to form a new family.
The Court of First Instance in the judgement observesthat the proceedings of the cause in the names premised is full of copies of reports at the Police Stations, a lot of them relating to the failure of the defendant to attend to the access ofher son and others more serious which brought about the taking of Court proceedings before the Court of Criminal Jurisdiction. Unfortunately, for all the partiesinvolved in the present procedures, this is the case, but it is also the case that the Court of First Instance failed to understand how the applicantfound herself during the long period of these procedures. During these procedures, she found herself in a vicious circle where whatever she did shall have negative effects on the situation and the circumstances in which she found herself.
...........omissis...........
The applicant appellant humbly points out that when she did not exercise her right of access to her minor son at the Msida Police Station, she had valid reasons which she explained several times before the Court of First Instance. It is to be noted here that it was not easy to find a balance between the fact that she had to collect her son four times weekly from the Msida Police Station, whilst her daughter was only two years old and at the same time she had to obey the Court’s Order so that the minor is not in the presence of third parties. On his part, the respondent plaintiff had done all that is possible to deny this right to the applicant, so that afterwards he canhave an excuse to file a report at the Police Station that the applicant shall not have attended for the access. As already explained in her sworn reply of the 18th March, 2009, and as was pointed out in her note of submissions whereby there were occasions where she could not call for her daughter for valid reasons.
...........omissis...........
It is so much the case that the interest of the respondent plaintiff was to deny the applicant from her son that he was found guilty by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature, by means of a judgement dated 8th March, 2010.
In its conclusions, the Court of First Instance stated that the same Court was precluded from having at its disposal the referee’s report of the Psychoterapist Melissa Agius, and this because the appellant failed to pay the referees’s fees.
...........omissis...........
Finally, the Court of First Instance after hearing the minor in camera concluded that the minor showed the desirethat he did not wantto have any contact with the mother. The Court explained that although the Court is not bound by the express wishes of the minor regarding his future, such wishes are to be considered seriously in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, and should be given the necessary weight especially if such wishes conform with that which is objectively in the best interests of the minor.
...........omissis...........
Here with the due respect, it is to be pointed out that it is a well known fact that children are very susceptible, and it is very easy that they are influenced by the person who is close to them. Unfortunately for the minor ...omissis... he is under great pressure by his father to refute any contact with his mother the applicant.
...........omissis...........
In its conclusions the Court of First Instance concluded that it was Holbie Aleaddin or rather the applicant’s husband who put into disarray and broke down the relationship between the defendant and her son. If one argues and only for the sake of argument, that it is the case, that the interferenceand the behaviour of the two applicant appellants thatbrought about the breakdown of the relationship that the minor had with his mother, the Court of First Instance still should not have reached the conclusion to cut off the applicant appellant completely from her son.
...........omissis...........
As declared by the European Court of Human Rights in the cause Neulinger and Shuruk vs Switzerland (Grand Chamber 6th July, 2010, application no. 41615/07) in paragraph 136, ‘Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and if and when appropriate to ‘rebuild’ the family’.
...........omissis...........
Here it is to be emphasised that even those minor children that are under a Care Order in terms of Article 4 of Act 1980 regarding Children and Young Persons (Care Orders) Actor rather Cap. 285 of the Laws of Malta,in case of children whose parents, or in default their relatives do not show ability to upbring their childrenadequatelythey shall have in the majority of cases the right of accessto their biological parents.
...........omissis...........
As upheld by the Court of Civil Court of Constitutional Jurisdiction, in the case Charmaine Farrugia and Jimmy Saccovs the Minister for the Family and Social Solidarity, the Director of the Department responsible for Social Welfare, the Attorney General, decided 8th August, 2013, (App. 36/2013), the whole purpose is not to deprive the parents from their childrenbut to protect the interests of the minors, and if possible, the parents are reintegrated in the custody of the children’.
A quick look to our Jurisprudence is enough so that one notes that although the Article 8 (1) of the European Convention, Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta, and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedomsprotects the right of each individual for the respect of his private life and that of his family, in those cases regarding minors like the case in question it is the practice of the Court that in the first place that it takes into consideration the best interest of the minors concerned. And thusin this case, the cardinal question in the present case reduces itself to the principal question what is the supreme interest of the minor ...omissis...?That he shall be completely cut off from his mother the applicant appellant or that he be given professional help so that there be resolved the problem of the reluctance which the minor may have to restablish regular contact with his mother, which shall afterwards bring about that he acquires what he lost during these last years, even as regards the relationship with his sister.
Keeping in view all the picture, it should result that the grievance should be proved amply satisfied and substantiated.
The Second Grievance
Regarding the third demand of the original application, the Court decided and authorised the respondent plaintiff so that he applies alone for the passport of the minor ...omissis... without the necessity of the signature of the mother, and authorised him alone to withdraw the passport from the competent authorities. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance ordered that there is no need for the consent of the defendant so that the minor may leave these Islands as long as there is the father’s consent.
In regard to this grievance, the appellant humbly submits that if the applicant appellantunderstands andacceptsthis part of the decide as regards the passport application and withdrawal of the same, she can never understand how the Court of First Instance arrived to decidethat the applicant as the minor’s mother does not have the right to give her consent so that the minor may go abroad.The appellant feels strongly aggrievedby the second part of this decisionsince the respondent plaintiff can go abroad with the boy to every part of the world without the consent of the interpellant appellant. This is a very grievous fact in itself, and this because it is to be observed that the Court of First Instancecould never have reasonably and legally reachedthe said conclusion, keeping in view the fact that the respondent plaintiff is a married person of Tunisian nationality, and it cannot be excluded that sometime or other he will want to establish his residence and of his family in Tunisia or in a foreign country away from Malta.
...........omissis...........
In the humble opinion of the applicant, the decision of the Court of First Decisionto grant the respondent plaintiff the rightto apply and withdraw the minor’s passport alone without the consent of the applicant is upon to a certain extent acceptable, and this to avoid the pique which characterised these procedures from the very beginning. Certainlythe same cannot be stated as for the second part of the decisionwhich outrightly authorisedthe respondent plaintiff to go abroad with the minor without the consent of the mother and if he decides to establish his residence for example inhis wife’s country, the Court of First Instance did not feel that it should impose any type of control so that the rights of the applicant appellant be safeguarded. This fact in itselfwithout any shadow of doubt is of serious prejudice to the applicant’s right of respect to her private life and that of her family as sanctioned by Article 8 (1) of the Act regarding the European Convention, Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta, and the Conventionfor the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Keeping all this in perspective the second part of this grievance should be satisfied.
For these motives, the applicant whilst making reference to the documents, submissions and witness brought beforethe Civil Court (Family Section), and reserving to bring all the documents and evidence, and make submissions before the Honourable Court of Appeal, humbly asks that this Honourable Court vary and reform the judgement given by the Civil Court (Family Section), on the 28th May, 2014, in the names above referred to by revoking it in that part to which the grievances refer whilst confirming it for the rest.
With costs of both instances against the respondent plaintiff.
Service: 29, Triq G. Navarro, Msida.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2041
2041By means of a decree given on the 2nd September, 2014, by the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), in the records of the Notice number 318/12 FDP, in the names Maximilian Castagna vs Henry Camenzuli, Notice number 318/12 FDP, decided 30th September, 2013, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Maximilian Castagna in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Appeal Application filed in the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), in the records of the Notice number 318/12 FDP, in the names Maximilian Castagna (ID 650247M) vs Henry Camenzuli (ID 35965M), on the 18th October, 2013, the applicant Henry Camenzuli respectfully pleaded:
That by means of an application filed in terms of Article 166 A of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta filed on the 24th September, 2012, whereby the applicant asked this Court to declare the judicial letter number 494/2012, sent in terms of Article 166A by the respondent as null and without effect. The applicant asked also that it be declared that the executive title obtained by the respondent, on the basis of this judicial letter, as null and without effect, and consequentlydeclare also as null and without effect, the Garnishee Order 1451/2012, issued on the basis of the judicial letter 494/2012. The applicant asked for the rescission ofthe judicial letter 494/2012 and the garnishee order 1451/2012, and that he be authorised to withdraw the funds deposited in Court by means of Schedule of Deposit 1097/2012.
In the reply of the respondent they insisted that the claims were unfounded in fact and at law, and that the demands are to be rejected.
That the Court in its judgement of the 30th September, 2013, decided by rejecting the pleas of the respondent, and upheld the application as brought forward, and thus declared null and without effect the judicial letter 494/2012, as well as the GarnisheeOrder 1451/2012, rescindedthe effectof the executive title given to the judicial letter 494/2012, on the 27th April, 2012, and rescindedthe effect of the Garnishee Order 1451/2012 and ordered that there be issued a counter-warrant to the same warrant 1451/2012, at the expense of the respondent, and authorised the applicant to withdraw the funds deposited under the Court Authority by means of Schedule of Deposit 1097/2012 immediately, the present expenses are to include the expenses incurred for the deposit of the funds of the Schedule of Deposit above mentionedwhich shall be deducted from the sum that the applicantmay withdraw are to be all borne by the respondent.
That the applicant felt aggrieved by the said judgement, and is filing this humble appeal therefrom.
That this grievance is clear and manifest, and consists in the following:
1. That in the first place, the applicant does not agree with the conclusion of the Honourable Court of First Instance whereby it stated that it was not notified as required by law. The law in Article 187 of the Cap of Organisation and Civil Procedure clearly stipulated that a judicial letter is to be notified at the residence or place of work. It is clear that the address where Max Castagna was notified is the official address of the company that this company appertains to Max Castagna who is a shareholder, as well a Director.
2. That it is clear that a mistake was made in the name of the company, and certainly the judicial letter cannot be executed against this company as it is wrongly indicated.
3. Also it cannot ask for the rescission of the garnishee order on the basis of this application. The law specifies an Article ad hoc under which article one can attack the executive garnishee order, and the Honourable Court of First Instance was mistaken when it upheld the request of the applicant to rescind the effects of the Warrant 1451/2012.
Thus, the applicant whilst referring to the records of the cause and the proof brought forward and reserves to bring any other proof permitted by law prays with respect for the reasons premised that this Honourable Court upholds this appeal application filed by him, and cancel and revoke the judgement of the 30th September, 2013, givenbythe Courts of Magistrates (Malta) in the names premised, and consequently uphold the original application of Henry Camenzuli, with costs of both instances against the respondents.
Notify: Max Castagna, 10, Sardinella, Triq Thomas Ashby, Marsaskala.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Bann for Curators
2042Republic of Malta
To the Court Marshall
By means of a decree given by this Court, on the 1st December, 2014, following a request of Joseph Abela et, it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the unknown owners in the records of the Schedule of Deposit andredemptionof groundrent in the names Joseph Abela etvs Deputy Curators, and in the relative and subsequent acts.
By means of a Schedule of Deposit and redemption filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names, Joseph Abela, son of Salvatore Abela and Carmen née Borg, born in Rabat, Malta, and residing at Ħ’Attard (ID 259057M), and Suzanne Abela, wife of Joseph Abela, daughter of Gerald Clarke and Yvonne née Torpiano, born in Valletta and residing at Ħ’Attard (ID 465062M) vs Deputy Curators to represent the unknown owners, on the 28th November, 2014, the interpellants Joseph and Suzanne, spouses Abela, respectfully pleaded:
That the interpellants are the owners of the garage at street level, without official number, but unofficially marked number seven (7), as underlying and overlying property of third parties, accessible directly from Triq il-Ħelsien, Ħal Qormi, bordering on the West with Triq il-Ħelsien, on the South with a new unamed street which abuts in Triq il-Ħelsien, and on the North with property of LLMA Limited, Falgri Limited, Falson Construction Limited and Fra Ben Construction Limited, which garage is subjectto the annual and perpetual groundrent of €0.24.
That the same garage was bought by the spouses Abela from LLMA Limited, Falgri Limited, Falson Construction Limited and Fra Fen Construction Limited, by a deed of Notary Elizabeth Sciriha, of the 27th January, 1997.
That the same property is subject to the annual and perpetual groundrent of €0.24c payable to unknown owners, and thus the interpellants are depositng the sum of €4.80 which represents the said groundrent of €0.24c capitalised at 5% to be freely withdrawn after the due receipt is left.
Interpellant: 1. Joseph Abela and Suzanne Abela, 38, Triq il-Muskatell, Ħ’Attard.
Notify: 1. Director Public Registry, Merchants Street, Valletta.
2. Deputy Curators, Courts of Justice, Valletta.
You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this Superior Court, and to summon whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before this Registry within six days, and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that he wishes so to act.
You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.
And after so acting, or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.
Given by the Civil Court First Hall above mentioned,with the witness of the Hon. Mr Justice Anthony Ellul, LLD, Doctor of Laws.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2043
2043By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 30th October, 2014, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ofFra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 20th August, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Alatram Husain (Kuwait Passport 2729605), ofVision Court, Flat 2, Triq l-Isqof F.S. Caruana, Imsida, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€583.55, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 589/14VG) is deferred for the 13th January, 2015 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2044
2044By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 4th November, 2014, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ofFra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 18th August, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Ayers Michael John (ID 62680A), ofAzure, Flat 10, Triq Għar id-Dud, Sliema,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€251.61, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 570/14YMS) is deferred for the 14th January, 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2045
2045By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 8th July, 2014, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ofFra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 28th May, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Grasman Erik Oskar (ID 60729A), of9, Mirage Court, Flat 14, Triq Għar il-Lembi, Sliema,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€933, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 362/14YMS) is deferred for the 14th January, 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2046
2046By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 30th October, 2014, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ofFra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 23rd July, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Majid Ben Taher (Libyan Passport 885987LY), ofManuel, Flat 1, Triq il-Bramel, Swieqi,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€664.58, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 492/14YMS) is deferred for the 14th January, 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2047
2047By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 9th July, 2014, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ofFra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 3rd March, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Fabio Del Papa (ID 71826A), ofGiotto Court, Block A, Flat 6, Triq Dun Karm, Msida,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€499.07, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 129/14YMS) is deferred for the 14th January, 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2048
2048By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, ofthe 9th July, 2014, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ofFra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 21st February, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Attard Vincent (ID 517657M), in his own name and for and on behalf of the compamy Myra Trading Limited (C 19093), of Ashgill Court, Flat 1, Triq Censu Busuttil, Fgura,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€1,353.18 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 117/14YMS) is deferred for the 14th January, 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2049
2049By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, ofthe 12th November, 2014, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ofFra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 25th August, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Blowe John Douglas (ID 48779A), of 25, Silvia, Flat 1A, Triq l-Imħar, San Pawl il-Baħar,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€266.05, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 606/14YMS) is deferred for the 15th January, 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals