Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 20,009 of 14th June 2018

Board, in the records of the Application in the names Ibrahim Halim noe vs Moku Limited, Application Number 19/2018JD the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent company Moku Limited in terms of Article 187(3) et seq of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12)

By means of an application in the names Ibrahim Halim (ID 487695M) for and on behalf of Budget Services Limited (C12855) vs Moku Limited (C 72906) filed on the 6th March, 2018, the applicant Ibrahim Halim (ID 487695M) for and on behalf of Budget Servicies Limited (C 12855) respectfully submitted: 

That the aplicant company with its shareholder Ibrahim Halim has entered in a lease agreement with the respondent company (Doc. A attached);

During this lease, the respondent company retained the premises closed for a longa period of time so much so that the premises appeared to be abandoned. This was not in breach of the agreemnet however this fact was causing damages when one considers that this shop was in a shopping complex; 

The respondent failed to pay the rent, water and electricity bills and also the licence of the premises lease to it. In fact till today the respondent has rent arrears in the amount of €4,304.64 (see invoices here attached and marked as Doc. B), arrears of water and electricity bills in the amount of €3,109.15 (see invoices here attached and marked as Doc. C) and licence arrears in the amount of €692.98 (see licence and receipt here attached and marked as Doc. D) which licence and bills were paid by the applicant company and the total amount is that of €8106.77);

Worst than this, whilst the premises were completely abandoned, there was an attempt to trasfer or sub-lease which was prohibited and which would have led to the termination of the agreement. When solicited to desist from breaching the agreement, it resulted that this transfer and sub-lease had taken place in breach of the agreement;

Accordingly the respondents have caused the termination of the same agreement which was effectively terminated;

Notwithstanding the termination of the lease, the respondent company still owes the payment of the aforementioned arrears, which amounts are certain, liquid and due and therefore this case had to be filed.

Accordingly, the applicant is requesting this Honourable Board so that:

1. It declares that the respondent company is to pay arrears of rent in the amount of €4304.64 (according to Doc. B here attached), water and electricity arrears in the amount of €3109.15 (according to Doc. C here attached) and licence arrears in the amount of €692.98 (according to Doc. D here attched) which totally amount to €8106.77 with interest till the date of effective payment.

2. It orders the respondent company to pay the arrears which in total amount to €8106.77 with interest till the date of effective payment.

With costs

Applicant: Park Towers, Triq Borg Oliver, St Julians

Service on the Respondent: Moku Limited, The Penthouse, Carolina Court, Triq G. Calì, Ta’ Xbiex

Rent Regulation Board

Magistrate Dr Josette Demicoli, LLD, Chairperson

Application number 19/18JD

The Board,

Saw the application;

Orders the notification of the application to the respondents;

Appoints the application so that it will be heard during the sitting of the 22nd May, 2018, at 9.00 a.m., and which is postponed to the sitting of the 18th June, 2018, at 9.15 a.m.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

 By means of a decree of the 1st June, 2018, by the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Application in the names Emanuel Vella vs Bodo Muth, Application number 26/2018JD, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Muth Bodoin terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12)

By means of an application in the names Emanuel Vella (ID 122553M) vs Bodo Muth with Maltese resident permit number MT 059211 and with identity number 397889 filed on the 22nd March, 2018, the applicant Emanuel Vella humbly requested and confirmed on oath: 

1. The respondent leased from the applicant apartment number 2, in the block of apartments with the name ‘Bluebonnet’, in Triq it-Tgħam, Mellieħa, MLH 1472 in virtue and on the strength of a lease agreement dated the 15th January, 2016, which lease had to commence on the 1st March, 2016. A copy of the said lease agreement is being herewith attached and marked Document EV1;

2. According to Clause 2 of the said Lease Agreement, the lease term was for twelve (12) months save that the lease could be renewed if both parties reached an agreement not later than one month prior to the expiry of the lease term;

3. The original term of the lease expired on the 15th March, 2017, and was renewed by agreement between the parties until the 15th March, 2018;

4. One month prior to the expiry of the second twelve month lease terms, the applicant informed the respondent that he did not intend renewing the lease term and hence asked him to vacate the apartment and return the keys.

5. On the 28th February, 2018, by means of a text message sent by means of the respondent’s cellular phone to the phone of the applicant, the respondent communicated that the apartment leased to him by the applicant would remain occupied ‘until further notice’.

6. On the 2nd March, 2018, the respondent by means of another text message sent from his cellular phone to the applicant’s cellular phone communicated that he would remain in the apartment until the end of March, 2018, ‘and maybe longer’. The respondent added that ‘will contact you at March 25th and tell you if I also stay April’. A copy of the screen shot taken from the cellular phone of the applicant by the applicant is being herewith attached and marked Document EV2.

7. This is not acceptable to the applicant since he had informed the respondent within the time envisaged and provided for in the Lease Agreement that he (the applicant) was not prepared to renew the lease term;

8. The respondent continued to reside in the leased apartment abusively and without any title at law and remains so doing till today.

9. Notwithstanding various requests by the applicant to the respondent for the latter to vacate the apartment and hand it to the applicant vacant and empty, the respondent Bodo Muth remains in default;

10. There exist the elements laid down in Article 16A of Cap. 69 of the Laws of Malta for this case to decide without a hearing since the applicant is not aware that the respondent has any defences to give against the demands of the applicant.

Therefore, for the afore-mentioned reasons and save any other declaration this Honorable Board considers necessary, the applicant respectfully requestes that this Honourable Board:

1. Decides the demand of the applicant without a hearing in terms of Article 16A of the re-letting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance – Cap. 69 of the Laws of Malta;

2. Consequently orders the respondent to vacate apartment number 2, in the block of apartments with the naem Bluebonnet, in Triq it-Tgħam, Mellieħa MLH 1472, which the respondent is occupying abusively and without any legal right and this within a shjort and peremptory time to be fixed by the Honourable Board and hence to leave this aprtment fee and vacant in favour of the applicant.

With costs against the respondent who is summoned to give evidence.

The applicant reserves his right to bring other judicial actions pertaining to him according to law including that for damages.

Applicant: 8, Triq Għajn Żejtuna, Mellieħa MLH 2705

Notification of the respondent: Flat 2, Bluebonnet, Triq it-Tgħam, Mellieħa MLH 1472

The Application in the names Emanuel Vella vs Bodo Muth, application number 26/2018JD has been postponed for hearing for the 18th June, 2018, at 9.15 a.m.

This is a case where judgement can be handed down without proceeding to trial and during the first hearing if the respondent fails to make an appearance during the first hearing or fails to show that he has a valid defence or one which he can bring forward to contest the demands of the applicant plaintiff. It is therefore in the interest of the recipient of this sworn application to contact a lawyer without delay such that the Board can hear what the respondent has to say in the case.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

DKR 78/2018 – New Freezing Order

It is being notified that by a decree dated 31st May, 2018, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry  (Magistrate Dr Neville Camilleri, LLD) Compilation number 161/2018 in the case:

The Police

(Inspector Jonathan Cassar)

(Inspector Pierguido Saliba)

Versus

Jason Micallef, 23 years, un-employed, son of the late Eddie Grixti and Maria Micallef, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta, on the 29th October, 1994, residing at Hubbard, Block 7, Flat 6, Triq Allesandra, Cospicua, Malta, and number 4, Jacqueline, Triq l-Empire Stadium, Gżira, Malta, and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 483194M.

Ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in general all monies and other movable property due or pertaining or belonging to Jason Micallef and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property and this according to Section 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta and of Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta. 

The Court Authorized the accused Jason Micallef to receive the amount authorized by law which is thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy six Euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) on an annual basis provided that every financial entity is ordered to present a note by which it informs the Court in which account or from which account these monies are taken or the accused themselves may indicate to the Court from which account they are perceiving the money indicated.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Section 22A referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand and six hundred and forty-six euro and eighty-seven cents (€11,646.87), or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to both such fine and imprisonment. 

Any transfer or other disposal of any immovable property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law.

DR JOHN SEYCHELL NAVARRO 

DIP. HLTH SCIENCE, DIP. MGMT STUD., DIP. NOT. PUB., LLB, LLD

Assistant Registrar, Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals

DKR 79/2018 – New Freezing Order

It is being notified that by a decree dated 31st May, 2018, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry  (Magistrate Dr Neville Camilleri, LLD) Compilation number 162/2018 in the case:

The Police

(Inspector Jonathan Cassar)

(Inspector Pierguido Saliba)

Versus

Maria Micallef, 53 years, employed, daughter of the late Peter Micallef and Antonia née Borg, born in Gżira, Malta, on the 5th August, 1964, residing at Hubbard, Block 7, Flat 6, Triq Allesandra, Cospicua, Malta, and number 4, Jacqueline, Triq l-Empire Stadium, Gżira, Malta, and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 397664M.

Ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in general all monies and other movable property due or pertaining or belonging to Maria Micallef and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property and this according to Section 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta and of Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta. 

The Court Authorized the accused Maria Micallef to receive the amount authorized by law which is thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy six euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) on an annual basis provided that every financial entity is ordered to present a note by which it informs the Court in which account or from which account these monies are taken or the accused themselves may indicate to the Court from which account they are perceiving the money indicated.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Section 22A referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand and six hundred and forty-six euro and eighty-seven cents (€11,646.87), or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to both such fine and imprisonment. 

Any transfer or other disposal of any immovable property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law.

DR JOHN SEYCHELL NAVARRO 

DIP. HLTH SCIENCE, DIP. MGMT STUD., DIP.NOT. PUB., LLB, LLD 

Assistant Registrar, Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals