Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No 20,372 of 24 March 2020

By means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal on the 17th February, 2020, in the records of the Application in the names Kevin Zammit et vs Carmel Galea, Application 908/06, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents Kevin Zammit and Margaret Zammit, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application filed in the Court of Appeal in the names Kevin Zammit and Margaret Zammit vs Carmel Galea on the 6th February, 2015, the applicant Carmel Galea (ID 348956M) respectfully pleaded:

1. That the interpellant respondents presented an application whereby they premised the following:

That the applicants are the owners of the land in the vicinity of Tal-Brolli known also as Ta' Sansajna in the limits of Birżebbuġa.

That the respondent had taken the land by title of tollerance from the father of Kevin Zammit according to a writing (Doc. A and Doc. B).

That by means of the judicial letter 'Doc. C' the respondent was asked to return the land and his title of tollerance was effectively terminated.

… omissis …

That they asked the Honourable First Court to declare that:

i. The respondent is occupying the land without a legal title.

… omissis …

iv. Order the respondent to vacate the land in question within a short and peremptory period.

With costs and legal interest.

2. That the defendant appellant by means of a sworn reply pleaded the following:

That in the first place Kevin and Margaret Zammit do not have a juridical interest since they are not the owners and this even in the light of the pleas that shall be raised further down.

… omissis …

That without prejudice to the above the interpellant made various ameliorations and incurred various expenses in order to keep the land merit of the dispute in a good state and thus the expenses incurred by him should be liquidated in terms of that stipulated by Articles 540 et sequitur of Cap. 16.

Saving other pleas.

3. That by means of  a judgement given on the 28th January, 2015, the Civil Court First Hall rejected all the pleas of Carmel Galea, upheld the first demand of the plaintiffs and declared that Carmel Galea is occupying the land in the vicinity of Tal-Brolli, known as 'Ta' Sansajna' in the limits of Birżebbuġa, without a legal title and upheld the fourth demand of the plaintiffs as stated in the application.

That the grievance is clear and manifest and consits in the following:

The Court of First Instance made a wrong evalutation of the proof brought before it and this when it completely upheld the conclusions reached by the Technical Referee Godwin  Abela.

… omissis …

In the first place it is pointed out that contrary to that observed by the Court of First Instance in its considerations, the first plea raised by the respondent today appellant was in fact based on the fact that the land reclaimed by the applicant respondents is not the same land he posseses. Thus the exercise made by Architect Abela was indispensable in the light of the first plea of the appellant whereby he upheld the demands of the respondents by pleading that the respondents do not have a juridical interest since they are not the owners.

… omissis …

That thus in the humble opinion of the appellant the Court had to depart from the conclusions brought forward by the Technical Referee due to the various inconsistencies in the same report.

… omissis …

In the first instance it is pointed out that the land that the appellant inherited from his father is in the vicinity of Tal-Brolli, known ix-Xgħira, whilst the land of the appellant is in the vicinity of Ta' Sansajna, and this as results from the proof before the Court of First Instance.

… omissis …

That furthermore it is further submitted that whilst in the same field  of the respondents there is a rubble room of considerable size, in the field that the respondents are reclaiming there is no such room.

… omissis …

Furthermore there is not even agreement on the boundaries of the land in question. In fact these do no tally with the boundaries written down on the contract of acquisition of John Zammit.

That furthermore the respondent failed to proof clearly as he had the obligation to do the root of title of the land claimed by him. What the respondent exhibited was the contract in virtue of which his father purchased. Contrary to this the defendant exhibited the contract by means of which the predecessor of John Zammit acquired from where it results that Spiridione Zammit had acquired from Michele Scibberas in 1969. Thus Mr Sciberras mentioned in the Document of the Department of Agriculture as the owner was not the owner of the land reclaimed by the owners since Michele Sciberras predecessor the plaintiff bought the same land in 1967 and this as results from the part which indicates the root of title of the land  in the contract between Spridione Zammit and Michele Sciberras.

That furthermore there exists also an inconsitency in the evidence given both by the plaintiff today respondent as well as his brother.

… omissis …

That as regards the plaintiff Kevin Zammit today respondent asked in cross examination on the 16th March, 2009, if the land he inherited is not only that which the appellant is occupying he replied in the affirmative. This affirmation results to be contradicted from the referee's report which concluded that the size indicated in the contract of acquistioin of John Zammit and the land of the appellant there is a discrepancy of circa six hundred square metres.

… omissis …

That furthermore in cross examination he states that he came to know about the appellant as his father had told him about him and told him that the interpellant had gone to see him in order to ask him for permission to till the land in question. This is in contradiction with that declared by Ivor Zammit and namely that he and his father had gone to the appellant and not vice-versa.

… omissis …

Another grievance of the appellant is that based on prescription. That without prejudice to the above the appellant points out that even if in the worst hypothesis it is declared that the land in question is that reclaimed by the respondents, the action of the respondents still does not hold, and this since the appellant has occupied the same land for more than thirty years and thus in terms of Article 2143 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta he is the only owner of the same land.

… omissis …

Thus the appellant whilst referring to the proof already produced and that can be produced at this stage, humbly prays this Honourable Court to annul, cancel and revoke the judgement in the names premised, given by the First Hall Civil Court on the 28th January, 2016, whilst rejecting all the demands of the respondents as brought forward by them in their original application uphold all the pleas of the respondent appellant and this with costs of both instances against the same respondents.

Whereas the written proceedings in the cause before the Court of Appeal between Kevin Zammit and Margaret Zammit vs Carmel Galea have been closed, the Court fixed the hearing of this cause on Tuesday, 7th January, 2020, at 10.00 a.m. and put off to the 21st April, 2020, at 9.00 a.m.

Respondents: 136, Empire Bldgs, Fl. 8, Triq it-Torri, Tas-Sliema

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Civil Court (Commerce Section) on the 11th February, 2020, in the records of the Application in the names Official Receiver Liquidator F.G.S. Construction Limited vs Falzon Jesmond, Application Number 30/19 JZM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Jesmond Falzon, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application filed in the Civil Court (Commerce Section) on the 11th November, 2019, in the names Official Receiver in his capacity of Liquidator of the company F.G.S. Construction Limited (C 17794) vs Jesmond Falzon (ID 396667M) the Official Receiver Advocate Dr Kevan Azzopardi (ID 493674M) in his capacity premised respectfully pleaded:

i. That the company F.G.S. Construction Ltd (C 17794) was formed on the 15th February, 1995, with a registered office in Alben House, Ġnien Marga, Baħrija, which eventually changed to 2, Triq Għeriexem, Rabat RBT 03.

ii. That despite that when the company was formed there were three directors who were Jesmond Falzon (ID 396667M), Chris Galea (ID 218764M) and Michael Scicluna (ID 170609), till the year 2004 there resigned two directors with the result that from 2004 onwards there was left Jesmond Falzon only as director.

… omissis …

vi. That as shall be proved during the hearing of the present application, despite that the ex-director knew that the company was in a state of insolvency and there was no reasonable prospect that it recovers, he did nothing to reduce the prejudice to the creditor of the company today dissolved.

Thus, for the reasons premised in the application, the applicant humbly prays this Honourable Court:

1. To establish the amount that Jesmond Falzon, as ex-director of the company today dissolved F.G.S. Construction Ltd, is to contribute towards the assets of the company, which amount is to cover the debt of the dissolved company together with the relative interests as well as the costs of the winding up (Application Number 424/2014 JZM) and any other sum that this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances.

2. To order that Jesmond Falzon pays the amount thus established together with further interests till the day of effective payment.

With costs against the respondent.

The Application in the names Official Reciever Liquidator F.G.S. Construction Limited vs Falzon Jesmond, Application 30/2019 JZM, has been put off for hearing to Thursday, 23rd April, 2020, at 9.00 a.m.

Applicant: Official Reciever, AM Business Centre, Triq il-Labour, Żejtun

Respondent: Jesmond Falzon, Sweet Breeze, Triq Bir l-Iljun, Rabat

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 25th November, 2019, of the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Application in the names Michael Gera et vs Anthony Bartolo, Application Number 14/2019SG, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent Anthony Bartolo in 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 Michael Gera (ID 0701854M), John Gera (ID 0483160M), Norman Gera (ID 0532462M), Ana Marie Balzan (ID 0635757M), Catherine Vella (KI 604653M), Joseph Gera (KI 0596247M), Edwin Gera (ID  0731548M) and Stephen Gera (ID 06126569M) vs Anthony Bartolo (ID 299154M), filed before the Rent Regulation Board on the 4th October, 2019, the applicants Norman Gera et requested with respect:

That the applicants are the owners of the field known as Ta' Goggi in the limits of Ħal Luqa measuring approximately 4 tumoli which field is leased to the respondent for €14 per year;

That the respondent is not using the field for its intended purpose, and amongst other things it is being used as junk yard for old vehicles, has carried out a development in breach of the law on the same land and registered his identity card on this place which is therefore being used for residential reasons;

That the applicants had to file this case before the Board in virtue of Article 4 of Chapter 199 of the Laws of Malta.

Thus the same applicants humbly request this Board to authorise them to resume the vacant possession of the said field and thus order the eviction of the respondent from the said land within a short and peremptory time. With costs of this present against the respondent that is from now summoned so that a reference to his oath be made and reserving any other further action regarding the applicants or their successors against the respondent or his successors.

Plaintiff: Ċipress, Sqaq in-Namur, Iklin IKL 1850

Respondent: Rose, Triq Ħal Farruġ, Siġġiewi

The application in the names Michael Gera et vs Anthony Bartolo, Application Number 14/2019SG, has been postponed for hearing to the 16th April, 2020, at 9.30 a.m.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals