Court Notices published in Government Gazette No. 21,582 of 6th February 2026

By means of a decree delivered by the Court of Appeal, Inferior jurisdiction, on the 26th November, 2025, in the records of Application number 161/2019 in the names Charles Baldacchino (ID 431676M) vs Charles Elia Muscat (ID 84175M), the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on Charles Baldacchino in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap 12.

Whereas in Appeal Application number 161/2019 filed on the 29th October 2024, the appellant Charles Elia Muscat feels aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the Small Claims Tribunal on the 10th October, 2024, on the grounds that:

1. The judgment mentioned is null because it is ultra petita for the reasons explained in detail in the application;

 2. Furthermore, the Tribunal decided wrongly when it considered that the respondent plaintiff completed the work and there remained only the transport and removal of the last parts he could not perform because there was no place where the material could be placed. In fact: a) the work was never completed before the timeframe given by the defendant appellant to the contractor, b) the work was never completed in its entirety so much so that employees of Galletta Construction carried out the major part of the demolition work, and c) such a condemnation to effect payment goes against the principles established in the jurisprudence cited in the application.

Therefore, the appellant humbly requests that this Honourable Court of Appeal revokes the judgment pronounced by the Small Claims Tribunal on the 10th October, 2024, in the names above mentioned and instead proceeds to dismiss all the demands of the respondent plaintiff, with costs of both instances against the same respondent.

Application number 161/2019 in the names Charles Baldacchino (ID 431676M) vs Charles Elia Muscat (ID 84175M) has been deferred to the 25th February, 2026, at 9.00 a.m.

Notification: Charles Baldacchino, ‘Tal-Gholja’, Triq Ġdida fi Triq ta’ Farzina, Ħal Qormi

DR FRANCO BONDIN, LLD, M. JUR.

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

It is to be noted that by a decree given on 23rd January, 2026, by the Court of Appeal of the Lower Civil Court (Gozo) in the documents of the sworn application number 19/2023/1 (JVC) in the names ‘Alfred Attard vs Leonard Ellul Boniċi’ filed in the Registry of the said Court on 30 January, 2026, the publication of the extract reproduced below was ordered and this in order to serve as a notification against the respondent Leonard Ellul Boniċi, identity card number 474267M, ‘Ta’ Bertija Court’, Blk B, Flat 6, Triq Liberat Grech, Xagħra, Gozo and this in terms of article 187(3) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

Civil Court of Appeal (Gozo)

‘The person receiving this sworn application against him must file his response within twenty (20) days from the date of notification, that is, from the time he receives it. If the sworn response in writing is not filed as required by law by the said time, the Court will proceed to give the decision in accordance with the law.

It is therefore in the interest of the recipient of this sworn application to speak to a lawyer without delay so that the Court can hear what he has to say in the case.’

Appeal of the plaintiff Alfred Attard; Respectfully submits:

That through the notice of claim filed by him on the 17th November, 2023, the exponent requested that the defendant be ordered to pay the sum of €3,154.36 representing work carried out by him of building walls and other ancillary work in Triq il-Kalkara tal-Ġir, Munxar, Gozo, as well as for material supplied and payment of a third party contractor all at the expense of the defendant, with costs and interest;

That the defendant responded with a response filed by him on the 15th of December, 2023, where he objected that the rubble wall was not built according to the craft and art, not built according to legal notice 160/97 as amended by legal notice 169/04, that the defendant offered the exponent the opportunity to repair it and that he should not pay costs;

That by a judgment given by the Small Claims Tribunal (Gozo) on the 7th March, 2025, the claims of the appellant were dismissed with costs against him;

That the exponent feels himself greatly aggrieved by this judgment and is therefore interposing this humble appeal from it. His grounds of appeal are, in brief, the following:

The appealed judgment is erroneous in that the Tribunal did not conduct an analysis of the evidence produced but chose what in jurisprudence is called ‘the benefit of the doubt’ without making a proper assessment of the evidence produced before it;

The appealed judgment is erroneous as the Tribunal did not make a proper assessment of the evidence produced and it is not true that the exponent did work that was not in accordance with the trade and art;

The appealed judgment is also erroneous because even if satisfactory proof had been presented that the exponent had performed work that was not in accordance with the trade and art, it still does not mean that the solution was that he be deprived of everything due to him, but account should have been taken of what is provided for in article 1640 (3) of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta;

That the speaker will now proceed to make an analysis of the grounds raised by him;

First ground of appeal – the appealed judgment is erroneous in that the Tribunal did not conduct an analysis of the evidence produced but chose what in jurisprudence is called ‘the benefit of the doubt’ without making a proper assessment of the evidence produced before it.

That from the brief reasoning contained in the appealed judgment it results that the main reason which led the Tribunal to reject the claimant’s claim was ‘the discrepancy in the expert opinions regarding the stability or otherwise of the wall’ without actually determining who was telling the truth at least up to the required level of proof in the civil field which is that of a balance of probabilities;

That from a reading of the appealed judgment it appears that unfortunately the Tribunal chose to avoid the doubt. According to settled jurisprudence which makes ample reference to the judgment given by the First Hall of the Civil Court on the 24th November, 1966, in the names Carmelo Farrugia vs Rokku Farrugia finds it held that conflict in evidence, as long as man remains subject to errors of perception and passion, is something that the Courts must always be prepared for , but when this conflict does not arise from a simple difference of opinion on matters that allow a certain degree of tolerance and for which it has rightly been said that ‘tot homines tot sententia’ , nor does it arise from different ‘bona fide’ versions on incidents that occur and end quickly and unexpectedly, e.g. identity , speed , of vehicles , and other sudden circumstances on which according to common experience, the senses can be deceived , but on the contrary this conflict concerns facts and habits that could have been observed over a long period of years, as in this case, then it becomes clear that one of the contenders has let interest and passion prevail and thus abuses the process of justice. When this is the case, the Court should not fall back on the presumption of doubt , but should examine with the utmost care whether either of the two versions, in the light of the usual criteria of credibility and especially those of consistency and verisimilitude, should exclude the other , even on the balance of probabilities and the preponderance of the evidence, because these, in civil cases, are generally sufficient to convince the judge, with the exception of some serious cases that bear no resemblance to the present case (Formosa untrinque , PA 1964 , confirmed in the Appeal, 22 March, 1965). Indeed, in such cases , the greater the conflict between one version and another, the greater the possibility of deception on the part of one of the contenders.

It is humbly submitted that this is the examination that the Tribunal should have made in the judgment under appeal and not to accept and reject the claims of the exponents simply because the ex parte expert reports presented opposing technical opinions. It is further humbly submitted that the Tribunal should have made a proper appreciation of the evidence produced before it. This leads us to consider the second ground of appeal;

The second ground of appeal is that the appealed judgment is erroneous as the Tribunal did not make a proper assessment of the evidence produced and it is not untrue that the exponent did work that was not in accordance with the trade and art.

That it is evident that the Tribunal had two conflicting versions before it. That given by the exponent who testified that he worked according to the trade and art and according to what was agreed with the defendant and the other version given by the defendant in the sense that he accuses the exponent of not working according to the trade and art or according to some agreement between them. The only facts that the contenders agree on are that the defendant commissioned the plaintiff to build two walls for him and that the defendant did not pay anything to the exponent;

That the version of the exponent is to the effect that in April 2023 the defendant commissioned him to build two walls (one with limestone and the other with quarried stone) in Triq il-Kalkara tal-Ġir, Munxar, Gozo. The exponent has experience in this work so much so that the defendant was referred to him by an established construction company. They went to the site together. The defendant wanted the wall along the road to be built on the existing stones. The exponent did not agree because the foundation was not stable and as evidence presented photos from Google Street View showing the poor condition of this wall. The defendant accepted the exponent’s suggestion and the exponent informed him that he would bring a JCB to remove part of the wall that was unstable and start building the new wall. They also agreed that the other wall was to be built simply with the same stone that had fallen from it. The exponent brought the material to the site, namely the stone, demolished part of the limestone wall with a JCB, began building the new wall with limestone and built the demolished wall with quarried stone. During the course of the works, the defendant attended the site and requested the exponent to pave a third party’s field located in the vicinity. With regard to the wall along the road, the exponent drew the defendant’s attention that if it was not built with cement and was hit, it would fall. The defendant did not want to use cement but due to the reason given by the exponent he did not want to continue building it but then the defendant told him to continue building it using cement . When there was a week left to complete the work, the exponent demanded the money from the defendant but it was not paid and he stopped the work;

That the version given by the defendant can hardly be called a version because he denies more what the exponent testified than what happened according to him. For example, he denies that he went to the site during the progress of the works, says that he sent the woman to pay the exponent but before that he asked her for some photographs, he denies that he agreed with the exponent that they would use the cement in the construction of the wall and he does not know whether he had permission from the Planning Authority to carry out the works that he hired the exponent to do. He did not pay anything;

Faced with these two versions, the Tribunal had to make a proper assessment of them in order to reach a decision as to which one of them, on the balance of probabilities, is more correct. The exponent firmly believes that the version given by him, which is after all the truth, is more credible and on the balance of probabilities the Tribunal should have found so. The exponent points out the following factors:

The exponent testified consistently both in his affidavit and during cross-examination where, among other things, he remained consistent in the version given by him that the defendant had been present at the work site during the works and that there was an agreement that cement would be used so that the wall would be structurally stable;

It is not plausible that the defendant claims that he never went to see the works during their progress, that he allowed the works to be completed almost entirely and that he then sent the woman to be paid but before taking any photographs;

If the defendant did not go to see the works, how did he instruct the exponent to pave a third party’s field with a JCB, a fact about which the exponent testified and which the defendant never denied?

It is also not plausible that he testifies that he does not know whether he had a permit from the Planning Authority for these works. On the contrary, since he has not presented any evidence in this regard, it must result that he undertook such works without a permit;

His version is not corroborated by either his wife or the architect who says that with simple photos on WhatsApp he told him that the work is bad;

It is entirely plausible what the exponent testifies that he and the defendant agreed that in order for the wall to be structurally stable, concrete or cement would be used . This is being said because for the exponent it made no sense for him to incur more work and expenses for himself if not for the work to be done better and more stable and because there was an agreement to that effect. It makes absolutely no sense for the exponent to incur more expenses when he did not have an agreement on this with the defendant. This can also be inferred from the testimony given by the defendant during the hearing of 27th September, 2024, where he testified as follows: … he never had to do cement. But it is not that much , I think , if you see, you see the photos, erm, it seems that that , that house does not deserve that , that wall . It is evident that the defendant had second thoughts because aesthetically he did not like the way the work was coming along;

The defendant does not deny that the exponent laid good foundations and that he had asked the exponent to pave the way for third parties;

The defendant also does not deny that the work on one of the walls was done and done properly and he had no complaints about it;

The defendant does not provide proof that he removed the wall built by the exponent;

That from all these findings and from the totality of the evidence it must result that on a balance of probabilities the version given by the exponent is more credible, has some truth to it and the defendant’s denials are not at all credible, plausible or that they can be called a version of what happened and are intended only to avoid paying;

It is also true that the Tribunal had before it two expert reports with different opinions. However, even here it should not have fallen into the trap of doubt, as will be explained below;

That the Architect Deborah Busuttil, commissioned ex parte by the defendant, refers only to one of the two walls built by the exponent. She says that this was not done ‘up to standard’ mainly due to the fact that concrete was used. This report was not sworn. The defendant was supposed to produce it as evidence but never did so;

That the Architect Godwin Sultana, commissioned ex parte by the exponents, while confirming that the use of the concrete material is not according to traditional methods and was intended to strengthen the structural stability of the wall in question, also states that the wall is well built but the fact that it was not continued had an impact on the aesthetic aspect of the same wall. He also states that the client agreed to the use of non-traditional material and that the work was done properly and that it is built in a stable manner;

That even from these reports, disagreements, the Tribunal was able to draw certain points that would help in the resolution of the dispute without incurring any doubt and these points are these:

Of the works done by the exponent on two walls, the defendant created a dispute on only one of these walls. Which means that there was no complaint on the other wall;

It is true that with regard to the wall in question the defendant used concrete which is not a traditional material, however, as has been shown, it is more likely that this was done with the defendant’s consent. In addition, it also results that the defendant had no permission from the Planning Authority restricting him from using any type of material and no architect in charge during the works gave instructions otherwise;

It is probably true and plausible that with the use of concrete, the wall in question became more stable;

To sum it all up, look where you look (where there are fields left) the walls that separate the fields from the roads are often built with concrete to give them stability and there are few walls that are built with materials that do not offer such stability as soil. All the defendant has to do is to look carefully around him. Furthermore, as the wall in question was before, it would have been again if the exponent had not used concrete;

With regard to the aesthetics of the wall in question, and without prejudice to the fact that this is a highly subjective aspect, from the photographs exhibited there is nothing that leads to the conclusion that the wall is aesthetically flawed, however, the wall was not completed due to the fact that the defendant did not pay;

Above all, it is certain that the wall was not so badly built that it had to be removed as suggested but not confirmed on oath ‒ by the Architect commissioned ex parte by the defendant. If the defendant had removed the wall and had produced proof of such works and the expense incurred, one would have understood that this suggestion was a serious one and was taken seriously by the defendant but since it was not removed it does not mean that he continued to use it precisely because it was not badly built;

That regardless of the totality of the evidence and despite the denials and doubts that the defendant tries to raise, an analysis of the evidence should still have been carried out from which it should have resulted that the exponent did his job properly and was entitled to receive payment for his work;

In addition to all this, it is also said that the fact that concrete was used, not a traditional material, does not mean that the wall in question was not built according to craftsmanship and art. It would have been not according to craftsmanship and art if it had been built in a dangerous manner or if it had collapsed. The wall was built in a structurally sound and good manner and serves its function as a wall that separates the defendant’s field from the road. In addition to all this, the exponent recalls that it was the defendant himself who agreed with him that it be made of concrete in order to be more stable. Now if the defendant thus instructed the exponent not to build with traditional materials and was required by law, this does not mean that the exponent did bad work or that he should not receive payment for that work because then we would have reached an absurdity that the defendant who gave instructions that the wall be built with the material used is now taking advantage of himself by depriving the exponent of payment and at the same time he enjoys his work;

That in view of all the above, it is the humble opinion of the exponent that this Honourable Court should uphold the first two grounds raised by the exponent and therefore while rejecting the exceptions raised by the defendant, uphold the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety as inferred;

Third ground of appeal – the judgment appealed from is also erroneous because even if satisfactory proof were presented that the exponent did work that was not in accordance with the trade and art, it still does not mean that the solution was that he be deprived of everything that is due to him, but account should be taken of what is provided for in article 1640 (3) of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta;

That it is understood that this ground of appeal is being raised without prejudice to that submitted in the previous grounds of appeal and in a subsidiary manner to the content of such grounds;

It is the humble opinion of the exponent that even if this Honourable Court reaches the same conclusion reached by the Tribunal and this is always being said gratia argomenti only, it still does not mean that the exponent is completely deprived of being paid for the work he did. This is being said in view of the following:

The exhibitor was instructed to supply materials and work on two walls and he did so. The defendant’s complaint is limited to one wall only and therefore even if such complaint were justified, it does not mean that the exhibitor is deprived of part of the payment requested to reflect his work on the wall about which no complaint was filed;

Without prejudice to this, according to article 1640 (3) of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta, even if there is a valid reason for terminating a contract, this does not mean that the contractor ends up being deprived of payment automatically but, as this provision of the law states, the person awarding the work shall only pay the contractor a sum not exceeding the contractor’s costs and the value of the work, after taking into account the utility of those costs and that work to the person awarding the work as well as the damages that the latter may have suffered;

For what is utility here we are talking about a wall that was maintained by the defendant and that is being used by serving the purpose for which it was made, namely to separate the defendant’s property from the road. In the humble opinion of the exponent, this means that the defendant has no reason not to pay the exponent. The exponent also incurred a number of expenses including the purchase of material, the rental of a JCB which was used in the leveling of a third party’s field on behalf of the defendant;

He is learned in peaceful jurisprudence, including the judgment given by the First Hall of the Civil Court on the 6th October, 2004, in the names Pierre Darmanin vs Moira Agius et which:

1. It is settled that ‘if the contractor alleges that the contractor he has engaged is executing the work badly , and in fact the work contains some defects , this is not sufficient for the Court to declare the contractor liable for damages; because if the defects are such that in the opinion of the Court, and to its satisfaction, they do not give rise to damages, the declaration of liability for damages is not admissible. And this even more so if it is alleged that the defects complained of are so insignificant and easily reparable’ (Coll . Vol. XLII pll p699) .

2. It is further held that if the defects are not essential or substantial the contractor does not have the right to request the rescission of the contract but only to request that those defects be repaired (Coll. Vol XXX pIII p433) , or the contractor accepts a reduction in the price (‘John Bonnici pro et noe vs Anthony Sammut’, Commercial Appeal, 22 June, 1994);

This means that it is not enough to allege that the works were done badly but it must be proven that they are substantially bad. Furthermore, damages must be proven and in this particular case no counterclaim was brought nor were damages proven in any way. The defendant acquired the work done by the exponent, alleged that it was bad and that it should be demolished but continued to keep it and use it for the purpose for which it was intended. What justice would be that which deprives the exponent of being paid for his work?

Accordingly and for all the reasons stated, the appellant, while making reference to all the evidence brought before the Tribunal and while reserving the right to bring such evidence as may be required and permitted by law, respectfully requests that this Honourable Court of Appeal be pleased to grant this appeal, quash, revoke and annul the judgment appealed from by the Tribunal on the 7th March, 2025, in the names stated, reject the defendant’s objections and either: a) by accepting the first and second grounds proceed to grant the appellant’s claims as inferred; or b) by accepting the third ground proceed to grant the appellant’s claims in an amount that this Honourable Court is pleased to liquidate.

With the costs of both instances against the defendant.

Adv. Dr William Cuschieri

The case is adjourned to 24th April, 2026, at 10.00 a.m., at the Gozo Court Building, Misraħ il-Katidral, Victoria, Gozo.

Magistrates’ Court Registry (Gozo)

JAKE MEJLAK

Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, Courts and Tribunals (Gozo)

Whereas Joseph Said and Micaela Bautista Said filed a writ of summons number 8/2026 (BS) in the names ‘Joseph Said et vs Director Public Registry’ demanding correction in the Act of Birth of Hamara Jillaine Said bearing number five of the year two thousand, twenty-six (5/2026).

Whosoever may have an interest therein, and wishes to oppose that demand, is hereby called upon to do so, by means of a note to be filed in the Registry of these Courts, within fifteen (15) days from the day of the publication of this present notice in the Government Gazette.

Those who, within the aforesaid time, shall have filed such note, shall be notified, by the service of a copy of the said writ of summons, of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case.

DANIEL SACCO

For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals

Whereas David sive Davide Cini filed a writ of summons no. 10/2026 (BS) in the names ‘David sive Davide Cini et vs Director Public Registry (Gozo)’ demanding correction in his Act of Birth bearing number one hundred and fourteen of the year one thousand, nine hundred and seventy-nine (114/1979).

Whosoever may have an interest therein, and wishes to oppose that demand, is hereby called upon to do so, by means of a note to be filed in the Registry of these Courts, within fifteen (15) days from the day of the publication of this present notice in the Government Gazette.

Those who, within the aforesaid time, shall have filed such note, shall be notified, by the service of a copy of the said writ of summons, of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case.

DANIEL SACCO

For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals

By decree given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, on the thirtieth (30) of January of the year two thousand and twenty-six (2026) on the application of Emanuel and Francis Xavier sive Rinu Formosa (KI 68457G) and (KI 26562G), in the records of judicial sale by auction numbered five of the year two thousand, twenty-five (5/2025) in the names ‘Joseph Formosa et vs Mary sive Miriam Grima et’ and following judgement given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, on the 30th of September, 2022, in the records of writ of summons number 70/2013BS, in the names ‘Joseph Formosa vs Mary sive Miriam Grima et’ the day of Monday, 16th March, 2026, at 10.00 am, has been fixed for the Sale by Licitation to be held at the Gozo Court’s edifice in Misraħ il-Katidral, Victoria, Gozo, of the following properties:

1.A parcel of agricultural land known as ‘Taċ-Ċnus’, situated within the limits of Ta’ Kerċem, Gozo, measuring approximately two thousand eight hundred and seventy-five square metres (2,875 sq.m.), enjoying a right of access over third-party property, and including a small room constructed in stone, which may be used as an agricultural store ‒ value: twenty-five thousand euro (€25,000);

2. A parcel of agricultural land known as ‘Tat-Tafal’, situated within the limits of Ta’ Kerċem, Gozo, measuring approximately four hundred and thirty-eight square metres (438 sq.m.), with access over third-party property ‒ value: three thousand three hundred euro (€3,300;

3. A parcel of agricultural land known as ‘Taċ-Ċnus’, situated within the limits of Ta’ Kerċem, Gozo, measuring approximately seven hundred and twenty-two square metres (722 sq.m.), located close to another portion of land also known as ‘Taċ-Ċnus’ as mentioned above, and enjoying access over third-party property by tolerance ‒ value: five thousand five hundred euro (€5,500);

4. A parcel of agricultural land known as ‘Tat-Tenewt’, situated within the limits of Ta’ Kerċem, Gozo, measuring approximately three hundred and twenty-eight square metres (328 sq.m.), abutting Sqaq tal-Wardija, which is approximately two point four zero metres (2.40m) wide and provides convenient access ‒ value: three thousand five hundred euro (€3,500);

5. A parcel of agricultural land known as ‘Ta’ Masika’, situated within the limits of Ta’ Kerċem, Gozo, measuring approximately two hundred and seven square metres (207 sq.m.),, enjoying pedestrian access via a pathway approximately one metre wide, leading onto a public road ‒ value: one thousand seven hundred and fifty euro (€1,750);

6. A parcel of agricultural land known as ‘Ta’ Masika’, situated within the limits of Ta’ Kerċem, Gozo, measuring approximately one hundred and sixteen square metres (116 sq.m.), enjoying pedestrian access over third-party property, and including a shared well of approximately three metres (3 m) in depth, which well, according to the respondents, does not retain water ‒ value: one thousand euro (€1,000);

7. A parcel of agricultural land known as ‘Ta’ Xellul’, situated within the limits of Kerċem, Gozo, measuring approximately two hundred and fifty-five square metres (255 sq.m.), enjoying pedestrian access from a passageway, and subject to a right of way in favour of third parties ‒ value: one thousand eight hundred euro (€1,800).

This property belong to the parties in the said writ of summons and will be sold as described in the report by AIC Joe Grech sworn on the 5th of April, 2016, in the same records of said writ of summons. 

MARTINA AXIAK

For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals

DKR 1/2026 – General Interdiction

IT is being notified that by judgement dated 28th January, 2026, given by the Criminal Court of Appeal (the Hon. Judge Dr Edwina Grima, LLD), Appeal number 69/2017, in the case in the names:

The Police 

Vs

Matthew Bajada, 42 years, son of Carmel and Rose Marie née Agius, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta, on the 16th of July, 1983, residing at 5, Rose, Triq Reġjonali, Santa Venera, Malta, and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 365683M.

The Court ORDERED the general interdiction, also the interdiction to serve as a witness except before the Courts of Justice, and as an architect, in any case and this for a period of five (5) years starting from judgement date of the said Matthew Bajada and this according to section 109 of Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.

This is being published according to section 10(7) of Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.

MARVIC PSAILA

Deputy Registrar, Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals

By means of a decree issued by the Court of Appeal (Superior jurisdiction) on the 18th December, 2025, in the records of Application number 23/2025 in the names Yolanda Bezzina (ID 183693) vs Helme Djelassi (ID 233095) the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the said Helme Djelassi, in terms of Article 187 (3) et sequitur of Cap 12 of the Laws of Malta.

Whereas the marriage between the parties celebrated on the 8th September, 2018, was declared null by a judgment pronounced by the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Malta on the 27th April, 2022 (Prot. number 21./008) for the reasons expressed in the judgment attached to the original application.

Whereas on the 28th May, 2022, the Decree of Executability was also issued. The applicant wishes to avail herself of the provisions of Article 24 et sequitur of Cap 255 of the Laws of Malta so that the decision above mentioned be registered and civilly recognised for the purposes and effects of law because there exist all the requirements for the judgment delivered by the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Malta on the 27th April, 2022, to be enforceable in Malta.

Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests this Honourable Court so that, for the reasons premised, it orders the registration of the decisions above indicated according to Cap. 255 of the Laws of Malta and under any provision that this Honourable Court of Appeal deems fit to impose.

Notification: Helme Djelassi, Door 1, Block B, Triq San Ġwann t’Għuxa, Cospicua

DR FRANCO BONDIN, LLD, M. JUR.

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals 

By a Decree of the 12th January, 2026, given by the First Hall Civil Court, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according the Articles 187 (3) and 338 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

That by application and a Schedule of set-off filed contemporaneously by Bank of Valletta plc with the registration number C2833 on the 12th May, 2025, the approval of the said judicial acts is being demanded for the amount of €83,400 following judicial sale by auction 44/21 in the names Bank of Valletta plc (C2833) vs John Tanti (ID 375982M) and Odette Sammut (ID 319189M) held under the Authority of the said Court on the 6th May, 2025.

According to Article 338 (2) of Cap. 12: Any person who may have an interest and the persons so served shall be allowed the time of twenty days to file an answer stating in detail the reasons for their opposition and the amounts in contestation; and where such opposition is based on a claim against the proceeds of sale an alleged cause of preference, they are to state the amount of such claim and the basis for the preference. Such persons shall with the answer file all relevant evidence to substantiate their opposition.

MARVIC FARRUGIA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall, on the 29th January, 2026, on the application of Sciberras Kim (ID 128786M), Wednesday, 8th April, 2026, at half past ten in the morning (10.30 a.m.) has been fixed for the sale by auction to be held in number seventeen (17), Triq id-Dejqa, Valletta, of the following items seized from the property of Saliba Dylan (ID 252693M).

A three-seater sofa and two armchairs black in colour, an LCD-type television set of the make Panasonic, a surround sound system of the make Thompson, a satellite receiver of the make Hummax, a small metal table with a glass top, and other objects.

N.B. The said objects will be sold as described in the acts of Judicial Sale number 10/2024.

MARVIC FARRUGIA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall, on the 2nd December, 2025, in the records of the Sworn application number 201/2025AB, in the names: The Director, Civil Courts and Tribunals as Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals vs Stephanie Semprini Sheriff, the following publication was ordered, in terms of Article 187 et sequitur of Cap. 12, for the purpose of service of the respondent.

By means of an application in the names: The Director, Civil Courts and Tribunals as Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals vs Stephanie Semprini Sheriff (328890M) filed in the Civil Court, First Hall, on the 3rd March, 2025, the applicant asked this Honourable Court to:

1. Find the respondent guilty of contempt towards her authority in terms of Article 997 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta;

2. Condemn the respondent to the penalties indicated in the same Article and condemn her to imprisonment for a period of up to one month or to a fine of not less than two hundred and thirty three euro (€233.00) and not more than two thousand three hundred and thirty euro (€2,330.00) or to a fine and imprisonment together;

3. Impose any other necessary order on the respondent in terms of Article 997 sub-Article (2) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta including by setting a peremptory time till these same orders are to be satisfied by the respondent.

With all costs against the respondent who is from now summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.

The Sworn application number 201/2025AB in the names mentioned above is postponed to the 17th February, 2026, at 9.30 a.m.

Notification respondent: Stephanie Semprini Sheriff (328890M),12, Crismar, Triq ir-Rabat, Ħad-Dingli

GABRIEL MANGION

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall, on the 9th October, 2025, in the records of the Sworn application number 167/2025GG, in the names: SJN Holdings Limited vs Springboks investments Limited, the following publication was ordered, in terms of Article 187 et sequitur of Cap. 12, for the purpose of service of the respondent.

By means of an application in the names: SJN Holdings Limited (C29575) vs Springboks investments Limited (C36764) filed in the Civil Court, First Hall, on the 26th February, 2025, the applicant asked this Honourable Court to:

1. Declare the preliminary agreement dated twenty-sixth (26) of June, of the year two thousand and twenty-three (2023) made by Notary Dr Sam Abela, is valid between the parties and for all intents and purposes of law;

2. Order the respondent company to, if possible, come forward to the final deed and according to the terms agreed by it with the applicant company;

3. Fix a short and peremptory period for this to take place by Notary Public Sam Abela and thus nominate him also for this purpose;

4. Appoint curators, in case of a default on the part of the respondent company to come forward to the final Act;

5. In default of this, order that any deposit effected by the applicant company to the respondent company, be paid to the same applicant company by the respondent company;

6. In parallel to the previous claim, declare that due to its behaviour and due to the contractual default it is liable by way of damages towards the applicant company;

7. Liquidate such damages, even by means of the appointment of a referee;

8. Order the respondent company to pay the applicant company such damages in terms of the previous demand.

With all costs and legal interests against the respondent who is from now summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.

The Sworn application number 167/2025GG in the names mentioned above is postponed to the 17th February, 2026, at 8.45 a.m.

Notification respondent: Springboks investments Limited (C36764), Fort Cambridge, West 1, Flat 1101, Triq Robert Arrigo, Tas-Sliema

GABRIEL MANGION

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall, on the 4th December, 2025, in the records of the Sworn application number 275/2025AB, in the names: Em @ney plc vs Germano Arno et, the following publication was ordered, in terms of Article 187 et sequitur of Cap. 12, for the purpose of service of the respondent.

By means of an application in the names: em @ney plc (C55558) vs Germano Arno (ID Italian AX4971412) et filed in the Civil Court, First Hall, on the 20th March, 2025, the applicant asked this Honourable Court to:

1. Saving if necessary a declaration that, for the reasons premised, the defendants are bound by financial obligations towards the interpellant company, declare and decide that, for the reasons premised, the defendants acted illegally, fraudulently and in violation of their financial obligations towards the interpellant company;

2. Liquidate the damages suffered by the interpellant company following the fraudulent behaviour of the defendants;

3. Condemn the defendants in solidum to pay the applicant company the damages liquidated in terms of the previous demand;

4. Declare that, consequently to the violation of the financial obligations on their part, the defendants are further obliged in solidum to return to the applicant company any property together with all the other benefits acquired by them, both directly and indirectly, including also any property in which the original property was converted or with which it was substituted;

5. Determine and identify any property together with all the other benefits acquired by the defendants as a result of the violation of their fiduciary obligations as premised, both directly and indirectly, including also any property in which the original property was converted or in virtue of which it was substituted;

6. Condemn the defendants in solidum to return to the interpellant company any property together with all the other benefits obtained by them, both directly and indirectly, including also any property in which the original property was converted or with which it was substituted as determined and identified in terms of the preceding demand, including also by ordering the publication, within a short and peremptory period for such purpose and this by the appointment of a notary public as well as curators for the eventual contumacies, and by giving such orders and directives as may be necessary for such purpose;

With all costs and legal interests against the respondent who is from now summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made

The Sworn application number 275/2025AB in the names mentioned above is postponed to the 17th February, 2026, at 9.20 a.m.

Notification respondent: Germano Arno (Italian ID AX4971412), C/o Oleg Vladimirovich Mikhailov, Sapphire Court, Flat 5, Triq l-Assemblea Nazzjonal, Mosta

Gasdev Limited (C86484), Office 1 & 2, Portview Mansions, Triq ix-Xatt, Ta’ Xbiex

GABRIEL MANGION

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall, on the 12th November, 2025, in the records of the Sworn application number 898/2025MH, in the names: Bank of Valletta plc vs Mario Grech, the following publication was ordered, in terms of Article 187 et sequitur of Cap. 12, for the purpose of service of the respondent.

By means of an application in the names: Bank of Valletta plc (C2833) vs Mario Grech (118263M) filed in the Civil Court, First Hall, on the 2nd September, 2025, the applicant asked this Honourable Court to:

1. Authorise her to execute the Judicial letter number 3045/2007 Reza on the 14th September, 2007, under Article 166A of Cap. 12 ‒ of the Laws of Malta in the names aforesaid;

With all costs against the respondent who is from now summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made

The Sworn application number 898/2025MH in the names mentioned above is postponed to the 13th February, 2026, at 9.00 a.m.

Notification respondent: Mario Grech (118263M), 26, Triq San Mikiel, Cospicua

GABRIEL MANGION

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Banns for Curators

Republic of Malta

To the Executive Officer of the Court of Magistrates (Gozo)

It is hereby notified that by a decree given on 4 February 2026 the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, Family Section, ordered the publication of the extract reproduced below so that for all purposes and effects of the law serves as notification according to article 931 et sequitur of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.

By a decree given on 4th February, 2026, it was ordered that a deputy curator be chosen according to law to represent Abdussalam Essalhin A Elfitouri who is absent from the Maltese Islands, in the acts of the sworn application bearing number 1/2026 BS in the names ‘Donna Grech vs Deputy Curators to represent the expatriate Abdussalam Essalhin A Elfitouri’, which sworn application was filed on the 30th January, 2026, in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, Family Section, and in all other relative and subsequent acts. In the said sworn application, the divorce is being requested between the parties.

You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this notice at the entrance of this Court and hereby summon anyone who wants to appear as curator to appear within six (6) days in this Registry and make a note declaring that he so desires.

You are also ordered to inform one and all that if they do not make this declaration within the said timeframe, this Court will proceed to choose a curator of the office. And after you have done this, or if you encounter any obstacle in the execution of this order, you should inform this Court.

Given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, Family Section, mentioned above with the testimony of the Magistrate Dr Brigitte Sultana, Magistrate of the aforementioned Court.

MARY JANE ATTARD

Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals

It is hereby notified that in virtue of the powers conferred by Section 257 of the Civil Code, the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a Decree dated the 27th January, 2026, and upon an application numbered 56/2026, ordered:

To the Director of the Public Registry, to effect the requested correction or annotation on the Act of Birth number 1214/2014 so that the father’s place of birth is corrected by annotation from ‘Mongo, Togo’ to ‘Asonomaso, Mamponteng, Ashanti, Ghana’ or ‘Asonomaso, Ghana’.

Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

RUTH PISCOPO

Deputy Registrar, Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

It is hereby notified that in virtue of the powers conferred by Section 257 of the Civil Code, the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a Decree dated the 27th January, 2026, and upon an application numbered 54/2026, ordered:

To the Director of the Public Registry, to effect the requested correction or annotation on the Act of Marriage number 117/2004 so that the surname adopted by the wife after the marriage is changed from ‘Yordanov’ to ‘Yordanova’.

Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

RUTH PISCOPO

Deputy Registrar, Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

It is hereby notified that in virtue of the powers conferred by Section 257 of the Civil Code, the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a Decree dated the 27th January, 2026, and upon an application numbered 55/2026, ordered:

To the Director of the Public Registry, to effect the requested correction or annotation on the Act of Marriage number 2406/2021 so that the surname adopted by Christine Gay Dalaguit Angway-Tabone after the marriage is changed from ‘Tabone’ to ‘Angway-Tabone’.

Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

RUTH PISCOPO

Deputy Registrar, Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

It is hereby notified that in virtue of the powers conferred by Section 257 of the Civil Code, the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a Decree dated the 29th January, 2026, and upon an application numbered 1254/2025, ordered:

To the Director of the Public Registry, that when the Act of Birth of Joseph Amaline de Berniere is registered in Malta, he carries out the requested correction or annotation on the Act of Birth so that the applicant’s name and surname are changed by annotation respectively from ‘Joseph Amaline Chalky Horace’ to ‘Joseph Amaline’ and from ‘Smith’ to ‘De Berniere’.

Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

RUTH PISCOPO

Deputy Registrar, Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

Notice, Registry of the Civil Court, First Hall

Whereas Dr Marco Ciliberti noe (ID 243975M) filed an application (number 54/2026JVC) demanding the correction of the Marriage Act number 2304/2011 in the Public Registry.

Whosoever may have an interest therein, and wishes to oppose that demand, is hereby called upon to do so, by means of a note to be filed in the Registry of these Courts, within fifteen days from the day of the publication of this present notice in the Government Gazette. 

Those who, within the aforesaid time, shall have filed such note, shall be notified by the service of a copy of the said application under oath, of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case. 

By order of the Court,

CORA CATANIA

For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Notice, Registry of the Civil Court, First Hall

Whereas Marilyn Aabadee et (ID 34192G) filed an application under oath (number 57/2026JVC) demanding the correction of a Public Acts number 4999/2013, 370/2015, 2606/2016, 6927/2018 u 6576/2021 in the Public Registry.

Whosoever may have an interest therein, and wishes to oppose that demand, is hereby called upon to do so, by means of a note to be filed in the Registry of these Courts, within fifteen days from the day of the publication of this present notice in the Government Gazette. 

Those who, within the aforesaid time, shall have filed such note, shall be notified by the service of a copy of the said application under oath, of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case. 

By order of the Court,

CORA CATANIA

For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

It is hereby notified that in virtue of a decree dated thirty (30th) of January of the year two-thousand and twenty-six (2026) given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) in its Voluntary Jurisdiction, Decree number 108/2022, the Court has ordered that Dr Chiara Camilleri, lawyer, daughter of George Camilleri u Monica sive Monique née Mizzi, born in Victoria, Gozo, and residing in Victoria, Gozo (identity card number 3795G) be appointed as curator of the interdicted Anthony Cini, pensioner, son of the late Salvatore Cini and Angelica née Cassar, born in Żebbuġ, Gozo, on the twenty-six (26th) of July of the year one thousand and thirty (1930), and resides in Żebbuġ, Gozo, holder of identity card number 48830G) and this in substitution of the previous curator Dr Jonathan Mintoff, lawyer, son of Anthony Mintoff and Domenica née Mifsud, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta, and resides in Għasri, Gozo, holder of identity card number 9495M.

DANIEL SACCO

For Registrar, Courts and Tribunals (Gozo)

ARB/C004/2026 – SEIZING AND FREEZING ORDER

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 15th January, 2026, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature (Magistrate Dr Claire L. Stafrace Zammit, LLD), with Compilation Number 352/2026, in the case:

The Republic of Malta

Versus

JAKE DEBONO, 26 years, son of Pierre (Peter) Debono and Catherine Marie Hughes Debono born in Tal-Pietà, Malta, on the 28th February, 1999, and residing at 107, Flat 6, Triq San Nikola, Valletta, and holder of a Maltese identity card bearing number 87099M.

The Court ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable property due to or pertaining or belonging to JAKE DEBONO and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property, and this in terms of Article 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta.

The Court AUTHORISED the said accused to receive the amount of thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) per year, after the accused indicates with a note from where he is perceiving this money.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Article 23A and Article 22A, referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand, 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 property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law.

MS EUNICE GRECH FIORINI

Director, Asset Recovery Bureau

ARB/C005/2026 – SEIZING AND FREEZING ORDER

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 14th January, 2026, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature (Magistrate Dr Marse-Anne Farrugia, LLD), with Compilation Number 337/2026, in the case:

The Republic of Malta

Versus

ANGUS CAMENZULI, 29 years, son of Sandra-Lee Camenzuli, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta, on the 29th January, 1996, and residing at ‘18, Blakers Court, Flat 3, Triq tal-Qattus, Birkirkara’ and holder of a Maltese identity card bearing number 80096M.

The Court ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable property due to or pertaining or belonging to ANGUS CAMENZULI and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property, and this in terms of Article 22A 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.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Article 23A and Article 22A, referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand, 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 property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law.

MS EUNICE GRECH FIORINI

Director, Asset Recovery Bureau

ARB/C006/2026 – SEIZING AND FREEZING ORDER

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 23rd January, 2026, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature (Magistrate Dr Victor G. Axiak, LLD), with Compilation Number 660/2026, in the case:

The Republic of Malta

Versus

SALVATORE MONACO, 30 years, born in Sicily on the 18th October, 1995, without a fixed residence and holder of an Italian identity card bearing number CA92677WE.

The Court ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable property due to or pertaining or belonging to SALVATORE MONACO and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property, and this in terms of Article 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta.

The Court AUTHORISED the said accused to receive the amount of thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) per year, after the accused indicates with a note from where he is perceiving this money.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Article 23A and Article 22A, referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand, 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 property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law.

MS EUNICE GRECH FIORINI

Director, Asset Recovery Bureau