Court Notices published in Government Gazette No. of 7th April 2026

It is hereby notified that by a decree given on 23rd March, 2026, issued by the First Hall of the Civil Court, Constitutional Jurisdiction (Gozo) in the acts of the application number 3/2026 JVC in the names ‘Josephine Debono vs The State Advocate and Joseph Bonett’ the publication reproduced below was ordered in order to serve as notification in respect of the respondent Joseph Bonett of Flat 1, 39, Triq San Pupulju, Floriana, Malta, and also of Flat K6, ‘Tal-Mielħa Court’, Triq is-Sajjied, Marsalforn limits of Żebbuġ, Gozo, and this in terms of article 187(3) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

In the First Hall of the Civil Court

Constitutional Jurisdiction (Gozo)

Application number 3/2026

Josephine Debono (ID 80144G)

‘St Joseph Therese’, Triq Simirat, Ghajnsielem

vs

The State Advocate, ‘Casa Scaglia’, 16, Triq Mikiel Anton Vassalli, Valletta

Joseph Bonett (ID 697660M), Flat K6, Tal-Mielħa Court, Triq is-Sajjied, Marsalforn

Application by Josephine Debono.

Respectfully submit:

I. That by means of a sworn Application in the names ‘Josephine Bonett vs Joseph Bonett’ filed on the 18th September 2015 before the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction/Family Section, the applicant had pleaded the following:

(i) That she and the respondent Joseph Bonett were married in Għajnsielem, Gozo, on the fourth (4th) of September one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three (1993);

(ii) That they have a daughter Tabita Kristel who although of legal age, is still under the age of twenty-three (23), and is still participating in full-time education;

(iii) That the respondent Joseph Bonett made their marital life impossible, given that the same respondent was guilty of excesses, cruelty, beatings and domestic violence (physical and mental), abandonment, threats, insults and other grave offences on his part against the same applicant and their daughter Tabita Kristel, and therefore their marriage was irretrievably broken down through the sole fault of the same respondent;

(iv) That their marital life has also been rendered impossible because there is also incompatibility in the parties’ character towards each other;

(v) That the applicant has been duly authorized to proceed with the case by means of an apposite decree of the Honourable Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction ‒ Family Section, given in the acts of Mediation Letter number 14/2015 of the seventh (7th) of August 2015 (Decree number 54/2015).

That through the same above-referred application, the applicant had requested that Court to:

1. Declare and pronunce the personal separation between the parties and this due to faults solely and exclusively imputable to the respondent Joseph Bonett as explained above and authorise the applicant to live separately from the respondent,

2. Declare that the respondent Joseph Bonett has waived any right to demand or receive maintenance from the applicant,

3. Apply to the respondent Joseph Bonett the effects in toto or in part of articles 48, 51, 52 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta to the extent applicable, including but not limited to, the order that he lose any right to inherit from the applicant,

4. Dissolve and liquidate the community of acquisitions existing between the parties and divide it into two portions not necessarily equal and assign a portion to the applicant and a portion to the respondent Joseph Bonett ope sententiam, and if necessary nominate a notary public to receive the relative act in which all the effects of any eventual sentence are incorporated and curators to represent any eventual defaulters on the same act,

5. Order the respondent Joseph Bonett to return to the applicant within a short and peremptory period to be fixed by this Court all dowry and/or paraphernal assets that come to light during the course of the lawsuit, and/or taking into account their value in the liquidation and apportionment of the community of acquisitions mentioned above, to be carried out by the work of the appointed experts, which value shall be deducted from the share due to him in favour of the applicant in the liquidation and partition of the community of acquisitions mentioned above,

6. Order the respondent Joseph Bonett that as long as their daughter Tabita Kristel continues to participate in full-time education, training, or learning, he shall continue to provide for her maintenance in the amount liquidated by this Court in the acts of Mediation Letter number 14/2015, and or in another sum that this Court may determine in the interest of their daughter,

7. Authorise the applicant to live and reside in the matrimonial home, and this to the exclusion of the respondent Joseph Bonett, and order the eviction of the respondent joseph bonett from the matrimonial home including all his belongings which are being cluttering the same home, and order him also to evict and clear away all his belongings from the premises belonging to the applicant, and give all appropriate and opportune orders for this purpose,

8. Finally authorise the applicant to revert to her maiden surname ‘Debono’ and orders the due registration in the Gozo Public Registry of the change in her surname from that of her husband.

With costs and with respondent Joseph Bonett summoned for his oath.

II. That by a judgment of the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction ‒ Family Section of the 22nd May, 2025, that Honourable Court, while rejecting the entire pleas of the respondent Joseph Bonett, upheld the claims of the applicant with the exception of the fifth claim which related to her dowry and paraphernal assets as it did not result that the respondent Joseph Bonett had any assets of this kind left in his possession, and with regard to the counter-claim of the respondent Joseph Bonett, that Court also rejected his counter-claim. With the costs of the main claim and the counter-claim being awarded in full to the respondent Joseph Bonett.

III. That the case had been postponed for judgment since 28th January, 2021, and it took more than four years for it to be decided by that Court. In the meantime, applications were also made by the respondent Joseph Bonett in an attempt to prevent that Court from giving judgment and reopening his evidence. The applicant concluded its evidence in 2017, and the respondent Joseph Bonett took four years to conclude his evidence, and after the case had been postponed for judgment he had again tried to open the evidence stage.

IV. That on 4th June, 2025, the applicant filed an application under article 235 of Cap. XII, as that Court omitted part of the fourth claim from the judgment, and only ordered the sale by auction of the property and the partition of the proceeds from its sale, while not liquidating or dividing the money and investments mentioned in the report of the legal expert, Dr Nadia Vella, and also failed to assign to the applicant half of these money and investments, and the value of the plot of land purchased during the marriage. To date, six months after that application, that Court not only has it not yet disposed of the same application, but also has not yet ordered its notification to the respondent Joseph Bonett.

V. That on 19th June, 2025, the respondent Joseph Bonett filed an appeal against that judgment, which appeal has not yet been served on the applicant, the Court file has not yet been sent from Gozo to the Court of Appeal, the first instance tax has not yet been calculated with the consequence that the appeal guarantee cannot yet be calculated and paid, and the appeal process is also stalled because the appeal of 4th June, 2025, was left pending.

VI. That due to this delay, on 19th September, 2025, an application was filed by the applicant before the Court of Appeal requesting it to give such orders as it deems appropriate and opportune for the Court file to be sent before that Court without further delay, and to ensure that before it is sent, the first Court disposes of the application of 4th June, 2025. By a decree of 29th September, 2025, the Court of Appeal ordered that a copy of the application and the reply be sent to the first Court, and abstained from taking cognizance of the application. After this decree, nothing has changed from the position as it was on 25th May, 2025, when the judgment was delivered by the first Court.

VII. That, in this scenario, there is no hope that the appeal will ever be set for hearing and decided within a reasonable time, and the course of the lawsuit before the first Court cannot be considered to have been carried out within a reasonable time with ten years of distress and stress for the claimant who is now 81 years old. In the meantime, the claimant has her money seized by garnishee order number 37/2017 issued at the request of the respondent Joseph Bonett against her.

VIII. All this effectively means that it took more than ten (10) years for a judgment to be given by that Court. This time cannot be considered reasonable, and the case has not yet been fully decided by that Court, and in this scenario, there is little hope that the appeal filed by the respondent Joseph Bonett will be scheduled and decided within a reasonable time unless by order of this Court.

IX. It is evident that in the case of the applicant, the right of an individual to have their case heard and finalized within a reasonable time has been violated, especially when one considers the number of years that the case has been ongoing and how many years it has left because everything is stalled.

X. That, in the judgment in the names David Marinelli v Attorney General et decided on the third (3rd) of July two thousand and eight (2008), that Court held that in order to determine whether the hearing in any proceedings before the Court was held within a reasonable time as required by both Article 39(2) of the Constitution of Malta and Article 6(1) of the European Convention, that Court must take into account ‘1) the nature and/or complexity of the case in question, 2) the conduct of the parties to the case, and 3) the manner in which those proceedings were handled and conducted by the judicial authority itself ’.

XI. That, furthermore , as was held in the judgment in the names: John Bugeja vs Attorney General et, decided on the eleventh (11th) of August of the year two thousand and three (2003) ‘The fundamental right of the individual to have his case heard and finalized within a reasonable time, strictly imposes on the State, which must observe the Rule of Law, the obligation to have in place an efficient system of administration of justice ’.

XII. That several cases have been dealt with before the European Court of Human Rights on whether the hearing in some proceedings before the Court was held within a reasonable time as required by Article 6(1) of the European Convention. The European Court of Human Rights observed that: ‘Only delays attributable to the respondent State may justify a finding of failure to comply with the reasonable time requirement.’ in Kryuk v Russia, No. 11769/04, 13 December 2011; Serrano Contreras v Spain , No. 49183/08, 20 March 2012; Idalov v Russia (Grand Chamber), No. 5826/03, 22 May 2012; Sizov v Russia (No. 2), No. 58104/08, 24 July 2012; Borodin v Russia , No. 41867/04, 6 November 2012.

XIII. That, therefore, it is the humble opinion of the applicant that she has not been, and is not being, afforded a proper hearing within a reasonable time as provided for and guaranteed as her fundamental right under Article 39(2) of the Constitution of Malta, as well as under Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as incorporated into our laws by Cap. 319.

Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests that this Honourable Court be pleased to:

(i) Declare that in her case of separation there is no civil process within a reasonable time as provided and guaranteed as her fundamental right under Article 39(2) of the Constitution of Malta, as well as under Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as incorporated in our Laws by Cap. 319, in violation of the said provisions of the law;

(ii) Grant any other appropriate and timely provision, order, and/or remedy to ensure the fulfilment of the applicant’s fundamental right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, including the appointment and hearing of the appeal of the respondent Joseph Bonett;

(iii) Liquidate and provide appropriate compensation for the moral damages due to the infringement of her rights that she has suffered and continues to suffer unjustly.

With the costs of these proceedings against the respondents or any of them who are now subpoenaed for their oath.

This application is adjourned for hearing to Friday, the 24th April, 2026, at 9.10 a.m. at the Gozo Court Building, Misraħ il-Katidral, Victoria, Gozo.

JOHN VELLA

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

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 26th March, 2026, and upon an application numbered 216/2026, ordered:

To the Director of the Public Registry, to effect the requested correction or annotation so that, when the Act of Birth of Shakil Akhter Khan is registered in Malta, the applicant’s name is changed by annotation from ‘Shakle Akther’ to ‘Shakil Akhter’.

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 26th March, 2026, and upon an application numbered 222/2026, ordered:

To the Director of the Public Registry, to effect the requested correction or annotation so that the minor’s surname in the Act of Birth number 3520/2023 is changed from ‘De Faria De Sousa’ to ‘Starostova’.

Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

RUTH PISCOPO

Deputy Registrar, Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of the 21st August, 2025, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

David Parkes (ID 138078A) as admninistrator of Condominium Block A Cosmopolitan Apts of 2443 Triq L-Istamnar, St Paul’s Bay, Malta, filed a Claim on the 1st August, 2025, whereby he asked the Tribunal to condemn Simon Hansford (ID 0183067M) of 20, Cosmopolitan Apts, Blk A, Flat 1, Triq Istamnar, St Paul’s Bay, to pay the plaintiff nomine the sum of €1,602, which amount is due to the plaintiff nomine.

With costs and interests

The case (Claim number 211/2025MD) is deferred on the 21st April, 2026, at 1.35 p.m.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of the 30th April, 2025, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service on the respondent Yanica Mc Kay in terms of Article 187(5) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

Go plc (C22334) of GO, Triq Ħal Tarxien, Żejtun ZTN 3000, filed a Claim on the 21st April, 2025, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Yanika Mc Kay (ID 177991M) of 16, Mckay, Triq id-Dielja, Ħal Qormi, and/or 195, Triq San Albert, Gżira, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €2767.74, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.

With costs and legal interests

The case (Claim number 98/2025MD) is deferred on the 21st April, 2026, at 12.40 p.m.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 3rd February, 2026, of the Civil Court (Family Section), in the records of the application in the names Gabriel De Battista noe vs Walter Farrugia, Application number 346/2025AL, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent Walter Farrugia 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 records of the application Number 346/2025AL in the names Gabriel De Battista (ID 266294M) for and on behalf of Anna Borg (ID 325268M) vs Walter Farrugia (ID 215267M), filed in the Civil Court (Family Section), on the 10th July, 2025, the applicant Gabriel De Battista for and on behalf of Anna Borg requested this Honourable Court to:

1. Order that the marriage between the parties with progressive registration Marriage Act number 1817/1992 be declared dissolved.

2. Order the duly notification of the judgement to the Public Registry.

And this under any order or provision that this Court may give.

The application in the names Gabriel De Battista noe vs Walter Farrugia, Application number 346/2025AL has been postponed for hearing to the 21st April, 2026, at 9.30 a.m. 

Applicant: Casa Maray, Triq Serafin Zarb O.P., Mosta

Notification respondent: 43, Redeemer, Triq id-Duluri, Ħamrun

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals