Man loses bid to reclaim expensive wrist watch

The Magistrates' Court has dismissed a claim filed by a man seeking to have a company return to him a Rolex wrist watch after the court ruled the man had failed to prove his title to the watch.

Raymond Debattista filed his writ against Edwards Lowell Company Limited asking the court to order the company to return the watch as he had purchased it from third parties in good faith.

Debattista claimed he was going to sell the watch to a certain Christopher Mallia and the latter had requested the company to verify whether the watch was genuine, as Edwards Lowell Company Limited was the local agent for Rolex watches.

But the company had retained the watch and had refused to return it to him on the basis that the wrist watch had been purchased from the company by some other person who had paid for it by a cheque which had not been honoured.

Edwards Lowell Company Limited pleaded that Debattista did not have the requisite juridical interest in the suit and the wrist watch was its property as it had been taken from the company in a fraudulent manner.

It added that Debattista had never been in good faith.

Magistrate Silvio Meli declared that Debattista had made a number of allegations that the court was bound to list in its judgment.

Plaintiff had told the court he had purchased the Rolex watch from a certain Rossi who had given him a receipt and all guarantees.

Debattista had alleged he had been urged by a certain Joseph Grima, a car dealer, to sell the wrist watch and that he had handed the watch to Grima to find him a buyer.

When a prospective buyer was found, a certain Chris Mallia, the latter wanted to verify whether the watch was authentic or otherwise.

It was decided to take the Rolex watch to Edwards Lowell Company Limited for verification.

However, the company had declared that the wrist watch had been sold by it some time back but that the cheque for payment had not been honoured.

The police were called in and it resulted that the cheque had been stolen.

However, Magistrate Meli declared that these allegations, made by Debattista, had not been confirmed by the evidence produced in the case.

Joseph Grima had testified in the course of the proceedings that he had bought the Rolex from Debattista for Lm1,500.

Grima had also testified he had sold the wrist watch to Chris Mallia for Lm1,700 or Lm1,800 under the specific condition that Mallia could verify the watch's authenticity.

Grima was then informed that the watch had effectively been stolen from the company, as the cheque for its purchase price had been stolen.

The court noted that Grima's testimony was corroborated in its entirety by Mallia.

Magistrate Meli added that the watch had been confiscated by the police in the course of their investigations, but that as the police did not have facilities for the storage of precious items, it was decided that the Rolex wrist watch was to be deposited in the strong room of Edwards Lowell Company Limited even though it was to remain in the legal possession of the police.

The company's managing director had testified before the court that the wrist watch had been originally purchased from the company's shop in Valletta and that the payment had not been honoured.

The company added that as the watch was prestigious and valuable it was coded and provided with a personalised guarantee and thus could be easily identified by the company.

In his judgment Magistrate Meli added that the company's first plea of lack of juridical interest had to be examined in depth.

In terms of case law a juridical interest, in order to be proven to exist, had to be not only direct and actual but had also to be legitimate and based upon a claim of violation of a right.

The facts in this particular case led the court to conclude that Debattista had not proven that he had a legitimate juridical interest in the case, for the principal witness, Grima, had confirmed on oath that he had purchased the watch from plaintiff.

Consequently, Debattista did not have a legal interest against the company which, on its part, had definitely not damaged plaintiff's economic rights.

The court therefore concluded that Debattista's allegation that he was the owner of the watch was not proven.