Court declares Sliema alley to be Church property

A court yesterday ruled that an alley in Sliema was Church property despite the fact that a notarial deed entered into in 1995 specified that it was included in a transfer of property to Verdala Mansions Ltd (previously Sunny Homes Ltd).

This judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri in the case filed by the administrator of Church property on behalf of the chapel of Our Lady of Grace that forms part of the Veneranda Lampade (parish administration) of Stella Maris parish church, Sliema against Verdala Mansions Ltd. Another company, B & B Property Development Co. Ltd, was called into the suit in 1998.

The administrator claimed in his writ that in March 1995 Sunny Homes Ltd had purchased and acquired a house known as "Alexandra Gardens" in High Street, Sliema. The deed of sale described the property as measuring 2,282.5 square metres and noted that the property was bordered on the north by property of Capua Palace Ltd and on the east in part by the chapel of Our Lady of Grace and in part by the yards of private houses on Stella Maris Street.

However, the administrator declared that between the chapel and the yards there was an alley that was the property of Stella Maris church. The deed indicated that the alley had been incorporated into the property sold to Sunny Homes Ltd.

The administrator declared that the Church had possessed this alley in a manner that was continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful and public for well over 40 years. As a result the Church had acquired the alley by title of acquisitive prescription.

The court was requested to declare that notwithstanding anything contained in the 1995 deed of sale, the alley belonged to the Church. The administrator also asked the court to declare that defendant companies had caused structural damage to the chapel as a result of excavation works in the vicinity.

Sunny Homes pleaded it had a valid title to the alley and denied that it had caused any damage to the chapel. The company requested the court to call B & B Property Development Co. Ltd, from whom it had purchased the property, into the suit. This request was upheld by the court. On its part B & B Property Development Co. Ltd pleaded that it had sold property that it had validly acquired previously.

Mr Justice Cuschieri noted that the existence of the alley clearly resulted from the contracts in terms of which B & B Property Development Co. Ltd had acquired the land it had then sold to Sunny Homes. The alley was clearly indicated in a plan annexed to the deed of acquisition of the land by B & B Property Development Co. Ltd and the evidence produced, and the findings of the court-appointed technical expert clearly proved that the alley was not included in the contracts of acquisition of Sunny Homes and B & B Property Development Co. Ltd.

When examining the administrator's claim of ownership of the alley, Mr Justice Cuschieri declared that the administrator had to provide evidence of acquisitive prescription and not merely of extinctive prescription. One witness told the court he was aware of the chapel for 66 years and that the alley was closed off by a gate. The alley had been roofed over many years previously and the parish feast decorations were stored there.

A former parish priest had allowed the occupants of "Alexandra Gardens" to park their car in the alley and it was clearly proven that the occupants had never paid any fee for making use of the alley. It also resulted that the key to the alley gate had been given to Angelo Xuereb, on behalf of Sunny Homes Ltd, by the former occupants when they had given him the keys to "Alexandra Gardens".

Mr Justice Cuschieri said that an important point in favour of the administrator's claim was that no third party had ever laid claim to the alley and that the Church had maintained possession of the alley since before World War II.

In conclusion, the court found in favour of the administrator and ruled that the alley was the property of the Church. Sunny Homes Ltd and B & B Property Development Co. Ltd were ordered to pay the costs on this point. However, the court dismissed the administrator's request for a declaration that defendants had caused damages to the chapel on the basis that this did not result from the evidence produced.