Woman succeeds in lifting eviction order

The Court of Appeal upheld an application filed by a woman and ordered the revocation of an eviction order issued against her at her husband's request.

The decision was delivered following an application filed by the wife.

The woman claimed that in March 2004 her husband had obtained an eviction order against her in terms of which she had to vacate premises at Santa Venera. This order was ostensibly obtained in execution of a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court in October 2000 in terms of which the personal separation between the couple was ordered.

The wife submitted that the 2000 judgment had not in fact ordered her eviction from the premises. In terms of the judgment, the court had ordered that the Santa Venera property, which was the matrimonial home, was to be sold by tender after the lapse of two years from judgment date.

Furthermore, the wife submitted that the husband's application for the order had been filed before the First Hall of the Civil Court and not the Family Court which was the competent court to hear and decide such issues.

She therefore asked the court in its Family Section to revoke and overturn the eviction order issued against her.

However, the wife's application was dismissed by the First Hall of the Civil Court in June 2004 after the court concluded that it was unfounded at law.

The Family Court argued that the eviction order had been issued in terms of the judgment delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court in October 2000.

This latter judgment had ordered the liquidation of the community of acquests existing between the spouses.

Furthermore, the court had ordered that the Santa Venera property was to be sold by tender after two years from the date of the judgment. Within such period the wife was entitled to the exclusive use of the house and the husband was to vacate the property within 30 days from the judgment.

The proceeds of the sale of the house were to be divided between the parties with the wife obtaining Lm3,000 more than the husband.

The wife submitted that this judgment had not entitled her husband to obtain an eviction order against her. The judgment in issue did not contain an eviction order in respect of the wife but in respect of the husband.

The Family Court, however, did not agree with the wife's submissions.

The court based its argument on a principle of case law that judgments had always to be interpreted in such a manner so as to give an effective solution to the demands contained in the case.

The same applied to the enforcement of judgments and the court ruled that were this not to be the case the court judgments could easily be eluded.

The wife then lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Anton Depasquale and Mr Justice Albert J. Magri, in which she requested the appellate court to overturn the judgment delivered in June 2004 and to consequently revoke the eviction order filed against her.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal found in favour of the wife and declared that it was absolutely contrary to the reasoning adopted by the Family Court.

The Appeals Court declared that it was not necessary for the wife to leave the home in order to implement the judgment delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court in October 2000.

In terms of this judgment the Santa Venera property was to be sold by tender after two years.

As a result, with effect from October 2002, each of the spouses was entitled to file the appropriate procedures for the sale of the house. There was therefore no need for the wife to be evicted.

Even after two years from the judgment of 2000, the wife was a co-owner of the property and was therefore entitled to continue occupying it.

The Court of Appeal ruled that it was basing its judgment solely on the fact that the October 2000 judgment had not ordered the wife's eviction from the property.

There was no need therefore for this court to examine any further submissions of the wife.

The court revoked the judgment of the Family Court and ordered the revocation of the eviction order.