Government reacquires Manoel Theatre restaurant

The Court of Appeal yesterday heard that the government had once again acquired a Valletta property being used as the Manoel Theatre's bar and restaurant by title of public dominion and upheld a ruling suspending a warrant of eviction.

The acquisition was effected shortly after a judgment of the Constitutional Court had ordered that the property in issue was to be returned to its original owner.

The Constitutional Court had ruled last January that the owner's rights had been violated when commercial use was made of her property which had been acquired by the government under title of possession and use.

Agnes Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq had claimed, in 1996, that in 1958 the government had taken property belonging to her family (and that she had later inherited in 1988) under title of possession and use.

The property was adjacent to the Manoel Theatre in Valletta.

The government had not made use of it for many years until in 1975 it decided to join it to the Manoel Theatre. The property was then administered by the Manoel Theatre Management Committee (MTMC) which had, in the mid-1990s, entered into an agreement with a private company so that the latter would operate a restaurant and bar from Ms Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq's property.

In last January's judgment the Constitutional Court concluded that the allocation of the property to the MTMC had taken place in the public interest, for the committee had been provided with office premises and with the space to promote cultural activities.

But the court added that once the government had not fully acquired the property, the public interest had to be satisfied for the entire period during which the government controlled the property.

In this case, the Constitutional Court confirmed that there was a violation of the owner's rights to enjoyment of her property as she was being made to carry a disproportionate burden for the sake of the public interest.

This property had been valued, in 1998, as being worth Lm800,000, but up till the court's judgment the government had only offered Ms Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq Lm210 per annum.

This compensation was offered despite the fact that the MTMC was receiving an income of between Lm5,000 and Lm6,000 per annum from the property due to the commercial use that was underway. The court ordered the revocation of the order of possession and use in respect of the property and that it be released to the owner.

The court also reserved the owner's rights to seek compensation for the loss of use of the property.

Following this judgment Ms Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq filed a warrant of eviction in respect of the property. But on January 22, before the warrant could be executed, a Presidential declaration had been published in the Government Gazette stating that the property was required for a public purpose and that it was being acquired by the government against payment of rent of Lm21,000 per annum.

The Commissioner of Lands then requested the First Hall of the Civil Court to revoke the warrant of eviction on the basis that the government now had title to the property and could not be evicted from it.

The first court ruled, last month, that the warrant of eviction could not be enforced until such time as there was a judgment in the case filed by Ms Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq contesting the validity of last January's expropriation.

Both the property owner and the Commissioner of Lands then appealed to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.

In its judgment the court ruled that this was not a constitutional case where the alleged violation of human rights was examined.

Nor was it a case in which the court was requested to see whether or not the government could legally take the property in question. Ms Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq had already filed a case contesting the validity of last January's expropriation, and such case was pending before the courts.

The Court of Appeal was being requested to examine whether there were valid reasons for a warrant issued after a judgment to be suspended until such time as another case was decided.

It resulted that in terms of last January's Presidential declaration, the government had acquired the property by title of public dominion against payment of a rent of Lm21,000 per annum. This meant that at present, there was a valid reason for the warrant of eviction issued at the request of the property owner to be suspended.

The court therefore dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree issued by the first court.