The Court of Appeal yesterday confirmed a judgment ordering Charles Saliba to pay lawyer Joseph Zammit Tabona over €130,000 in damages after a robbery 14 years ago.

Dr Zammit Tabona and his wife had alleged that Mr Saliba was the brains behind a robbery at their home in St Julians on the night of May 12, 1995. They also alleged that Mr Saliba had participated in the robbery.

Mr Saliba had denied the allegations and insisted he had been acquitted of any criminal charges brought against him in connection with the crime.

In March 2008, the First Hall of the Civil Court had found in favour of the Zammit Tabonas and ordered Mr Saliba to pay them damages amounting to €130,441.42.

Mr Saliba resorted to the Court of Appeal composed of Mr Justice Albert J. Magri, Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia. On appeal, the court heard that masked robbers had entered the Zammit Tabonas’ home in the early hours of May 12, 1995 through a roof door. Three of them went into the bedroom and pushed the couple onto the floor. One of the intruders had broken Mrs Zammit Tabona’s leg and insisted she hand them her jewellery.

The thieves also ransacked the safe in the house.

Dr Zammit Tabona told the court he had recognised one of the thieves as being Charles Saliba whom he had known for many years as he worked as a plumber and electrician in the St Julians area. He added that although he had heard the other thieves speaking between them, Mr Saliba had not spoken during the robbery.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had deemed Dr Zammit Tabona’s version of events to be credible and noted that he had recognised Mr Saliba as being one of the participants in the robbery.

Mr Saliba contested the conclusions drawn by the first court. However, the Court of Appeal said it did not normally disturb the appreciation of the evidence made by the first court and only did so in the event that some valid and compelling reason was found to subsist.

The Court of Appeal noted that there were certain inconsistencies in the testimony given by Dr Zammit Tabona and his wife. However, the memory of a person who had been subjected to a violent robbery could be affected for psychological reasons.

The first court had chosen to believe the couples’ version of events and had concluded that Dr Zammit Tabona had indeed recognised Mr Saliba. The Court of Appeal said it saw no reason to overturn such a decision.

Mr Saliba had also appealed from the quantum of damages awarded by the first court. But the Court of Appeal confirmed the award of damages adding that the first court had substantially diminished the damages for medical expenses that had been sought by the couple.