A company is not entitled to object to the sale - by the Joint Office - of the bare ownership of land which it held by title of temporary emphyteusis, a court has ruled.
This judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Anthony Ellul in a case filed by Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Ltd (CMD) against the Joint Office.
CMD told the court that in the 1960s it had acquired land in Mellieha from the church by title of temporary emphyteusis which was due to expire in 2113.
The company had created Santa Maria Estate in Mellieha on this land by selling plots to third parties by title of temporary sub-emphyteusis. This title was due to expire in 2113 with the emphyteutical grant held by CMD.
In 1991, the government entered into an agreement with the Holy See through which the local church transferred much of its property that was not required for pastoral purposes to the government. This agreement was subsequently incorporated into law.
Through this agreement, Santa Maria Estate was transferred to the government, and CMD paid the temporary ground rent which it owed in respect of this land to the government through the Joint Office.
However, the Joint Office was selling the bare ownership of plots of land in the Santa Maria Estate to the people who had acquired the plots from CMD by title of temporary sub-emphyteusis.
This, CMD said, was incorrect, for only permanent emphyteutical grants, as opposed to temporary emphyteutical grants, could be redeemed in terms of law.
CMD requested the court to declare that the Joint Office was not authorised to sell the bare ownership of the land in issue.
Mr Justice Ellul said that the government had acquired the bare ownership of the land in question as a result of the agreement reached with the Holy See.
As CMD did not own the bare ownership - but only held the land on temporary emphyteusis - it had no right to dictate to the Joint Office as to how this right could be disposed of.
If, for the sake of argument, the government had acted in violation of its agreement with the Holy See, then only the latter could contest the government's actions.
The court added that it did not agree with CMD that the provisions of the Housing Decontrol Ordinance relating to the redemption of ground rents were applicable to the case in issue.
CMD's temporary emphyteusis was due to expire in 2113 and there were no guarantees that, by that date, the law relating to redemption of ground rents would remain the same.
Furthermore, the Joint Office had not allowed the redemption of the groundrent by the owners of plots in the Santa Maria Estate. What the Joint Office had done was transfer its rights of bare ownership of the land in favour of these owners.
The court, therefore, dismissed CMD's action.