Mark Gaffarena’s request for the court to stop a family from selling their part of a Valletta property, at the centre of a controversial expropriation, to third parties was has been rejected by the courts.

The request was made on Monday after the family did not turn up to conclude the sale of its part-ownership.

Mr Justice Joseph R Micallef in the First Hall of the Civil Court noted that respondents had entered into a promise of sale agreement in respect of the property on March 26, which agreement was valid for one year from that date. Mr and Mrs Gaffarena had paid a ten per cent deposit on account of the purchase price of €139,762 to the respondents.

The promise of sale agreement was subject to the condition that a recognition rent was payable to the Malta Government and that the building was not subject to an expropriation order or any enforcement notice issued by MEPA.

The court pointed out that towards the end of May local media had announced that the other share of the property in question that Mr and Mrs Gaffarena had already purchased from other parties had been expropriated by the government by title of outright purchase. The compensation paid to Mr Gaffarena was far in excess of the price at which he had purchased the share of the property.

Once this was made public, respondents had informed the notary entrusted with the sale of their one-quarter share of the property, that they did not wish to appear on the public deed on the appointed date of June 15. As a result, Mr and Mrs Gaffarena had filed an application for a warrant of prohibitory injunction against respondents.

Mr Justice Micalled said that in order for a warrant to the issued, the applicant had to prove that he had a prima facie right that merited protection. Furthermore the warrant of prohibitory injunction was an exceptional remedy.

In this case, there was a valid promise of sale agreement between the parties and it was therefore clear that the Gaffarenas had a prime facie right on the property. But it did not result that there was a reason to fear that respondents had planned to sell their share of the property to any third party.

The Gaffarenas, said the court, had other remedies at their disposal in the event that respondents did not appear on the final deed of sale prior to the lapse of the promise of sale agreement.

The court therefore declined to issue the warrant. 

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.