Judge hands farmers victory in landmark ruling on dissolution of rural leases

A judge has dismissed a case for the dissolution of a rural lease filed by the owner of a field in Qrendi in a landmark ruling protecting farmers from eviction.

Judge Lawrence Mintoff, presiding over the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction, ruled that the law created the right balance between the rights of owners and tenants.

He dismissed the case filed by Vincenza Magro, who argued the law protecting rural leases (qbiela) breached her rights as land owner.

Magro had filed a court case over the 2,910sq.m. field in the area known as il-Bur ta’ Ħallew which had been leased to Annalisa Schembri and Liberata Schembri, who were paying just €24 in rent every two years.

Magro had refused to accept the last rent payment, which the tenants had then deposited in court.

Rural leases enjoy strong protection at law and are inherited from one generation to the next, such that Magro argued that it was near-impossible for her to ever take back possession of her field.

She also submitted that the law also did not provide an adequate mechanism for the revision of the value of the lease, leading to an enormous discrepancy between the rent paid and the free market value.

Magro argued that jurisprudence showed that having recourse to the Rural Lease Regulation Board would not provide her with an effective remedy.

All this amounted to a breach of her fundamental right to the enjoyment of personal property, she said.

The State Advocate had opposed the case, denying any breach of constitutional or conventional rights, arguing amongst other things that there were other legal options available to the plaintiff.

Also, replying to the initial application, the defendants, Annalisa and Liberata Schembri argued that the plaintiff had not indicated which articles of the law were causing the breach of her rights, that there were ordinary remedies available to her and that they had always based their occupation on the dispositions of the law, which had an element of public policy in that they ensured the continued operation of the agricultural sector in Malta.

Magro had told the court that she had never engaged an architect to value the land, but added that she had recently sold another, uncultivated, field for over €100,000 and exhibited the contract as evidence.

The plaintiff’s son, Paul had testified in January 2020, explaining that he had mooted increasing the rural lease to €600 per year with Annalisa Schembri, but she had not replied and had instead started depositing the rent in court.

Schembri had also testified, but claimed that Magro had initially requested €2,000, which was impossible for her to pay and that the €600 he later asked for was also too much.

In his decision on the matter, Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff began by pointing out that the plaintiff could not have made this request to a lower court as it was unequivocally asking for a declaration of a breach of human rights and liquidation of resulting damages.

He dismissed the argument that the applicant had not precisely indicated which dispositions of the law were breaching her fundamental rights, observing that it was sufficiently clear from the application that she was complaining about a breach of her right to derive a fitting income from her fields and that she was being denied possession of the same.

The judge noted that there was no contestation of the fact that the law, enacted in 1967, had been intended to control the use of agricultural land and had therefore been introduced with a legitimate intention.

It was the State’s responsibility to ensure sufficient agricultural produce for the country, said the judge, noting that at the time of its introduction, the duty of the State had been more onerous and reflected the economic and financial situation of the country at the time.

Despite the liberalisation of the market and the importation of foodstuffs from abroad, the State still had a strong responsibility to ensure the country does not rely on imports alone, said the court, justifying the State’s wide discretion to ensure that the agricultural sector does not go under. This discretion was tempered by the citizen’s fundamental rights, however, added Mintoff.

Here the court said it disagreed with the State Advocate’s argument in that although it was in a position to recognise the needs of society, he had no absolute right to disturb a landowner’s right to enjoyment of his property.

The court had to consider whether there was a lack of proportionality in the two legislative measures promulgated by the State. It recognised that these had been introduced to protect the agricultural sector by ensuring that a farmer cannot be easily deprived of the land he had been working for decades by the imposition of an increase in his rent, which would, in turn, affect his income and standard of living.

Judge disagrees with technical expert’s valuation

The court turned its attention to the amount of rent, having appointed a technical expert to draw up a report on the rental value of the land at market rates. But the judge disagreed with the expert’s findings, saying they were unrealistic in the context of agricultural land and more fitting for land sold for other reasons. 

“The court cannot recognise circumstances where it would find a farmer ready to pay €130,950 to buy the fields in question… or against an agricultural lease of €1,964 annually,” ruled the judge, adding that the sale of a similar field for €116,468 could not be compared as there was no indication as to whether it was being sold for cultivation or development.

Mr Justice Mintoff also observed that the technical expert’s replies, under cross-examination, as to how he had reached the supposed value were “rather vague and not at all convincing.” The expert had also failed to examine other contracts for agricultural land, saying he had relied on estate agent prices, whilst applying reduction factors.

The court ruled that this exercise could not return realistic values which were applicable to the context at hand, and the expert witness’ vague answers led the court to say that “it was not at all convinced that the values expressed by the Judicial Technical Expert can be taken as applicable to the case at hand,” also noting that there was an “enormous discrepancy” between the rent payable to her and that estimated by the court expert.

Neither was there a cap on the value of rural leases in the law, as opposed to that argued by the plaintiff, said that judge, also noting that she had never made a claim before the appropriate Board to change the amount due and therefore could not complain that she had been deprived of an effective remedy by the law.

Law intended to protect agricultural activities

There were many situations envisaged at law where the owner of the land could be given back possession by the holder of an agricultural lease, said the judge, once again noting that no request to this effect had been made before the Rural Leases Board. Judge Mintoff repeated that the law in question was built upon the principal aim of first and foremost protecting agricultural activities.

“All this considered, however, the State certainly cannot put to one side the principle of proportionality through which it must find a balance between the general interest and that of the owner. The court considers that through the dispositions of Chapter 199 this balance should be reached, as whilst the owner cannot easily take back possession of the land from the tenant… he has the means to ensure he receives adequate compensation for this.”

The court found for the defendant, ruling that there was no breach of fundamental human rights as protected by the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lawyers Errol Cutajar and James D’Agostino appeared for the defendant, whilst lawyers David Camilleri and Joseph Gatt represented the plaintiffs.