Defunct Msida care home ordered to give back its ground foyer

A court has ordered a company that once ran a now defunct retirement home, to relinquish possession of the Msida premises it occupied back to its owners.

The Marina Palace Home’s licence to operate as a care home was revoked in February 2021.

In 2014, plaintiffs Mary Zammit, Pierre Zammit and Nicolette Zahra filed a case against the care home’s operators A.C.K. Ltd, saying their ground-floor shop at 7, Msida Seafront was swapped for another one belonging to A.C.K., in a verbal agreement.

The property in question was, at the time, part of the Marina Palace Home foyer.

Although Zammits’ business had physically moved, the contract transferring ownership was never concluded.

After long and difficult negotiations, the parties agreed to a promise-of-sale, but A.C.K. never concluded the sale, ignoring a judicial letter.

A.C.K. denied it was refusing to appear on the contract, arguing for a reasonable time and fir agreement on the €150,000 demanded by the plaintiffs – €50,000 allocated to the purchase of the shop, and the remaining €100,000 as compensation for the vacating of the shop.

The courts subsequently passed judgment in 2015, ordering A.C.K. to appear on the contract of sale. A.C.K. then appealed this judgment, but failed to deposit the necessary security, leading to the appeal being declared abandoned and the judgment confirmed in April 2016.

Despite the judgment, A.C.K. did not appear on the final contract, so the plaintiffs filed a new case to declare the promise of sale having no effect and to condemn A.C.K. to pay the price due.

Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff upheld the plaintiffs’ request, declaring the 2014 promise-of-sale no longer having any effect, with A.C.K. no longer possessing a valid legal title to occupy the property, ordering its eviction and to return it in its original state under the direction of a court-appointed architect. A.C.K. filed an appeal but this was also abandoned in October 2021.

A.C.K. then contested a warrant for eviction, given that it was being requested over property built above the airspace attached to their property. But this argument gained no traction with judge Christian Falzon Scerri, presiding the First Hall of the Civil Court, who said the plaintiffs had a valid executive title and that the courts had ordered A.C.K. to relinquish the possession of the Msida property.

The court dismissed the argument that the eviction request affected properties which didn’t belong to the plaintiff. “It is not for this court to say whether that judgment is correct or not, or if Maria Zammit and  the others are the owners of all the spaces appearing on the building plans exhibited in these proceedings,” said the judge, highlighting the fact that the law specified such proceedings to be summary in nature and quoting case law supporting this view.

For these reasons, the court denied A.C.K.’s request to cancel the warrant of eviction, ordering that the costs of the case to be borne by the company.