Gaffarena loses Old Mint Street case

A court has dismissed a case filed by businessman Marco Gaffarena in a bid to force the sale of a quarter undivided share of a property in Old Mint Street, Valletta

Marco Gaffarena
Marco Gaffarena

A court has dismissed a case filed by businessman Marco Gaffarena in a bid to force the sale of a quarter undivided share of a property in Old Mint Street, Valletta.

Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti, presiding the First Hall of the Civil Court ruled that the defendants, the owners of the property in question, had a valid reason for refusing to appear on the final contract.

Gaffarena had asked the court to order the defendants to sell a quarter undivided share of 36 Old Mint Street in Valletta for an established price, but the court disagreed. “The plaintiffs know that the defendants are not in a position to do this because part of this quarter share is subject to expropriation…which the plaintiff knew about before the promise of sale and did not inform the defendants,” said the judge.

In addition, noted the court, they had remained silent even after two months following the expropriation of another part of the same buildings.

“Nowhere do the plaintiffs declare or testify that they had somehow renounced to a part of the share promised and the words of the promise of sale….do not give rise to a smaller share but if anything, a larger one. Therefore it is the opinion of the court that the expropriation in existence, without any intervention or knowledge of the defendants, is an obstacle to them adhering to their obligations under the promise of sale, when they were not aware of the expropriation and bound themselves under the promise of sale that there were no expropriation orders [on the property].”

It was only in their note of submissions that the plaintiffs submitted that they are ready to purchase whatever share without the sellers suffering any consequences, even if the title was not good and certain, said the court.

The court’s hands were tied by the contract, said the judge, explaining that the court could not order the contract as per the promise of sale, nor order a change in the promise of sale between the parties. “Otherwise…it would be making a new agreement and not executing the promised agreement!” he said.