Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/929711
8 News maltatoday SUNDAY 21 JANUARY 2018 By means of a decree given, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application,in the names Alfred Camilleri et vs Nicholas Zammit et, Application number 870/04/2, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Nicholas Zammit et, in terms of Article 187(3) et. seq. of Cap. 12. By means of an Appeal Application, filed, in the Court of Appeal, in the names Alfred Camilleri and his wife Consolata sive Connie Camilleri vs Nicholas Zammit and his wife Angela Zammit and by decree of the 27th February, 2009, the proceedings were continued in the name of Peter Paul Zammit, Joseph Zammit and Maria Zammit, instead of the defendant Angela Zammit who died during the proceedings, on the 6th May, 2015, the applicant Alfred Camilleri (ID 723049M) and his wife Consolata sive Connie Camilleri respectfully pleaded; That by means of a Writ of Summons, filed, by the plaintiffs on the 12th November, 2004, it was premised that; 'Whereas that the legitimate ownership as well as the sole enjoyment of the roof overlying the premises 65, Middle Street, Siġġiewi, is vested solely in the and this on the basis of a contract in the records of Notary Nicola Said, of the 13th December, 1979. Whereas there is a claim of the defendants that the same property belongs to the same defendants, which claim was repeatedly manifested as the defendants are obstructing the plaintiffs in the enjoyment and use of the same roof and this as results from the cause of spoliation made by the defendants against the plaintiffs decided on the 30th June, 2004. It is stated thus by the defendants why this Honourable Court should not: 1.declare that the legitimate ownership of the roof overlying the premises 65, Middle Street, Siġġiewi, as well as the enjoyment of the same belongs solely to the plaintiffs; 2. order the release within a short and peremptory period that shall be fixed of the absolute and unconditional possession of the same property in favour of the plaintiffs; 3. appoint if necessary a Notary to publish the opportune deed and curators for the deceased. With costs and the defendants are summoned so that a reference to their evidence is made That by means of a note of pleas the defendants pleaded that: 1. That the plaintiff's demands are unfounded in fact and at law and are to be rejected with costs against them as it is not the case that by the contract of the 13th December, 1979, in the records of Notary Nicola Said, the ownership and enjoyment of the roof overlying the premises acquired by them number sixty five 65, Middle Street, Siġġiewi, vests in them since; 'The legitimate owners of this roof are in fact and at law the same defendants which by means of a contract of sale published on the 13 th November, 1991, in the records of Notary Anthony Gatt, bought the house number sixty three (63) with a the door of a stable number sixty four (64) which are connected to each other in Middle Street, Siġġiewi, free and unencumbered, with all its rights and appurtenances are the successors in title in the title of the property already established long ago in terms of Article 2140 of the Civil Code, by means of a perpetual emphyteutical concession of the 29th May, 1910, in the records of Notary Emmanuele Pio Debono, whereby the premises mentioned (of the defendants) at that time number fifty five was granted in perpetuity; 2. That furthermore and indipendently from the said contract of perpetual emphyteusis of 1910, the title of property of the roof in question vests also in the defendants in terms of Article 530 and 2107 of the Civil Code, on the basis of the material possession of the roof in question which togetrher with their predeccsors they always enjoyed, in a continous, pacific, public and unequivocal manner for more than thirty years. Saving further pleas That the First Hall Civil Court, on the 18th March, 2011, decided the cause by; 'decides the cause by rejecting the plea of ten years prexcription brought forward by the defendants but upholds that of thirty years and thus rejects the plaintiff's demands. That the plaintiffs presented the Appeal application in virtue of which for the reasons premised them they asked this Honourable Court; 'whilst the appellants refer to the proof already produced by them and reserve to bring the necessary proof and which are permittedby law asked the Court to revoke and cancel the judgement of the 18th March 2011, by the Frst Hall Civil Court, in the names premised and uphold the appellant's demands. That the Honourable Court of Appeal,in its decision of the 6th February 2015, considered that; 'That the facts that gave rise to this cause are well exposed in the judgement that the Honourable Court of First Instance delivered. In brief the defendants are pretending that the ownership of the roof which overlies the premises of the plaintiffs. After examining the relative contracts the Court of First Instsance concluded that as a title this roof and its airspace was acquired by the predecessors of the plaintiffs and not the predecessors of the defendants. The defendants pleaded also that they acquired the property of the roof in any case by precription of ten or thirty years. The Court of First Instance rejected the claim based on the ten years prescription but found that the defendants managed to proof legitimate posession for thirty years, possession which grants a title indipendently from the good faith and a good title. This Court of First Instance after making an evaluation of the facts brought before it , proof which in its opinion show material and public possession for more than thirty years. The plaintiffs appealed from the judgement and state that in this case there is no doubt about their title and they criticise the analysis of the facts made by the Court of First Instance and they state the defendants did not proof possession in the sense of the law for a thirty year period. Having heard the Appeal this Court sees that the Court of First Instance , agreed with the version of the plaintiffs that the roof as a title was acquired by them and there was no néed why the plaintiffs emphasise that there does not result any state of uncertainty or doubt as regards their title. This was accepted by the Court of First Instsnce. It is a fact however that the ownership of an immovasble can be lost if a third party proves that he was in the legal possession of that same property for at least thirty years …omissis… The procedural iter followed by the Court of First Instance was correct and the legal principles it followed are also correct, one cannot agree on the appreciation of the facts made by the Court of First Instance when it came to decide whether the defendants proved legitimate possession for thirty years, an evaluation which this Court as a Court of Revision does not disturb, unless there result circumsrances of a certain gravity which lead it to change the analysis made by the Court of First Instance. This Court examined the proof and sees that it should agree with the analysis of the facts made by the Court of First Instance. From the cause of spoliation made between the parties (Writ of Summons number 1679/1994) and decided by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 30th June, 2004, the defendants had a sort of possession or detention of the roof and tis roof even as the plaintiffs agree is accessible in an easier manner from the premises of the defendants …omissis… The use of the roof was not made clandestinely and it was clear that the defendants 'made it theirs' for a long period of time in order to acquire it according to law. The Court of First Instance observed that whilst the plaintiffs showed continuity in title the defendants managed to show continuity of possession and when this is according to law and for the time required it overides the plaintiff's title. Thus for the reasons premised it disposes of the plaintiff's appeal by rejecting the same and confirms the judgement of the Court of First Instance, with the costs of the cause to be paid by the plaintiff appellants in solidum. That the plaintiffs felt aggrieved by thuis decision because they are convinced that this Honopurable Court of Appeal, applied the law badly and this in terms of Article 811(e) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta for the following reasons: 1. That the plaintiffs feel with respect that this Honourable Court had to go on to analyse the facts and not rely on the conclusion of the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance agreed that the plaintiffs 'proved theur title as regards the roof regarding which the lawsuit was instituted, we have to see also whether the defendants acquired also a title regarding the same roof and in that case which title wins'. It is thus why it follows that the interpretation of the facts as exposed during the pleading of the cause before the Honourable First Court are essential. It follows that this Honourable First Court had to review this essential examination once thee is nothing in the ;aw which precludes it from doing this. The plaintiffs do not agree with the interpretation of facts made by the Court of First Instance and in fact the second gruevance of the Appeal addresses this. It is emphasised that once there is the certainity of the title of the the plaintiffs (as confirmed by the Court of First Instasnce and by this Honourable Court) the pendulum had to go in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. The appreciation of the facts mistakenly effects the interpretation of the law. It is stated that in ciercumstances like those of the present case the facts and their interpretation are inseparable from the law. This because as regards the facts as exposed during the pleading of the cause the spouses Camilleri have the right as explained in their demand in the records of the writ of summons, filed, on the 12th November, 2004. 3. That the evaluation of this Honourable Court as to whether the defendants proved the legitimate possession for thirty years could be made only by examining the facts and examine the analysis and conclusions of the Court of First Instance. This is a case where the interpretation of the facts effects directly the point of law particularly when there is a contestation as to how the Court of First Instance reached the conclusion regarding the thirty years. 4. That these facts indicate the right itself and such examination had be made by this Honourable First Court as that submitted by the defendants does not bring to nothing the title of the plaintiffs who also have the presumption of law in their favour as established in Article 323 of the Civil Code. That from the examination of the facts it emerged clearly tht the form of possession on the part of the defendants was not enough to bring the plaintiff's title to nothing. Because if ever granted but not conceeed this was only detention or precarious enjoyment on the part of the defendantrs and nothing else. Thus the interpellant applicants spouses Camilleri, whilst annexing the undermentioned security to guarantee the costs of this procedure pray with respect in view of the premised that this Honourable Court, saving the revocation, rescission and cancellation of the judgement above mentioned of the 6th February, 2015, in the cause in the names Alfred Camilleri and his wife Consolata sive Connie Camilleri vs Nicholas Zammit and his wife Angela and by decree of the 27th February, 2009, the lawsuit was continued in the persons of Peter Paul Zammit,Joseph Zammit and Maria Zammit, instead of the defendant Angela Zammit who died during the proceedings (Civil Appea;l 870/2004/2) order the new trial of the cause on the basis of that provided in Art 811(e) of Cap 12 the Laws of Malta and this because the Honourable Court of Appeal, applied the law badly as above stated. With costs of this procedure and of the preceeding two procedures against the defendants Applicant: Casa Camilleri, Triq Dun Pawl Laferla, Siġġiewi Respondent: Nicholas Zammit et. 63/64, Middle Street, Siġġiewi Registry of the Superior Courts (Superior Appeals) (New Trial), today 12th January, 2017. ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD For the Registrar, the Civil Courts and Tribunal THE employment of workers on the Gozo Channel ferry is increasingly being carried out through outsourcing services, parliamentary documents show. Since Labour's election in 2013, many of the new employment positions on the Gozo ferry have been carried out through sub- contracted agencies. In the majority of cases, the company has contracted the com- panies through direct order rath- er than a public call for contracts. In 2017, over €1.15 million was spent mainly in direct orders for the employment of at least 50 employees. The data came in response to a PQ by Nationalist MP Chris Said. It was well over double the fig- ure of outsourced labour in 2016, which stood at €543,000, and that of 2015 at €168,000, while €130,000 was dished out in 2014 and just €5,000 in 2013 for ac- counting services. An earlier PQ suggested that Gozo Channel had issued three- monthly contracts to security and cleaning companies in a bid to dish out jobs right before the 2017 election. For example, the company paid €40,000 for a three-month con- tract awarded – by direct order – to Ozo Security Ltd, for the supply of 15 security officers at the terminals in Cirkewwa and Mgarr. The contract was entered into effect on 28 April this year, days before the 2017 election was an- nounced. The Nationalist Opposition had then charged the Labour administration of using such ser- vice companies to employ Gozi- tans through the use of Gozo Channel's outsourcing policy. Another example was a new three-month contract in July awarded to Signal 8 Security Ser- vices Malta Ltd for 15 personnel at a cost of €83,241. The same company had already been con- tracted by Gozo Channel for the employment of mooring men in a contract that expired at the end of May. In a new three-month contract issued by direct order, the com- pany was paid a further €224,910 for the supply of 34 mooring men between 1 June and 31 August. The company also approved by direct order a three-month ex- tension to a contract previously awarded to Executive Security Services Ltd for the supply of 20 seamen on board the Gozo Channel vessels. Executive Security was paid €57,206 for the provision of 20 seamen. Another contractor, Trust Business Solutions JV, was paid a total of €458,000 for the supply of some 17 cafeteria attendants on average in three direct orders. Gozo Channel CEO Joe Cor- dina had previously stated that Gozo Channel's outsourcing policy was informed by seasonal- ity, likening the business to that of restaurants requiring less staff in low seasons. Gozo Channel outsourcing costs double in 2017