Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1535753
THE servitudes mentioned in the con- tract are not to be added on if not agreed to, according to a judgment delivered by Judge Anna Felice on 21 May 2025 in Cassar and Cooper (Holdings) Limited vs Allwares Limited and Leonard sive Leo Cassar. The Plaintiff Company explained in its application that it owned a shop in a block of apartments in Sliema and was also a co-owner of the shafts in the same block. The shafts provide light and air. The Defendants created new servitudes by opening new windows overlooking the shafts and installing new drainage pipes. The Plaintiff Company asked the court to declare that it is the co-owner of the shafts as described in a contract of May 1974. The company also asked the court to declare the new windows and new pipes illegal and order their removal. In their statement of defence, the De- fendants held that they acted within the law. The Court pointed out that the De- fendant Company was subject to another court action, The Village Gossip Limited et vs Allwares Limited et, on the same grounds. In this case two judgments were delivered. The first held that Leo Cassar should not have been a party to the case. Any action should be between owners of properties and Leo Cassar is not the owner of the apartment in question but a shareholder of Allwares Limited. The Court agreed with the 2017 judg- ment and held that Leo Cassar should not be a party to the case. On 3 May 2023, the First Hall of the Civil Courts delivered another judgment in The Village Gossip Limited et vs All- wares Limited et, on the merits of the case. The court held that the contract en- tered into by The Village Gossip when it purchased the property stated that the basement enjoys, together with oth- er shops and apartments, the internal shafts and drains intended for common use. Here the court held that the Plaintiff Company was not the owner of the shaft since the contract described the use of the shaft and not its ownership. With regard to the additional windows and pipes, the Defendants did not chal- lenge this fact. From the court appointed architect's report there are two pipe sys- tems—one for rain water and another for drainage. The Court had gone through the con- tract of the owners of the properties pri- or to the Parties purchasing these prop- erties. It results that there existed the servitude for pipes and windows. The Court held that the Plaintiff Com- pany purchased only the use of the shaft and therefore, cannot claim that it is the owner of the shaft. Therefore, the ac- tion cannot be successful because the elements for this type of action did not exist. The judgment was then appealed and on 15 October 2024, the Appeals Court gave its ruling. It quoted the judgment Vella vs Vella, in which the Plaintiff had a right of use and habitation after a separation from her husband. She filed an action against neighbours because they did not respect the distances established by the law. The Appeals Court referred to Ar- ticle 393 of the Civil Code, which states that right of habitation is a real right. As such the party enjoying the property has a right to file an actio negatoria. The Court of Appeal overturned the judgment by stating that the Plaintiff Company did not need to prove that it was the absolute owner of the shaft as long as the party filing the action can prove that he or she has a valid title over the property. The Court of Appeal held that it did not agree with the Defendant that it had a right to fix pipes in terms of Ar- ticle 104(2) of the Code of Police Laws. The Court held that the pipes could have been placed in alternative areas. As such the Court of Appeal ordered the pipes be removed and the windows closed. OPINION & LAW Law Report Additional pipes and windows cannot be placed if not referred to in the contract LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 MAY 2025 8 Mario Gerada What is it like to be human? Mario Gerada is head of pastoral care of the Catholic Church's Migrants Commission IN 1974, philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote a seminal paper titled What Is It Like to Be a Bat? His essay explored con- sciousness and the mind-body problem, arguing that consciousness is not exclu- sively human. Today, it is more widely accepted that other beings—perhaps even forests— may possess forms of con- sciousness, intelligence and/or thinking. Legal language has even adopted the term 'non-human-person' to reflect this shift. Indeed, thinking is not exclusive to humans. Artificial Intelligence now challenges even that frontier. But what does it mean to be human in a world like ours? Presently, a genocide is unfolding in Gaza—documented, broadcasted, unde- niable. Those with the power to stop or even pause it are turning their face away, or worse, applauding. Archbishop Charles Scicluna con- demned the drone attack on the Gaza- bound aid ship operated by Freedom Flotilla, which happened so close to our shores. He called it an "egregious act of aggression". Shortly thereafter, the Archbishop of Agrigento, Mgr Ales- sandro Damiano, issued a statement of solidarity. Their moral clarity stands in stark contrast to the silence of many. Gaza is not alone. There are also on- going humanitarian crises in Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, Pakistan, Haiti and many other regions. Condemning one act of violence is not a distraction from others; it is a stance against all violence. That is why public deliberation—moral, civic and political—is so crucial. Silence is complicity. In the lexicon of René Girard, a phil- osophical anthropologist who studied violence, there is a fundamental truth: "There is no such thing as 'good' vio- lence." Violence only breeds more vi- olence. It escalates it, becomes conta- gious and spreads chaos. Violence never resolves violent conflict. This is not an easy truth to accept, especially when faced with imminent harm. So, how does one respond to genocide? It is also unrealistic to ask those fac- ing annihilation to cling to nonvio- lence without resistance. The right to self-defence is not morally simple, but it is deeply human. Often, victims of vio- lence take up arms to defend their land and their people from incursion. Yet the aggressor must be held accounta- ble—through sanctions, ceasefire de- mands and international pressure. War, however, will never build peace. It only entrenches division, radicalises the op- pressed and sows the seeds for future violent conflict. So, is there a way out of the mindset that leads us to war? Indeed, there is. As idealistic as it may sound, loving one's enemy is the only path forward. This does not mean tol- erating abuse, murder or injustice. It means refusing to dehumanise, even in violent conflict. This is not passive sur- render. It is moral resistance. Returning to Girard: when two 'broth- ers' (or nations) engage in violence, they begin to mirror each other. They be- come indistinguishable in their hate. He called this 'undifferentiation', a loss of distinction in the escalation of mimetic violence. This is the vortex the world seems caught in today. Humanisation is the only way out. On 8 May 2025, Pope Leo XIV greeted the world with the words of the resur- rected Jesus: "Peace be with all of you". Christ, who overcame evil and violence, returned not with vengeance, but with forgiveness, reconciliation and the promise of lasting peace. That luminous peace eventually led to the fall of the an- cient Roman Empire, an empire built on glorifying violence. Today's empires— territorial or digital—are no different. And so, we are left with a question that feels more urgent than ever: What is it like to be human in the face of such hor- ror? And perhaps even more important- ly: What kind of human will I choose to be?