A court has thrown out a bid by the Curia to evict a Kalkara voluntary organisation from premises it had used for decades as a storage space for street decorations during the local parish feast.

A bursar representing Archbishop Charles J Scicluna as administrator of all ecclesiastical entities in Malta and on behalf of the Kalkara Parish Church instituted a civil action against Għaqda Mużikali San Ġużepp AD 1987.

The dispute revolved around premises adjacent to the Parish Centre corner with Triq Rinella which the respondent had been since its inception in 1987, taking over from its predecessor Kummissjoni Sezzjoni Malta tal-Armar tax-Xatt. 

The Curia was now claiming that the respondent had no valid legal title to retain possession of the premises and thus sought its eviction.

The voluntary organisation countered that in the first place, the applicant had to prove its own legal title over the property.

It also argued that it held the property under a title of commodatum or loan for use and thus had a valid right to retain possession.

The dispute landed before the First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Madam Justice Joanne Vella Cuschieri.

Research carried out by Rev Brian Gialanze, then Kalkara Parish Priest, gave some historical background to the property at issue. 

Since the old parish church was damaged during World War II, the diocese bought a plot of land to construct a new church. 

Part of a gas factory that was situated on that land was temporarily used as a church.

Once the new church was ready, the gas factory premises were handed to the Kummissjoni Sezzjoni Malta tal-Armar tax-Xatt for the purpose of storing decorations used along the Kalkara seafront during the feast of St Joseph.

Priests asked organisation to move out

The Kummissjoni merged with the Għaqda Mużikali San Ġużepp AD 1987, which continued to use the store, but only on mere tolerance, according to Gialanze. 

He said that he had personally spoken to Għaqda officials about the matter. 

Due to extensive damages, the premises needed repair work, Gialanze explained. Moreover, he wished to have an alternative property which could be used for Mass for elderly parishioners who had difficulty accessing the parish church.

His predecessor Mgr Salvinu Micallef testified that he had asked the Għaqda to move out. 

They had other storage facilities and did not keep all decorations in the disputed premises. 

Micallef testified that he had come across a note whereby his own predecessor had granted the place to the Ghaqda free of charge until they managed to find an alternative place. 

That note was never produced in court. 

Organisation never paid any rent for the space

Honorary President of the Għaqda, former Minister Joe Mizzi, testified about his childhood memories, recalling that the premises had long served this storage purpose. 

The organisation never paid any rent, even when they offered to do so to help cover expenses related to works carried out in the adjacent premises. 

The premises were also the subject of a meeting at the Curia in 2013 where Għaqda officials were asked to supply dimensions for adequate storage facilities. They agreed to comply “without prejudice”.

During the court case, the Curia produced a document whereby it claimed that the Għaqda was well aware of the fact that it was to move out of those premises. 

When delivering judgment, the court observed that in 1945 the property was sold by Malta Mediterranean Gas Company Ltd to Archbishop Mikiel Gonzi who in 1949 donated it to the Kalkara parish. 

The respondent’s main argument rested on its claim that it possessed the premises under a loan for use in terms of Article 1824 of the Civil Code. 

Such a legal title implied that the loan was gratuitous, for a specified time or purpose subject to the obligation of the borrower to restore the thing itself. 

It was proved that the respondent never paid any money for the premises and that there was a verbal agreement whereby it was to use the place for storage of feast decorations. 

All testimonies proved that the place was indeed used for that purpose. Only if the feast, for some very remote reason, were not to be celebrated any longer would the loan of the premises lapse. 

As for the document produced by the Curia claiming that the respondent knew that it had to vacate the premises, the court was not convinced of its probatory value. 

That document was not issued under the Għaqda's letterhead and was not signed by its secretary. That was mandatory under its statute. 

The court did not have the reassurance that such a document “was effectively issued by the respondent”.

The Curia’s claim that the respondent occupied the premises without its consent arbitrarily, was not true, declared the court, turning down the applicant’s claims with costs. 

Lawyer Edward Zammit Lewis assisted the respondent.