A family caught up in a legal saga over land expropriated almost 60 years ago to develop the Malta Freeport, was awarded compensation to the tune of €1.2 million. 

The landmark decision went against the grain of previous judgements linked to compensation and ruled that it must be based on the current market value of the land, rather than its value at the time it was expropriated. 

The case centers around six plots of land in the Kalafrana and Bengħajsa which were taken away from Paul Cachia and his wife in 1969. 

At the time, authorities the land was needed for "public use" and offered Lm4400 in compensation.  

The Cachias, however, turned down the offer and filed constitutional proceedings claiming that their fundamental rights had been breached in the land grab. 

Following a final decision by the Maltese courts in 2014, the matter was pursued before the European Court of Human Rights, which found that their rights had, in fact, been breached. 

This left the door open for the family to make a case for compensation before the Maltese courts. 

The Cachia's heirs filed proceedings in 2019 before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction claiming that the breach acknowledged by the ECHR had not yet been remedied. 

They called upon the court to either order the authorities to release the property back to them or to order the outright sale of the land to the government.

They also asked for compensation for the deprivation they suffered through all these years. 

Land valuation must reflect current market price 

When delivering judgment, Mr Justice Toni Abela upheld the applicants’ claims, ordering the sale of the lands for the price of €520,000 together with interests accruing at the rate of 8% since the lands were taken in 1969.

The court said that there was no doubt as to the title and ownership of the lands. 

As for the plea about the non-exhaustion of ordinary remedies raised by the State Advocate and the Lands Authority, the court observed that the 1969 declaration stated that the land was being taken through “outright sale.”

However, if the sale price were to be determined according to the value of the land in 1969, as stated in the Government Lands Act, that would not be a sufficient remedy for the owners. 

Such a valuation would not effectively address the breach but would cause the applicants to suffer an injustice twice over. 

When the ECHR reserved their right to seek compensation, it surely had in mind that the most advantageous remedy would apply. In this case, these proceedings were the most advantageous, he said.

'Public purpose' never explained 

As for the “public purpose” of the land use, the court made reference to a letter penned in 2007 which said that Enemalta was not going to use the land but simply needed to retain “a right of servitude over the land to drill on or pass any drain pipes…”

It was also “highly recommended that the said plot be reserved as a security area.” 

But that was seemingly just an attempt to conjure some reason for the land not to be returned to the owners or to deprive them of just compensation, the judge remarked.

“The truth was clear and written on the wall.”

That public purpose was never explained clearly and in detail in the proceedings. 

The owners should have been informed of this purpose from the outset and it was not right that they had to resort to filing a lawsuit to discover it. 

In any case, the judge said that the public purpose must subsist. 

“In this case, not only did the public purpose disappear but it never existed concretely at the moment when the land was taken, let alone today,” said Judge Abela. 

As for compensation, the court said that it would not follow a previous line of judgments which based calculations on the value of the land at the time of taking. 

To do so, the court would be freezing the price of the land as it was some 60 years ago, thus prejudicing the applicants and benefiting the respondents.

After all, he said, the applicants are not to blame.

Based on the valuations of a court-appointed architect, the judge ordered the authorities to sign a deed of sale for the land.

That contract is to be published by the court-appointed notary on January 20, 2025.

The purchase price plus interest calculated at 8% on various periods since 1969, amounted to some €1.2 million. 

Lawyers Mario DeMarco, Jose’ Herrera and David Camilleri assisted the applicants.