Unsuccessful 'heir' loses appeal

An appeal filed by a man found to have falsely benefited from his aunt's secret will was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious by the Court of Appeal.

The judgement was delivered after Generoso (Jimmy) Sammut lodged an appeal from a decision by the First Hall of the Civil Court in the case filed against him by Joseph and Mary Abela.

The Court of Appeal heard that in 1997 Mr and Mrs Abela filed a writ against Mr Sammut (Mrs Abela's brother) and against the director of the Public Registry.

Plaintiffs claimed they had looked after Mrs Abela's aunt, Concetta Sammut, for a long time. Upon Ms Sammut's death in 1997, the Abelas discovered she had drawn up a public will in 1995 before Notary Carmelo Lia in terms of which she had appointed plaintiffs at her sole heirs.

However, plaintiffs discovered that a secret will, allegedly made by Ms Sammut, had been deposited in the Second Hall of the Civil Court by Notary Antoine Agius in November 1996. This secret will, annulled the 1995 public will and appointed Generoso Sammut as Ms Sammut's sole heir.

In their writ plaintiffs claimed that the secret will could not have been drawn up by Ms Sammut for not only was she not on speaking terms with her nephew Mr Sammut but she was actually afraid of him.

Plaintiffs claimed the will was fraudulent and not authentic and did not reflect Ms Sammut's intentions.

The First Court had found in favour of plaintiffs.

The court heard that Ms Sammut was Mrs Abela's old aunt and had been looked after by plaintiffs. In her 1995 public will Ms Sammut appointed plaintiffs as her heirs in recognition of all they had done for her. She had also left some legacy to charitable institutions and had told Mgr Victor Grech of this shortly before her death.

Plaintiffs told the court that Mr Sammut complained that his aunt's estate would be lost to the family as she was going to leave it to the Church. Mr Sammut had suggested to his sister and her husband to falsify a will so that they would inherit Ms Sammut.

Mrs Abela told the court that Mr Sammut used to ask her for Ms Sammut's identity card and had told her that by using the services of a good lawyer and a notary who was his friend he would be able to inherit Ms Sammut.

The First Court heard that on November 30, 1996, Mr Sammut had taken a woman to Notary Agius's office. The notary had identified the woman, from her identity card, as being Concetta Sammut. This woman had drawn up a secret will that had appointed Mr Sammut as her sole heir and that revoked all previous wills.

This secret will was deposited by Notary Agius in the Second Hall of the Civil Court.

The First Court noted that although Mr Sammut had admitted taking his aunt to the notary's office he claimed not to have known that she drew up a secret will.

The First Hall found there were serious discrepancies in Mr Sammut's version of events and in his actions at the time of his aunt's death and these removed any shred of credibility.

The court also noted that a magisterial inquiry held after Ms Sammut's death at the request of the Abelas had established that Ms Sammut's signature on the secret will was false.

The court therefore upheld plaintiff's writ.

Mr Sammut lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Vincent DeGaetano, Mr Justice Anton Depasquale and Mr Justice Albert J Magri.

The Court of Appeal fully affirmed the conclusions reached by the First Court and declared Mr Sammut's appeal to be totally frivolous and vexations.

Mr Sammut was ordered to disburse double cost for his appeal.