Entrepreneur Marco Gaffarena has failed in his appeal against a judgment blocking his attempt to force the owners of one-fourth of an Old Mint Street property, subject to an expropriation scandal, to proceed with the sale. 

Gaffarena’s claims were again rejected by means of a judgment delivered on Thursday, confirming the previous decision by the First Hall, Civil Court in October of 2019.

In their appeal, the Gaffarena spouses argued that the expropriation had affected only their share of the Valletta property.

The sellers’ share was not targeted and was still intact, meaning that the respondents could sell what they had bound themselves to sell. 

But the Court of Appeal, presided over by Mr Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo, Tonio Mallia and Anthony Ellul, declared that this argument was wrong. 

The expropriation declaration issued by the President of Malta simply mentioned “one-fourth undivided share of a block” without specifying the targeted owners.

In fact, expropriation targets a property and not a physical person, the court explained. 

Drawing a parallel with a property transfer between private individuals had nothing to do with expropriation either, it added. 

In light of such considerations, the court rejected Gaffarena’s appeal, ordering the appellants to shoulder all costs, both first instance and appeal. 

In 2015, Times of Malta had revealed that the government paid Gaffarena €1.65 million for part-ownership of the Valletta property, which he had bought for a fraction of that price just weeks before.  

The scandal ended up before the law courts, which in 2018 ordered that the deal be rescinded and all transfers revoked. 

Gaffarena had subsequently filed a civil suit to force the Cefai family, as co-owners of one-fourth of the property at 36, Old Mint Street, Valletta, to honour the promise of sale they had signed concerning the property. 

In October 2019, the First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti, observed that the respondents had “a valid reason” for refusing to honour their obligation under the promise of sale, given that “both prior to and after” the agreement, two-fourths of the property had been hit by an expropriation order “without their knowledge and through no fault of their own.”
Lawyer Tanya Camilleri Sciberras assisted the respondents.