This case involved the claim by the plaintiff for services rendered in favour of the late AV (the uncle and brother of defendants) who died in February 2001. This claim was made against the defendants who were the heirs of the deceased.

The plaintiff requested the Court:

• to order the defendants to present her with the objects belonging to her and;

• to declare that she did indeed render services and assistance to the deceased. (She claimed to have done his shopping, cooked and fed for him twice a day, cleaned his home, washed and ironed his clothes and helped him in any other way particularly because he was disabled.);

• to liquidate the amount of compensation due;

• to condemn the payment of this sum.

The defendants did not object to the plaintiff taking the objects she requested once she proved that they were indeed hers. They did, however, object to her request for compensation for services rendered.

The services allegedly began in 1976. However, defendants contested the very fact that she rendered services to AV.

Plaintiff told the Court that she met the deceased in 1964 after which a 15-year relationship developed. In 1976, he proposed to the plaintiff to look after him. Towards the end of his life, AV, suffering from a terminal illness, was very depressed. He died in February 2001 and since he was still a young man, he had not prepared a will. Plaintiff claimed that during all this time, AV never gave her anything except for a pair of earrings.

Plaintiff’s neighbour took the witness stand and stated that she used to see the plaintiff going out in the evening with a basket of food and returning later on.

One of the defendants, Y, told the Court that the deceased was the oldest sibling. He had started working at the Dockyard at age 14 as an engine fitter and also used to work alone. She continued that her brother started going out with the plaintiff in 1964 when he was 30 years old. However, he continued living with her and her family. AV left his job in 1989 and would go out with the plaintiff every day and they would meet at his house he owned in Xaghra. When Y moved home, he would only go and visit her and her family on the weekends.

Y claimed that regarding the objects that X was demanding, these could not be found in her attempt to locate the same objects that she allegedly left at the deceased’s house.

The deceased’s brother told the Court that the plaintiff and his late brother had a very good relationship. However, he, together with other witnesses, did not know much about the alleged services rendered.

The court stated that although the deceased had an intimate relationship with the plaintiff and spent a significant amount of time with his family, this did not exclude the fact that plaintiff rendered services at his request. The Court emphasised that the plaintiff’s intimate relationship with the deceased was not tantamount to a renunciation of her right to demand compensation for the services rendered in favour of the deceased. The Court quoted the judgement Carmela Farrugia vs Mary Abela where it was stated that compensation is due for services rendered once it is clear that the person providing such services has the intention to be compensated. This reasoning was reflected in the judgement Carmelo Lopez vs Mario Mizzi et (2006). Although the plaintiff was not related to the deceased, she was still entitled to compensation.

Defendants contended that during his lifetime, the deceased gave the plaintiff gold objects and also some money. However, the Court stated that even if this were to be true, it did not constitute a renunciation to the right to demand compensation.

In the case Salvatore Camilleri vs Pawlina Piscopo, the Court had stated that it is an accepted principle that one may even demand more compensation than actually given or promised. It did not appear that the deceased had promised the plaintiff any special compensation although plaintiff actually told the Court that she had expected the deceased to leave her his house in his will. What happened in reality was that he died intestate and hence, the defendants were his heirs according to law.

Regarding the objects the plaintiff claimed to have left in the house, the Court stated that she did not provide enough evidence to show that these objects were indeed in the house or removed from the same house by the defendants.

However, the Court believed that the plaintiff provided sufficient proof that she deserved compensation for services rendered by her in favour of the deceased. The Court stated that the amount of Lm1,000 would be a fair sum as compensation.

Hence, the Court of Magistrates concluded by rejecting the claim for the return of the objects allegedly left at the deceased’s house, yet upholding the claim for compensation of services rendered. The Court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of Lm1,000.

This case may be the subject of an appeal.