A court has turned down a request by Mark Gaffarena and his wife for a warrant of prohibitory injunction against the owners of part of a building in Old Mint Street, Valletta, on which he made a hefty profit through a fast expropriation initiated by the government.
The property houses the offices of the Building Industry Consultative Council, and Mr Gaffarena had bought a quarter of the property in 2007 for €23,294. This quarter was expropriated by the government for €822,500 in land and cash last January.
The following month, Mr Gaffarena bought another quarter of the property for €139,762, and this was also expropriated for €822,500 in land and cash in April.
There have been no moves to expropriate the parts of the property not owned by Mr Gaffarena.
But the owners of another 25% of the property, who had signed a promise of sale agreement with Mr Gaffarena, declared that they were unwilling to sign the final contract of sale in the wake of the controversy that has erupted, which has led to the opposition successfully request an inquiry by the National Audit Office while the government responded in kind by holding an internal inquiry through the Internal Audit and Investigations Department.
In response to the owners' action, Mark and Josielle Gaffarena asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to issue a warrant of prohibitory injunction against the owners, to prohibit them from transferring their share in the property to anyone else.
The Gaffarenas noted that they paid a deposit of €13,976 on an agreed purchase price of €139,762, on a promise of sale agreement which is valid until next March.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Joseph Micallef noted that two elements needed to be satisfied to justify the issuance of a warrant of prohibitory injunction: proof that it is required to safeguard the rights of the plaintiff, and proof that the plaintiff has these rights.
But he noted that the fear that the owners would transfer their property to someone else was subjective, and that the improbability of the owners managing to sell off a quarter of a property when the government has already expropriated half and is renting the rest had to be taken into account.
The judge also observed that the Gaffarenas could have sought other ordinary remedies to seek to force the owners to follow through with the sale of the property if they felt that there was no valid reason for them to rescind the agreement.
Consequently, he turned down a request for a warrant of prohibitory injunction, and revoked the provisional warrant that was issued when the request was made.