The law allows co-owners of a property to arrive at a fair price when the majority would like to sell, while the minority is resisting the sale. This was held in a judgement delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court, presided by Judge Audrey Demicoli in Klara Xerri et vs Emanuel Farrugia et. The judgement was delivered on 3 July 2026.
The plaintiffs declared in their sworn application that they are all co-owners of a property in Kirkop that was owned by their parents, who died in 1978 and 1986 respectively. They are 11 siblings and therefore each had one eleventh share. One of the sisters, who was a spinster died in 2015. Her share of 1/11 was divided amongst her other siblings.
The plaintiffs collectively owned 70% of the property and wanted to sell it. They entered into a promise of sale agreement with the price of €190,000. The defendants had 1/3 of the property and did not agree with its sale.
The defendants stated that they did not want to sell because they wanted to make use of the property and because it had sentimental value. They were looking at dividing the property into two since in the past parts of the property were rented out.
The court analysed Article 495A of the Civil Code. Part of it allows the majority co-owners, who have been co-owners for more than three years, to ask the court to sell the property if the minority disagree. The court quoted from a judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal on 27 January 2017 in Notary Richard Vella Laurenti et vs John Vella Laurenti et. In that judgement the court held that endless co-ownership may affect the economy of the country if the sale is blocked. This was echoed by another judgement Dr Anna Felice et vs Dr Mark Mifsud Cutajar noe, decided on 25 July 2013.
As to the procedure used to adopt Article 495A of the Civil Code, the court commented that it is not contested that the parties to the case are co-owners of the property and there is no evidence of a separate action of division of inheritance. The evidence showed that the plaintiffs had 7/10 of the property and the defendants had 3/10 of the property. The plaintiffs are in agreement that they want to sell the property.
On the other hand, the court had to examine whether the defendants would be prejudiced if the property is sold. The court pointed out that the plaintiffs had offered the defendants to purchase the property themselves. They refused. The defendants also held that they were not formally called upon to sign the promise of sale agreement.
The court saw a number of valuations of the property which varied in price. Quoting from the Vella Laurenti case, which held that Article 495A is not used to assure with precision the market price but to assure the parties a fair price. The court-appointed architect said that in 2023 the property must have been worth €200,000. The court held in Philippa Briffa et vs Carmelo Agius et decided by the First Hall of the Civil Court on 24 March 2015 that the court-appointed experts’ opinion is tantamount to evidence. In the case under review, the difference between the price agreed on the promise of sale and the price indicated by the court-appointed architect amounted to €1,000 per share and therefore deemed not to be prejudicial to the parties. The court agreed with the court-appointed expert’s conclusions.
The court also pointed out that the defendants did make unfounded allegations and upheld most of the claims raised by the plaintiffs, ordering the sale to proceed.
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
