Author: Dr Ramona Galea
Published: 08th March 2024
Litigation Unit
Bank of Valletta p.l.c (C 2833) v Renald Camilleri – decided by the Court of Appeal on the 5th March 2024
Last Tuesday, the Court of Appeal has decided the above quoted case, relating to whether the defendant was a debtor to the plaintiff company, by dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal and confirming the decision of the Civil Court, First Hall.
In the first instance the First Hall of the Civil Court had upheld the defendant’s claim to the effect that the action was time-barred in terms of article Article 2156(f) of the Civil Code, Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta. The Court had, in its considerations, taken note of the requirements of Article 2160 of the Civil Code which provides that, whosoever raises the ground of prescription under Article 2156(1)(f) must confirm on oath that he is not the debtor or that he doesn’t remember whether the debt was paid. In addition, it was noted that following the year 2010, plaintiff had not filed any judicial acts against the defendant and that no evidence was brought to show that prescription had been interrupted.
The First Court in reaching its decision had dismissed the plaintiff company’s premise that they could not notify the defendant as they were unaware of his address since he had left the islands particular because he went abroad on work. Hence, no adequate reasons were given as to why the plaintiff company let eight years pass by before filing the action before the Civil Court. It had also dismissed the plaintiff company’s claim that the transfer of debt to third parties by the defendant meant a tacit renunciation of the ground of prescription. On the basis of the above, the Court had decided to deny the claim of the plaintiff company, given that the position of the defendant had remained constant throughout the proceedings, as he continuously claimed that no debt was due by him.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeal in reaching its conclusion, considered the notion of guramento decisorio under Article 2160(1) of the Civil Code, particularly as amended in recent years In this respect, the Court noted that the defendant had satisfied the requisites under the aforementioned Article 2160, which did not establish any particular form of the declaration on oath which the plaintiff was bound to take if he plead prescription, and concluded that the fact that the plaintiff stated, in cross examination, that he did not owe any funds and that he had satisfied his debts could not be interepreted as a renunication of the plea of prescription.
In addition, the Court considered the argument made by the plaintiff company, whereby it argued that despite having confirmed on oath that he is not the debtor, the defendant’s statement was conditioned by the fact that the loans made had been passed on to 3rd parties and that therefore this was also a renunciation of the plea of presctiption, dismissing this argument. In doing so, the Court stated that although Article 2160(3) imposes upon the claimant the onus of bringing proof to support his assertion, such requirement does not apply to the present action but to other actions dealing with rent, laudemium and payments owed to the Government. Moreover, it highlighted the fact that the same Article does not in any manner elaborate on the form of the declaration made on oath, and therefore the defendant’s simple declaration that he was not the debtor was sufficient enough to not result in a tacit renunciation of prescription. Ultimately, the Court in dismissing the appeal stated that the plaintiff company had never brought forward any proof to substantiate its claim for debt and completely dismissed the plaintiff company’s assertion that the defendant should have informed the latter of his change of address.
FFF Legal represented Mr. Renald Camilleri in the proceedings.
The information provided in this Insight does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice. All information, content, and materials available are for general informational purposes only. This Insight may not constitute the most up-to-date legal information and you are advised to seek updated advice.
