Injunction over property fails without registry details

The Rent Regulation Board on 1 April 2026 refused to issue a warrant of prohibitory injunction sought by landlords against The Shoe Shop Limited. The application described the property it targeted only by a door number, a square and a locality. Magistrate Claudio Zammit held that this fell short of article 874(2) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, and revoked the provisional decree the board had given.

The facts

C.A. and a second applicant filed an application before the board on 19 February 2026. They asked for a warrant stopping The Shoe Shop Limited from selling, transferring, encumbering or otherwise disposing of a property, and from giving its possession to third parties.

The applicants tied the request to a claim for rent increases on premises they let to the company. On the day the application was filed, the board upheld it provisionally, ordered service on the company and gave it 10 days to reply.

The company replied on 20 March 2026, and the lawyers made oral submissions on 24 March 2026. The company argued that the property was not its own. It also argued that the applicants had no prima facie right, since their claim had been rejected in earlier proceedings between the parties.

It pointed to a constitutional case the applicants had brought against the State Advocate over the rent increase, which had been decided and was under appeal. It argued that the applicants had accepted rent without objection and had withdrawn rent that had been deposited. Finally, it argued that the application did not describe the property as article 874(2) of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta requires.

What the court held

The board chose to examine that last plea first. Article 874(2) deals with warrants that prohibit the sale, transfer or other disposal of immovable property. The application must contain every particular about the person restrained that the law requires to register a transfer by that person in the Public Registry.

Where the warrant concerns specific property, the article adds a second requirement: "Fejn il-mandat jirreferi għall-immobbli speċifiċi, dawn għandhom jiġu deskritti fir-rikors, bil-mod provdut fl-Att dwar ir-Reġistru Pubbliku" (Where the warrant refers to specific immovables, these shall be described in the application in the manner provided by the Public Registry Act).

The description must refer to geographical data. The application must also attach a full draft of the note of inscription, so that it can be registered in the Public Registry.

The board found that the application contained practically none of these details. It described the property only by its street address. The board noted that the courts have said on other occasions that a warrant of prohibitory injunction over specific immovable property must observe article 874(2), or it cannot be upheld.

Since that plea alone decided the application, the board held that it did not need to consider the company's other pleas. It upheld the preliminary plea that the application lacked essential requirements and revoked its decree of 19 February 2026. It rejected the request for the warrant and ordered the applicants to pay the costs.

Why it matters

A warrant over a named property is meant to be registered, so the application must meet registry standards from the day it is filed. An address alone is not enough. The applicant must give the registration particulars of the person restrained, describe the property by reference to geographical data and attach a full draft note of inscription.

The defect is fatal whatever the strength of the underlying claim. The board never reached the question of whether the applicants had a prima facie right, and the provisional decree they had obtained fell with the application.

Where it sits

A warrant of prohibitory injunction is a precautionary act. It protects a claimant's position while a claim is pending by stopping the other party from dealing with its property. Where the property is immovable and identified, article 874(2) ties the application to the rules of the Public Registry, because the warrant is to be registered there through the attached note of inscription.

The board relied on the article and on one authority, a decree of the First Hall of the Civil Court (29 March 2007) given by Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco. The company's reply also raised the earlier proceedings between the parties and the applicants' constitutional case, but the board made no finding on either.

Source

Rent Regulation Board, 255/2026/1, 1 April 2026.