Konvenju renewal won by deceit is void, and so is the sale

On 25 June 2026 the Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) held that an advocate obtained by fraud an older client's consent to renew two promises of sale, because he did not tell her they had lapsed. The court also held that her later consent to the sale was taken by violence, through the fear of a lawsuit. It allowed the appeal in S.A. vs S.J. and declared both the renewal and the deed of sale invalid.

The facts

The defendant, an advocate and a relative of three unmarried, illiterate siblings, acted for them in an action filed in 2006 to recover land from third parties. While the action was pending he signed two konvenji (promises of sale) to buy parts of that land at low prices, each valid until two months after the action was decided.

Two siblings died before the action was won in July 2017, and the surviving sister, in her late 80s and living in a residence for older people, inherited. On 20 November 2017 the defendant and a notary visited her, and she marked a cross on a writing that renewed both promises.

The next day she gave the plaintiff a general power of attorney, and after she refused a further visit the defendant sent her an ittra uffiċjali (judicial letter) calling her to the deed. The plaintiff signed the sale on 6 December 2017 as her mandatary, that is, the person acting under that power, and later sued as her sole heir.

What the court held

The court, composed of Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Mr Justice Christian Falzon Scerri and Madam Justice Josette Demicoli, started from the presumption that a written agreement is valid. Under article 981(2) of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta), fraud is not presumed and must be proved.

The court found no proof of the plaintiff's argument that the promises were a sham. It found, however, that the promises had lapsed by 20 November 2017, because the defendant did not appear to have followed article 1357(2). Parties may revive a lapsed promise, but a promisor is not bound to.

The notary and the defendant testified that they told the sister the promises needed renewing. Neither told her they had lapsed. They spoke, the court held, “bħallikieku kien xi dover legali tagħha li tagħmel dak li kienu qed jitolbuha tagħmel” (as though it were some legal duty of hers to do what they were asking her to do).

The court held that this conduct was deceitful and designed to cause an error of fact. It weighed her age, her illiteracy, the cognitive decline recorded in her medical file and her trust in a lawyer who was also a relative.

His profession made the conduct more serious, since he had a duty to guide her correctly. Her consent to the renewal was vitiated by fraud under article 974.

On the sale, article 978 treats consent as taken by violence when it would make a reasonable person fear considerable harm, with age, sex and condition taken into account. The court accepted that a judicial letter under article 1357(2) is a legitimate tool. This letter, however, rested on the renewal obtained by fraud, followed the sister's refusal to see the defendant and served a sale at a low price.

In the court's words, “Din l-ittra kienet l-aħħar ħolqa mill-pjan li niseġ il-konvenut biex l-anzjana ċċedi.” (This letter was the last link in the plan the defendant wove to make the older woman give way.) Her consent to the sale was therefore taken by violence and invalid under article 974.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had dismissed the claims in 2024, remarking that the plaintiff should have sought legal advice. The court found that remark superfluous, because under articles 1856(1) and 1864 a mandatary follows the principal's expressed will. It ordered a deed of rescission within three months, with the costs of both instances against the defendant.

Why it matters

A buyer under a lapsed konvenju has no right to a renewal and should not present one as an obligation. A lawyer or notary who asks a vulnerable promisor to renew should say plainly that the promise has lapsed and that refusal is open. A judicial letter is lawful in itself, but a court may read it with the steps that led to it.

Where it sits

The case applies the vices of consent in articles 974 to 981 of the Civil Code: error, violence and fraud. Fraud annuls a contract only where it was the determining cause of consent. The court measured the fitness of the deceit against the victim's own condition, not against an attentive person.

Violence covers threats, and article 978(2) makes the test partly personal. The konvenju point rests on article 1357: a promise of sale binds for its term unless kept alive under article 1357(2).

The judgment names, among others, the Court of Appeal on 4 June 2024 on reviving a lapsed konvenju; the First Hall of the Civil Court on 29 October 1949 on violence; and the Court of Appeal on 31 May 2023 on the duties of a mandatary.

Source

Court of Appeal (Civil, Superior), 1151/2019/1, 25 June 2026.