The jactitation remedy has been a long-standing action and is intended to challenge unfounded vaunted claims which harass the rights of the applicant. The modus operandi after the filing a sworn application the vaunter shall justify and substantiate the harassment of rights, and in the absence thereof, the Court shall impose perpetual silence on the matter. This action shall be brought within one year of the jactitation and the vaunter shall bring the claim to trial within three months. In the absence thereof, the Court shall dispose of the demand in the sworn application requesting perpetual silence from the vaunter and grant perpetual silence.

In the case of ‘Chirchop vs. Grech’ the Court acknowledged that article 403, which is the principal provision, possess narrow interpretation[1]. Hence, ensuring the strict enforcement of perpetual silence should the time prescribed by law elapse and no action is taken. The notion of allowing the vaunter to not take action follows the principle that no person shall be compelled to institute proceedings against his will.

The law provides that the jactitation suit is inadmissible in instances whereby the molested rights shall not be uncertain, contingent on an event or condition, or a right which no action can be brought against it.

In the case of ‘Carmela Cali Corleo vs. Joseph Fava et’ the Court stated “L-użufruttwarju suċċessiv jista’ jippromwovi azzjoni ta’ jattenza kontra min jivvanta dritt ta’ propjetà”[2].Therefore, the right shall be one of a determinate nature and where the applicant shall have a right of action or possession of the right.

In the case of ‘Pisani vs. Grech et’ the Court stated that this suit is extraordinary in nature and shall only grant this remedy in exceptional circumstances. Moreover, the Court pointed out that this suit displays an action whereby a person believes to have a right and such right is being molested, by means of a judicial act, bring forward the vaunter before the Courts[3].

In response to a jactitation suit and if the jactitator wishes to carry on suit, he shall file a reply in the court of jurisdiction of which the party aggrieved is subject to. One the other hand, if the jactitator does not wish to institute proceedings on the basis of his vaunted claims, he shall by means of a note and according to the demand in the sworn application declare that he has no claim against the aggrieved party. In such instance the Court shall not dispose of the merits of the case but shall record the declaration and have the same effect as an injunction of perpetual silence and it shall no longer be lawful to proceed with the claim to which the demand refers.

The jactitation remedy is not enforceable against absent persons, minors, or a person who is under disability to sue or be sued. ‘Prime Minister vs. Peralta” (655/2004) is a significant judgement in relation to jactitation proceedings. The Court declared that a person who is absent from Malta is not able to be subject to a jactitation suit[4]. This judgement set the ball rolling to amendments pertaining the provision of jactitation preventing absent persons to be subject to suit. Nonetheless, should any of the mentioned persons vaunt their claims through filing a judicial act three months prior to the initiation of the jactitation, this protective provision shall not be applicable.

For more information or assistance please contact Dr Robert Tufigno and Dr Delilah Vella. 

[1] Clayton Chircop vs. Mario Grech, Civil Court, First Hall, 20 March 2012.

[2] English translation: The usufractuary by way of inheritance can initiate action for jactitation against those possesing the right to propery; Carmela Cali Corleo et vs. Joseph Fava, Civil Court, First Hall, 17 August 1988.

[3] Anthony Pisani vs. Mario Grech et, Civil Court, First Hall, 22 February 2011.

[4] Prime Minister vs. Peralta, Commercial Court of Appeal, 1992.