Requirements for Valid Ground Rent Redemption

In a 2002 judgment, the Court of Appeal  confirmed the nullity of a schedule of redemption of ground rent that had not complied with the contractual terms regulating the emphyteutical concession (Court of Appeal, 16 January 2002, App. Civ. 210/95).

The case involved a ground rent concession established in 1979, before the legislative amendments of 1981. The Court held that where an emphyteutical contract predates 15 August 1981, the redemption of ground rent must follow the procedure laid down in the contract itself and not the general mechanism under Article 1501 of the Civil Code.

In particular, the Court emphasised that the contractual provisions concerning the timing and capitalization rate for redemption are binding. A redemption carried out in a manner inconsistent with those provisions does not meet the legal requirements and is therefore invalid.

The Court also clarified that where a contractual clause partly conflicts with the law, only the conflicting portion is disregarded — the remainder remains valid and enforceable.

Redeeming ground rent has a clear practical effect: once properly redeemed, the person holding the property under emphyteusis becomes its full owner, and the obligation to pay the annual ground rent comes to an end. However, this benefit can only be secured if the redemption process strictly follows the steps and conditions set out in the contract or in the law. Failure to do so may render the redemption invalid and leave the ground rent in place.

This judgment highlights the importance of following the correct procedural and contractual requirements when redeeming ground rent, especially for contracts entered into before the 1981 legislative changes.

N.B. The information provided herein does not constitute legal advice. For further information, please feel free to call +356 99491230 or send an email to avukatdemaria@gmail.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Damage Caused by Neighbour’s Mulberry Tree – Owner Held Responsible

In a recent judgement, the First Hall of the Civil Court ruled on a dispute between neighbours in Hamrun concerning structural damage caused by invasive tree roots originating from the defendant’s property (First Hall of the Civil Court, 9 July 2025, Rikors Ġuramentat Nru.: 358/2019MH) . The plaintiff, claimed that over several years the roots of a large mulberry tree planted in her neighbour’s garden had spread beneath her home, causing tiles in multiple rooms to rise and crack. Technical and agricultural experts confirmed that the damage was caused by the roots of the mulberry tree, identifiable through their colour and spread pattern. The defendant, denied liability and argued that the tree had been planted in accordance with the legal distances set out in Article 437 of the Civil Code, which requires a minimum distance of 2 metres for large trees and 0.5 metres for smaller trees . Expert evidence showed the tree was in fact planted around 13 metres away from the property — well be...
Read more