CIVIL COURT

FIRST HALL
HON. JUDGE
LAWRENCE MINTOFF
Hearing of the 2nd June, 2015
Warrant Number 775/2015/1
In the acts of the Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction Number 775/2014LM in the names:
Dr. Majdi Ashibani as the Chairman of the Steering Committee of the company Libyan Post,
Telecommunications & Information Technology Holding Company (LIPTIC) and in virtue of the decree
of the 25th May, 2015 the letters in brackets ought to read (LPTIC), a company incorporated under
Libyan law (certificate of registration bearing number 66690), having its registered address at Bab Ben
Ghahir, Tripoli, Libya and in representation of the same company
Vs
(1) Feisal Gergab (Passport Number 2075522009), (2) Rajab Fawzi R Ben Rejab (Passport Number
RFKZK59), (3) Nahed M. Ali Subar (Passport Number 616572) and (4) LPTIC Services Limited
(C68876) incorporated in Malta

The Court,
Viewed the application of Dr. Majdi Ashibani nomine whereby he requested the issuing of the Warrant
of Prohibitory Injunction (hereinadfter referred to as the Warrant) for the reasons delineated below:
Respectfully submits and confirms on oath:
That the applicant nomine has an interest to safeguard the rights of the applicants nomine.
That the applicant nomine, in order to safeguard his rights, wishes to prohibit the defendants(1) From continuing to make illegal use of the letterheads of the company Libyan Post
Telecommunications and Information Technology Holding Company (LPTIC);
(2) From acting in execution of their illegal motives in order to take control of the company in
Luxembourg Bouval and the shares in the Italian company Retelit, which shares are worth
millions of Euro, by continuing to misrepresent the interests of LPTIC as the owner of the same
foreign investments;
(3) From passing resolutions and, in any way, acting allegedly as authorized by LPTIC and in the
name of LPTIC, which authority has been withdrawn;

The applicant nomine requests that his request for the issuing of the warrant is provisionally acceded to
immediately.
Whereas in the event that the request for the safeguarding of the assets is not acceded to and the
defendants are not inhibited from acting as above delineated, the rights and interests of the company
represented by the applicant will be irremediably prejudiced.
Therefore the applicant nomine humbly requests this Honorable Court orders the issuing of the warrant
of prohibitory injunction in order to prevent the defendants from continuing to act in the manner
described.
A document attached to the application stated the following:
1. Whereas the company Libyan Post, Telecommunications and Information Technology, Holding
Company (LPTC) in Libya is now under new management by the name of Steering Committee,
established on the 26th October, 2014, which took over from the Board of Directors.
2. Whereas the former Chairman of LPTIC, defendant Feisal Gergab, abandoned his duties for an
unreasonable period of time and vanished completely from Tripoli. Subsequently, he was
removed from office by the Administration of the country, that is by the Minister for
Communication and Information, on the 26th October 2014. The abovementioned holding
company LPTIC has since been managed by the abovementioned Steering Committee in Tripoli.
LPTIC operated the investments of its subsidiary companies.
3. Whereas the defendant Feisal Gergab and other associated persons suddenly appeared in Malta
and, under false pretenses, established and incorporated a limited liability company, LPTIC
Services Limited (C68876) in Malta on the 3rd of February, 2015.
4. Whereas according to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of LPTIC Services, the
holding company LPTIC is the owner of one thousand two hundred (1,200) Ordinary Shares of
one euro (1) each (fully paid up) in LPTIC Services. The plaintiff LPTIC is the only shareholder in
the Maltese company LPTIC Services.
5. Whereas the defendants Feisal Gergab and Rajab Fawzi R Ben Rejab are the first directors of
LPTIC Services, while the company secretary is Nahed M. Ali Subar.
6. Whereas the holding company LTIC is the sole limited shareholder of Bousval S.A., which is a
public limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
having its registered office at 1424 Luxembourg, 9B, boulevard du Prince Henri and registered
with the Registrar of Commerce and Company in Luxembourg with reference number B129.844.
Bousavel has shares in the Italian company Retelit, which shares are worth millions of Euro.
7. Whereas in February 2015, after Feisal Gergab was removed from the office of Chairman of
LPTIC, while implying that he was acting on behalf of LPTIC when in fact he lacked authorization
and without the knowledge of the existing Steering Committee of LPTIC he forced LPTIC to sell
and transfer one share in the company Bousval at a nominal value of ten euro (10) to LPTIC
Services. Following this sale, it appears that LPTIC has seven thousand, four hundred and ninety

nine (7499) shares of a nominal value of ten euro (10) in Bousval, while LPTIC Services appears
to have one (1) share of a nominal value of ten euro(10) in Bousval.
8. Whereas, also without authorization and without the knowledge of the Steering Committee of
LPTIC, the defendant Feisal Gergab allegedly affected the change of Bousval from a public
limited liability company (societe anonyme) to a partnership limited by shares (societe en
commandite par actions), without the dissolution and without the creation of a new juridical
personality. The name of the company was changed from Bousval S.A. to Bousval S.C.A. and
the registered office of Bousval was transferred from the address at 9B, boulevard du Prince
Henri,, L-1424 Luxembourg, to 12, rue Jean Engling L-1466 Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg.
9. Whereas the defendants made fraudulent use of the letterheads of LPTIC in order to be able to
affect there structural changes and to gain control over the Luxembourg company Bousval.
10. Whereas the defendants claim that they terminated the legitimate engagement of the
accountant and the domiciliation agent of Bousval S.A., as well as the auditors and lawyers.
11. Whereas the plaintiff LPTIC was given instructions by the Minister for Communciation and
Information, Ing. Sami Mohammed Elfantazi, in order to inhibit the defendants Feisal Gergab,
Rajab Fawzi R Ben Rejab and Nahed . Ali Subar and LPTIC Services from continuing to
misrepresent the interests of LPTIC as the owner of foreign investments and to inhibit the
defendants from continuing to prejudice the aforementioned foreign investments.
12. Whereas the plaintiff LPTIC, which has the full support of the Administration of the country in
Tripoli, has contextually filed a request for the issuing of a warrant of prohibitory injunction
against the defendants in order to inhibit them from acting in virtue of their illegal motives to
bring Bousval and the shares in the Italian company Retelit, which are worth millions, under
their control.
13. Whereas the plaintiff LPTIC is seeking to safeguard these investments in the interests of the
Libyan People.
Viewed its decree of the 15th May, 2015 where after considering article 875(2) of Chapter 12 of the Laws
of Malta, it acceded to the request provisionally and reserved its position to give a definite decision at
an ulterior stage.
Viewed the reply of the defendants Feisal Gergab (Passport Number 2075522009), (2) Rajab Fawzi R Ben
Rejab (Passport Number RFKZK59), (3) Nahed M. Ali Subar (Passport Number 616572) and (4) LPTIC
Services Limited (C68876) filed on the 19th May, 2015 which states as follows:
1. That this warrant should be rejected in its entirety inter alia on the following grounds:
1.1. The application for the issuance of the warrant is null and void on the following grounds:
(a) The application does not state the nature of the claim as is required by law on pain of
nullity; and/or

(b) Claimant has not confirmed on oath his alleged interest in the injunction; and/or
(c) The sworn confirmation is irregular because it was confirmed on oath by a person who is
not resident in Malta.
1.2. Lis Alibi Pendens given that on the 13th May 2015 Applicant proceeded with an application
before the Courts of Luxembourg requesting exactly the same remedy that the same applicant
is requesting in Malta.
1.3. Claimant has no locus standi in this action inter alia on the following grounds:
(a) The Steering Committee premised in the application and allegedly on behalf of who
Claimant acts does not exist and has no function at Libyan Law and/or
(b) Claimant does not represent the Libyan Company Post, Telecommunications and
Information Technology Company ("LPTIC"), a Libyan company incorporated under the
laws of Libya.
1.4. Claimant has no right prima facie that deserves to be safeguarded by means of this injunction
and can suffer no prejudice if the warrant is not upheld.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1. The Claimant represents a group of people that is attempting to usurp the power of the Libyan
State over property belonging to the Libyan people.
2.2. LPTIC is a Libyan corporation established by law in Libya. It belongs to and is wholly owned by
the Libyan State.
2.3. LPTIC Services Limited, is a fully owned Maltese subsidiary of LPTIC. Therefore LPTIC Services
Limited is beneficially owned by the Libyan State.
2.4. The other respondents are the directors and the company secretary of LPTIC Services Limited
who had been appointed by LPTIC upon the registration of the company.
2.5. Though it is not the scope of this reply to enter into great detail into the facts, respondents
state in no uncertain terms that the facts described by claimant are false and misleading.
2.6. For example, it is not true that Libyan Post Telecommunications & Information Technology
Company ("LPTIC") is led by new management; the Steering Committee is not an organ of
LPTIC and has no legitimacy as a matter of Libyan law. Its interference in the assets of LPTIC is
wrongful and has no basis as a matter of Libyan law. Instead the Steering Committee has
been set up by the Libyan Dawn movement which acts without any international recognition.
2.7. It is also not true that Feisal Gergab has been removed from his capacity of representative of
LPTIC. Indeed he had been appointed in his position directly by the Prime Minister of Libya Al
Thini who heads the only government of Libya which is recognised both internationally and by
the Maltese Government.

2.8. The Libyan Dawn movement is NOT recognised by the Maltese Government as a body which
represents the Libyan State.
2.9. What we are witnessing in this case therefore is an attempt by a movement to take control
over assets which the Libyan people lawfully holds outside of Libya.
3. Sovereignty of the Libyan State
3.1. The first point to be made, is that a Maltese court has no jurisdiction to decide which entity is
capable of representing the Libyan state or any of its commercial entities. This is a matter
reserved for Libyan Courts and Libyan Law. However, the Maltese Courts are obliged to give
faith to and recognize acts which the Maltese Government recognizes as acts of the Libyan
government.
3.2. In this regard, respondents are filing a declaration issued by the Ambassador of Libya to Malta
which states clearly that documents A to F exhibited by the Claimants in the acts of this
warrant are not official documents of the Libyan State and are therefore without any legal
value (see document LPTIC1).
3.3. The declaration LPTIC1 is signed by the only person recognized by the Maltese Government as
the representative of the Libyan Government in Malta, that is the Libyan ambassador. This
results from the extract taken from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (see
document LPTIC2)
3.4. Respondents respectfully submit that on these issues of fact and Libyan Law this Honourable
Court must give effect to the declaration made by the Libyan Ambassador in Malta who is the
sole representative of the Libyan State recognised in Malta.
4. Nullity of the request
4.1. Section 831. (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure provides that: The demand
for the issue of any of the said acts shall be made by an application prepared by the applicant
and containing, under pain of nullity of the act, other than further details which may be
prescribed by regulations: (a) the origin and nature of the debt or claim sought to be secured;
subsection (2) then states that The application shall be confirmed on oath by the applicant.
4.2. It is immediately apparent that the application itself which is handwritten contains no
information whatsoever about the nature of the claim. The information concerning the nature
of the claim must be part of the application and cannot be inserted as an attached document.
4.3. The defect, with all due respect, is such that it cannot be corrected and this because of the
express wording of the law that expressly contemplates nullity for such an omission. The law
uses the words shallunder pain of nullity. This means, in the humble opinion of the
respondents, that the court does not have any discretion to allow such a defective document.
4.4. That with all due respect, the wording does not require title, but since the warrant of
prohibitory injunction impinges upon personal liberty it is essential for the applicant to
establish his claim with precision.

4.5. There is no doubt that the request for the issuance of a warrant of prohibitory injunction
constitutes a written pleading within the meaning of the Code of Organisation and Civil
Procedure. Section 180(1) in fact provides that where the claimant is a person absent from
Malta the written pleading must be filed by an attorney who is present in Malta. The reasoning
behind this is for the courts to be able to exercise control over the litigant and for reasons of
costs. The claimant in this case is not resident in Malta or in an EU country. It is indicative that
the claimant indicates his address for the purposes of service as the Law Courts, Malta.
Evidently the claimant does not reside in Court. In the event that costs and/or damages are
awarded against the claimant these will not be collected.
4.6. The act in question is therefore null and void because it has not been filed in the manner
required by law.
5. Lis Alibi Pendens
5.1. On the 13th May 2015 Claimant proceeded by application before the Courts of Luxembourg
(Document LPTIC3). The application filed in Luxembourg predates the premised application by
two days. The parties and the facts are identical. Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant
does not state the nature of his claim in the Maltese proceedings, one can assumed that they
are ultimately the same. It is therefore the respectful submission of this party that, in the event
that proceedings had to be filed such proceedings had to be filed in Luxembourg and thus the
instant application is superfluous and should be rejected.
6. No Locus Standi
6.1. Claimant is stating that he is acting as the Chairman of the Steering Committee of LIPTIC on
behalf of LPTIC. This is his claimed interest in this matter.
6.2. He has no authority whatsoever to represent LPTIC and the alleged Steering Committee is not
an official body of LPTIC.
6.3. The Claimant has no authority to represent LPTIC. Clearly in an action where the claimant is
an individual allegedly acting on behalf of a company claims that another person has no
authority to represent that same company it becomes even more incumbent upon the
incumbent to show that his authority is undoubted and current. He clearly cannot do so in this
case. It is beyond doubt that the documents which we alleges to confer him authority, are
invalid and do not confer any authority.
6.4. Respondents have filed together with their response a declaration issued by the Ambassador
of Libya to Malta (LPTIC1). This declaration states beyond doubt that the documents are not
issued by a lawful authority of Libya and therefore do not confer any power upon the Claimant.
6.5. Therefore even on this basis, his request must be rejected because he has no locus standi to
bring the claim.
6.6. Besides the fact that they are not documents of the Libyan State, it should be evident that the
same documents (A to F) have no probatory value whatsoever because they are not
authenticated as required by law.

6.7. In any event and without prejudice to the above it also argued that the claimant even if
properly authorised to act on behalf of LPTIC to bring forward these proceedings, in any event
there is no juridical interest to proceed with the instant proceedings.
7. No right prima facie
7.1. Without prejudice to the aforestated issued respondents submit that the applicant does not
satisfy the test imposed by Section 873(2) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure. The
test is The court shall not issue any such warrant unless it is satisfied that such warrant is
necessary in order to preserve any right of the person suing out the warrant, and that prima
facie such person appears to possess such right.
7.2. As previously stated by this same Court: It is a principle established in our jurisprudence that
the only test which the Court must use at this stage is that of prima facie, and this because
the true and proper merit will be investigated in the course of the case itself between the
parties. The requirement for the applicant requesting the issuing of a warrant of this type, to
show that it has a prima facie right is an objective and not a subjective requirement that
depends on the discretion of the adjudicator. Such a right is either evident on the face of it or,
for the purposes of this warrant, does not exist.one must note that the Warrant of Prohibitory
Injunction is an exceptional procedural instrument and is not a regular legal decree. The
protection which the law intends to grant in relation to the request of the applicant is that
relating to a right which without the issuing of the Warrant, would be lost irremediably and
permanently. This does not mean that the fact that a warrant of prohibitory injunction is
upheld would imply that the right is proven. Likewise it does not mean that the fact that the
warrant is rejected implies that the right does not exist. The search that the Court needs to do
is whether the performance of the acts feared by the applicant will result in the permanent
loss of the right claimed by the applicant. (see Mugliette vs John Gauci Maistre 2021/2014
decided 15th January, 2015).
7.3. We have already seen that the claimant does not represent LPTIC and therefore does not
possess any right whatsoever to bring this action.
7.4. It must also be considered, however that the application does not specify exactly what right
Claimant is claiming is being breached by the Respondents. Apart from vague allegations that
can be assumed from the documents attached to the application (but not from the application
itself) the applicant is not claiming any specific right that requires safeguard through this
procedure.
7.5. As it results from the certificate of good standing issued by the Registry of Companies
(Document LPTIC4), LPTIC Services Limited is validly registered in Malta and the registered
Directors are for all intents and purposes at law empowered to represent LPTIC Services
Limited.
7.6. The Court should, with all due respect, give effect to the legal position that results from the
registration of respondents as directors of a Maltese company. In fact the respondents have
not been removed from their respective offices within the Maltese company. A shareholder
who has issues with his directors may have specific remedies which are provided by the

Companies Act but certainly not the remedy that is being sought today. This is being stated
always without prejudice to the fact that it results that the applicant does not represent the
shareholders of LPTIC Services Limited or LPTIC itself.
7.7. Respondents have already shown that documents A F filed by claimants have no legal value
whatsoever. Therefore any right that is claimed to derive or result from these documents must
immediately be automatically rejected.
7.8. In any case Claimant also has no right to seek to restrain the Respondents from acting on
behalf of LPTIC, the Libyan Holding Company. There is a further problem with the application
in that it is not clear in what capacity the first three respondents are being sued. The lack of
clarity raises a number of problems as stated by this Court in the abovecited warrant Mugliette
vs Gauci Maistre. For example can this court restrain an individual from acting on behalf of
another company that isnt registered in Malta? Certainly one presumes that this is the reason
why the same applicants instituted an action in Luxembourg. However, the instant application
makes no such distinction and therefore there arises the issue regarding whether the instant
request has effect outside of Malta.
8. Lack of irremediable prejudice
8.1. Claimant can never suffer any irremediable prejudice if this warrant is not upheld.
Respondents act on behalf of the Maltese company. Respondents are directors of a Maltese
company which is also a defendant. As already stated the company LPTIC Services Limited is a
subsidiary of the company LPTIC. It is evident therefore that the allegation that LPTIC Services
Limited is trying to take over control of assets which already appertain to the LPTIC is entirely
frivolous because these assets remain in the control of LPTIC.
8.2. In any case there is no irremediability; in relation to every specific fact which is mentioned in
the warrant there is a specific remedy. These emerge from the Companies Act which provides
a number of specific and particular remedies for every situation therein indicated. There is no
need for this warrant because the law provides other remedies.
8.3. The applicant will not suffer any damage in the event that the warrant is rejected. The contrary
is true. LPTIC and the Libyan state will suffer an immense harm if the warrant is upheld and
the Respondents continue to be restrained from acting in their capacities. This is because the
applicant is effectively attempting to obstruct the respondents in the fulfilment of their duties
and is attempting to prevent them from acting to safeguard the property of the Libyan State.
9. For these reasons and those which will result during the hearing respondents respectfully
submit that this Honourable Court should reject the application with costs.
10. Respondents are reserving their rights for damages against Claimant who is acting maliciously
to interfere in the lawful conduct of the business of the defendants.
Viewed all of the exhibited documents.
Viewed all of the acts of the application.

Heard the testimony of Pierre Mallia, Director of Protocol and Consular Services within the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Malta.
Heard the oral submissions of the respective lawyers.
Viewed the written records of the sitting of the 20th May, 2015 whereby the application was deferred for
a cameral decree.
The dispute between the parties
The crux of the matter between the parties is regarding who has the effective control of the Libyan
parastatal company Libyan Post, Telecommunications and Information Technology, Holding Company
(hereinafter referred to as LPTIC Holding) and its subsidiary companies; the company registered in Malta
LPTIC Services Limited (C68876), the company registered in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Bousval
S.C.A, and the company registered in Italy Retelit.
The backdrop of this matter is the conflict in Libya where the Libyan Government which is officially
recognised by the United Nations and the Maltese Government does not have effective control over a
substantial part of the Libyan territory, which is controlled by other entities which are not officially
recognised by the United Nations and the Maltese Government.
Respondent Feisal Gergab was appointed as Chairman and CEO of LPTIC Holding by the Libyan
Government which is officially recognised internationally, including by the Maltese Government.
Applicant Majdi Ashibani, on oath declared that he was appointed as Chairman of LPTIC Holding after
Feisal Gerbgab was removed from office by Ing. Sami Mohammed Alfantazi, Minister for Communications
and Information Technology of the National Salvation Government State of Libya, which is not
internationally recognised.
By means of the present proceedings, the applicant is seeking to inhibit all respondents from acting to
fulfil their illegal aims to bring under their control the Luxembourgian company Bousval and the
company shares of Retelit, by continuing to misrepresent the interests of LPTIC as proprietor of the
referred foreign investments in order to protect and safeguard his rights.
On the other hand, respondents hold that applicant does not have any authority to represent LPTIC.

Considered:
This Court starts by stating first and foremost that, during these proceedings a number of photocopied
documents were exhibited, both by applicant and by respondents, which are not original documents and
which have not been duly authenticated as required by law. Documents A to F attached to the application,
although purporting to be issued by Ministries and Departments of the Libyan Government (of Tripoli),
were not authenticated according to the requirements established under Article 628 of Chapter 12 of the
Laws of Malta and therefore are not admissible as evidence in these proceedings, and therefore the Court
cannot take cognisance of the same.
The same applies with regards to the photocopied letter exhibited by means of a note by the applicant,
which letter purports to have been issued by the Prosecutor of the Office of the Libyan Attorney General.

This letter is also inadmissible as evidence and therefore this Court cannot take cognisance of the same
since it is not authenticated according to the provisions of Article 628 of Cap 12.
This Court notes that following a declaration by the parties that they have no further evidence and oral
submissions were made and after the application was left for the decision by means of a cameral decree,
the applicant filed a note of submissions without authorisation. This Court deems that before the
application was left for a decree, applicant was given two deferments where he had the opportunity to
present his evidence and make all his submissions and therefore the Court is ordering the expunging of
the note from the records of the case since at that stage the proof of evidence had been concluded.
Preliminary Pleas
In their reply, defendants raise a number of preliminary pleas, some of which may lead to the nullity of
these judicial proceedings, others like the lis alibi pendens plea cannot be decided in summary proceedings
such as the instant proceedings for the issuing of a precautionary warrant on a prima facie basis.
In the opinion of this Court, the plea of lis alibi pendens is to be decided in the case relating to the merits
which has been instituted by the applicant against the respondents. In summary proceedings such as
these, the Court is not expected to enter into the detail of the matter relating to whether these judicial
proceedings and those instituted in Luxembourg are between the same parties or not and whether such
parties are acting in the same capacity (eadem personae); whether the eadem res results in relation to
the respective proceedings and whether the claims in the two proceedings have the same cause ius,
eadem causa petendi.
Furthermore, the copy of the acts field before the Court of Luxembourg exhibited during the hearing of
this Warrant is not a copy authenticated according to Article 628 of Cap 12 of the Laws of Malta and
therefore this Court cannot take its cognisance of the same.
With regards to the respondents plea regarding the nullity of the request on the basis that the
handwritten application does not contain any information regarding his claim and that such information
ought to have been part of the Application itself and could not be inserted as an attached document, this
Court considers this defect in form as one which does not prejudice the respondents rights. Evidently,
the document attached to the Application gives information regarding the applicants claim, encompasses
the premises of the Sworn Application on the merits which was field by applicant against respondents.
It is an acceptable practice in these Courts regarding applications for the issuing of a warrant of prohibitory
injunction, that reference is made to the Sworn Application instead of including the information justifying
applicants claim is the application for the issuing of the warrant itself, this is for practical purposes and
this does not lead to the nullity of the act. This Court considers that in the same manner in which
information is provided in a separate document attached to the application, this lack of form, if it can be
considered so, does not lead to the nullity of the act.
Respondents also plead that the Application is null and ineffective as it was not presented in the form and
substance required by law, that is as a person absent from Malta, applicant should filed the Application
through a special attorney present in Malta according to Article 180(1) of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta.
Furthermore the applicant indicates the address of the Superior Courts as his address in Malta.
This Court notes that after that he filed the Application for the issuing of a warrant of prohibitory
injunction, applicant was not present for the hearing of these proceedings and did not make himself

available for a cross-examination, had the need arisen. While these defaults may impact on applicants
credibility, they do not lead to the nullity of the act since Article 180(1)(a) of Chapter 12, does not
necessarily require that the writing has to be presented by an attorney since the same Article 180(1)(a)
of Chapter 12 does not exclude that the writing be presented by applicant himself.
Considerations with regards to the Law
Applicant is requesting the issuing of a warrant of prohibitory Injunction on the basis of Article 873(1) of
Chapter 12 which reads as follows:
873. (1) The object of a warrant of prohibitory injunction is to restrain a person from doing anything
whatsoever which might be prejudicial to the person suing out the warrant.
(2) The court shall not issue any such warrant unless it is satisfied that such warrant is necessary in order
to preserve any right of the person suing out the warrant, and that prima facie such person appears to
possess such right.
The intention behind a request for the issuing of a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction, is that of inhibiting
a person from doing something which may cause harm or prejudice the person demanding the issue of
the warrant.
According to Article 873 of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta in the examination carried out by the Court,
applicant must prove that the Warrant is necessary to safeguard the rights being claimed in a way that
unless the warrant is issued, the applicant will suffer a prejudice and that the applicant indeed has those
rights prima facia. These two elements required by law are cumulative and not alternative and if one of
these elements is missing, the Court must reject the request for the issuing of the Warrant of Prohibitory
Injunction.
Furthermore, these two elements required by law are objective criteria and in the application of the law
regarding when and how such a warrant is to be issued, the Court is to adopt a restrictive interpretation
since the issue of a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction, like any other precautionary Warrant, is made when
the applicants claim is not yet juridically ascertained.
The prima facie right
The applicant by means of the Warrant, requests that respondents be inhibited from continuing to act
illegally act with the aim of bring the Luxembourg company Bousval under their control and the shares
of the Italian company Retelit, which shares are worth millions of Euros, by continuing to misrepresent
the interest of LPTIC as proprietors of the mentioned investment LPTIC.
Applicant is substantiating his claim on the basis that respondents no longer have a right to represent
LPTIC Holding since respondent Feisal Gergab was removed from being Chairman and CEO of LPTIC
Holding by Ing. Sami Mohammed Elfantazi, Minister of Communications and Informatics State of Libya
National Salvation Government, and in his stead applicant Dr.MAjdi Ashibani was appointed as Chairman
of LPTIC Holding. Applicant is alleging that respondents are misrepresenting the interest of LPTIC Holding
since the right of representation in the interests of LPTIC presently pertain to him.
It is a fundamental principle of law recognised by Article 562 of Chapter 12 that the onus of proof is on
the party who alleges the fact. It is an established principle in our jurisprudence that, in the case where
there are two contradictory versions which are plausible or possible, any doubt should favour the
defendants and this according to the principle onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit ei qui negat. It is

applicant who must prove the facts alleged by him and on the basis of which he has brought forward his
claims.
As previously stated by the Court, Documents A to F attached to the application, exhibited as the proof
that the applicant is the Chairman of the Steering Committee of LPTIC Holding and has the legal
representation of this Libyan Company (that of Tripoli), were not authenticated according to Article 628
of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta and consequently are not admissible as evidence in these proceedings.
Therefore the Court cannot take cognisance of such documents.
Furthermore respondents exhibited in fol 34 of the records of the case, a declaration of the Charge
dAffaires of the Libyan Embassy to Malta, H.E. Alhabib Alamin who confirmed that the documents
attached to the Application marked as Dok A,B,C,C1,D,E,F are not legal documents issued by a legal organ
or entity of the Libyan Government.
Through the testimony of Pierre Mallia, Director of Protocol and Consular Services within the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Malta, it was confirmed that His Excellency Alhabib Mohammed Alamin, represents the
Libyan Government, enjoys international recognition, and has been accredited in Malta since 1st
December 2014.
Pierre Mallia also testified that the Maltese Government does not recognise the National Salvation
Government of Libya, which is based in Libya and neither does the Maltese Government recognise Hussin
S.T. Musrati as Charge dAffaires of the Libyan Embassy in Malta.
On the 21st May, 2015 the applicant exhibited a letter of Hussin.S.T. Musrati dated the 20th May, 2015 by
means of a note, which refers to the letter of Alhabib Alamin of the 18 th May, 2015 and to Documents A,
B, C, D, E and F attached to the application. Hussin.S.T. Musratiin his letter declares that he does not agree
with the declarations of Mr Alamin, and declares that the abovementioned documents were issued by an
organ or entity of the Libyan Government.
On the other hand Pierre Mallia, the Director of Protocol and Consular Services within the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs in Malta testified that had the letter of Mr. Hussin.S.T. Musrati been presented t the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malta, they would no have legalised it and would not have authenticated it,
because Mr. Musrati and the entity which he represents are not recognised by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Malta.
This Court considers that once the letter of Mr.Hussin S.T.Musrati was not legalised in accordance with
Article 628 of Cap 12 of the Laws of Malta, this letter and the documents to which it makes reference have
no probatory value in these proceedings.
For these reasons this Court concludes that the applicant did not succeed to prove prima facie the alleged
right claimed by him since the documents presented to substantiate the alleged claims are not admissible
as evidence in these proceedings since these were not authenticated according to the provisions of Article
628 of Chapter 12 and in any case they could not be authenticated as so, since they are not documents
issued by a foreign Government officially recognised by the Maltese Government.
Therefore it does not result that the right claimed by applicant prima facie exists and this Court considers
that in this case the elements required by law for the issue of a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction were
not satisfied.

Decide
This Court therefore decides by rejecting the applicants request for the issuing of a Warrant of
Prohibitory Injunction against the respondents as requested through the Application.
Revokes contrario imperio its decree of the 15th May 2015, insofar as the request for the issuing of a
Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction against the respondents was provisionally upheld.
Costs to be borne by the Applicant.