Former PM loses constitutional case

The Constitutional Court yesterday confirmed a judgment in which the First Hall of the Civil Court had dismissed a constitutional application filed by former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff and his daughters on the basis that they had failed to use the ordinary remedies available to them at law.

The judgment was delivered following the Mintoffs' appeal from the judgment delivered in the claim they had filed against the Water Services Corporation, Enemalta Corporation, the minister responsible for investments, industry and information technology and the Attorney General.

Mr Mintoff, Jana Joan Mintoff Bland and Anne McKenna Mintoff claimed that their fundamental human rights had been violated when the water and electricity services to their property at Tarxien had been suspended.

However, the Constitutional Court ruled yesterday that the Mintoffs had not paid their water and electricity bills for years and had not contested the bills as issued by the WSC. Nor had they replied to the letters sent to them by the corporation.

Referring to the judgment of the first court, with which it declared itself to be substantially in agreement, the appellate court noted that it was only when the Mintoffs' water and electricity supply had been disconnected that they had claimed that their fundamental human rights had been violated.

Mr Mintoff and his family had argued that their property had been damaged as a result of negligent works carried out by the entities in question.

They added they were owed a substantial sum of money by those same entities in virtue of a judgment delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court, which judgment was now pending appeal.

The Mintoff family insisted they did not owe the money which the WSC and Enemalta were claiming as payment of arrears for water and electricity bills. The water and electricity supply had been disconnected and was only reinstalled when the outstanding amounts claimed by the two entities were settled by a third party, against Mr Mintoff's wishes.

The WSC, Enemalta, the minister and the Attorney General all argued that the Mintoff family had other remedies at their disposal, and that they had failed to make use of such remedies before taking their case to court.

The Attorney General and the minister also argued that they ought not to have been made a party to this litigation.

The Constitutional Court said that the first court could decide not to hear a constitutional application if it resulted that the applicant had not utilised the ordinary remedies available at law.

The Mintoff's complained that by the actions of the corporations, it had been impossible for them to contest the amounts they had been asked to pay.

They had therefore been deprived of their right to have their complaint decided upon by an independent and impartial tribunal according to law.

Furthermore, the Mintoff family claimed that the disconnection of their water and electricity supply had left them with no alternative but to pay the bills they were contesting. The court declared that Mr Mintoff and his two daughters were expecting not to pay the bills on the basis that they were owed money by the same corporations, and that they were owed more than they were requested to pay.

On their part, the corporations submitted that the Mintoff family could have contested the bills but had not done so. Nor had they explained why they were not paying for the services which they had received since 1997. On the contrary, the Mintoff family had ignored all requests for payment.

It was in November 2004 that the WSC had decided, in accordance with regulations, and after giving advance notice to the Mintoffs, to disconnect the water and electricity supply until outstanding bills amounting to Lm1,230.97 were paid.

The water and electricity supplies were restored to the Mintoffs' property two days after the outstanding amount was settled by a third party.

The Constitutional Court found that Mr Mintoff and his daughters had let many years lapse without replying to the corporations and without contesting the bills, even though they continued to make use of water and electricity without paying for such services.

As a result, the corporations had been forced to take action against them and disconnect the supplies.

No one was entitled to first let the time lapse during which a remedy could be applied and then file a constitutional complaint.

The court concluded by confirming the judgment of the first court which had found that Mr Mintoff and his daughters had other remedies available to them at law.

The Constitutional Court was composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.