A magistrate has rapped the San Ġwann council for its “managerial incompetence” and wasting taxpayers’ money on a case he said should never have ended up in court.

He also had harsh words for the Department of Local Government for its “total absence” in guiding the council on the issue.

Magistrate Francesco Depasquale was delivering his judgment in a civil case filed by B. Grima and Sons Ltd against the council.

The company is an importer and supplier of traffic signs, street furniture, thermoplastic paint for road markings and road safety equipment.

It filed a case over a €7,100 bill the council refused to settle, arguing the order of road marking paint was a direct order made by the previous council’s executive secretary.

It is the common citizen, through taxes, who has to pay for these shortcomings

The paint was supplied between December 2010 and August 2011 and a small consignment on New Year’s Eve 2012.

The council further argued that direct orders for works or services required its approval if the cost was over €1,165.

It also claimed that the company had previously charged different prices for the same products, while it was expecting to pay the same price.

Yet the magistrate said the issue should have never reached the courts because it was obvious that the council was trying to find a way out of paying for road marking paint it had ordered and used.

“The council played this card in an attempt to save some money by insisting on paying less than what was requested.

“But now the council will have to pay much more because it also has to foot the judicial expenses, as well as interest,” the court said.

The magistrate continued: “Councillors and department employees are not going to suffer financially because it is going to be the common citizen, through taxes, who has to pay for these shortcomings and sheer managerial incompetence, when [the common citizen] ought not to suffer consequences for the failings of people they elected to manage the locality in the best way possible.”

The court also rejected the council’s direct order argument because the same law it had quoted excluded public utility services, which included paint used for road markings.