Commissioner of Lands' appeal on purchase title upheld

The Constitutional Court has upheld an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Lands from a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

The court, composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti delivered judgment in the case filed by the Commissioner against Ignatious Licari, liquidator of Farr Ltd.

The court heard that in November 1998 the Commissioner had filed an application before the Land Arbitration Board in which he requested the board to order the transfer to the government of land at San Gwann by title of outright purchase and to liquidate the compensation payable to Licari.

On his part Licari raised a constitutional issue before the board on the basis that his fundamental human right to enjoyment of property and to a fair hearing and to freedom from discrimination had been violated.

By a decree issued in October 2000 the board ordered that the case be referred to the First Hall of the Civil Court for a decision on the constitutional issue raised by Licari.

In the sittings before the First Hall of the Civil Court the Commissioner of Lands submitted that the constitutional reference was invalid as the board was not a court that could make such a reference to the First Hall of the Civil Court.

However, in October 2003 the First Hall of the Civil Court dismissed the Commissioner's submission.

The Commissioner lodged an appeal to the Constitutional Court.

In its judgment the appellate court noted that in terms of law if a constitutional issue was raised before a court then the court could refer the matter as a constitutional reference to the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

The Commissioner had submitted that the Land Arbitration Board was a tribunal established by means of a special law and which had limited and specific jurisdiction.

Such a tribunal was not a court and could not therefore make a constitutional reference.

After referring to various articles of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court concluded that the terms "court" and "tribunal" as used in the Constitution were not equivalent and could not be interchanged.

Consequently the appellate court felt that it could not confirm the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court which had concluded that the word "court" included any form of tribunal or any place where justice was administered.

The Constitutional Court added that according to law the chairman of the board would be a person who was a judge or had been a judge or a magistrate.

However, according to the Constitution, a "court" was presided by a judge or a magistrate who was not retired, had not resigned or had not been removed from office.

In conclusion the Constitutional Court upheld the appeal lodged by the Commissioner of Lands and declared that the Land Arbitration Board could not make any constitutional references to the First Hall of the Civil Court.

The judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court was revoked.