The best evidence rule, entrenched in Maltese civil law, serves as a guiding principle in legal proceedings, emphasising the necessity of presenting the most compelling documentary evidence to substantiate claims or pleas.
A judgment delivered on January 15, 2024, by the Constitutional Court in the case of Paul Galea et vs State Advocate et, offers a significant legal analysis on rental legislation and the application of the best evidence rule, shedding light on the responsibilities of litigants and the implications of failing to meet the evidentiary standard.
In this case, the State Advocate, acting as the defendant, contended that the plaintiffs were obliged to substantiate their title to the property in question. The initial ruling by the First Court favoured the defendant, as it found the plaintiffs had failed to establish their legal title, leading to the dismissal of the case.
Particularly in cases concerning compensation for old rent laws, the presentation of documentary evidence elucidating the provenance of the property is deemed imperative, including details such as original proprietorship and lineage of succession.
The Constitutional Court at appeal stage delved into the merits of the defendant’s plea, which relied on a title of lease from the plaintiffs to assert their right to occupy the property. The Constitutional Court noted the plaintiffs' failure to provide crucial evidence, such as copies of wills and testamentary research, essential for establishing their title.
Notably, the court highlighted the ease with which such evidence could have been obtained and submitted by the plaintiffs, emphasising their lack of diligence in presenting the best evidence.
Furthermore, the court remarked on the perceived lightness with which the plaintiffs conducted the case, indicating a failure to submit the best evidence available.
However, the court acknowledged the assertions made by the respondents, who were longstanding tenants of the property and had continuously paid rent, evidencing ongoing possession even after the passing of the plaintiffs' parents. This possession was also supported by Article 525(1) of the Civil Code, which presumes possession in favour of the plaintiffs unless proven otherwise:
525. (1) A person is in all cases presumed to possess on his own behalf, and by virtue of a right of ownership, unless it is proved that he has commenced his possession in the name of another person.
Ultimately, the Maltese Constitutional Court reached a definitive decision, finding ample evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ rightful inheritance of the title. Consequently, the initial ruling by the First Hall was overturned. The court dismissed assertions of insufficient evidence while affirming the validity of the presented documentation.
Furthermore, it remanded the case to the First Court to reconsider any potential infringements upon the plaintiffs' rights and provide necessary remedies.
This judgment underscores the Constitutional Court's commitment to upholding justice and addressing potential violations with diligence and fairness, notwithstanding the fundamental importance of the best evidence rule in Maltese civil procedural law. It serves as a reminder to litigants of their obligation to present the best possible evidence in support of their claims and highlights the consequences of failing to meet this standard in legal proceedings.
Dr Clive Gerada is a senior associate at Azzopardi Borg and Associates, Advocates.