Writ against Enemalta upheld

Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia in the First Hall of the Civil Court has ruled that Enemalta Corporation was not entitled to reduce the electricity supply to a factory at Sta Venera.

The judgment was handed down in a writ filed by Strand Palace Agencies Ltd against the corporation. Plaintiff company declared that it operated Topsy Factory at Sta Venera and that the factory was supplied with electricity at 100 amps. This supply has been provided by Enemalta since March, 1982.

However, in October 1997 Enemalta informed the company that it was going to reduce the electricity supply to 60 amps, and that if the company wanted to retain the 100 amps supply then it had to pay for the installation costs of an underground cable from a nearby substation.

Strand Palace Agencies Ltd declared in its writ that the Electricity Supply Regulations, in terms of which the corporation was going to reduce its supply, had come into force after the company was provided with electricity by Enemalta. The company therefore requested the court to declare that Enemalta was not entitled to reduce the supply to the factory.

In its judgment the court noted that it resulted that the Electricity Supply Regulations had come into effect in December, 1993. The Enemalta Act came into effect after these regulations, but electricity had been supplied to the factory in 1982. Mr Justice Valenzia noted that Enemalta had pleaded that it was bound to provide electrical supply in terms of regulations.

However, the corporation had failed to indicate which regulations were in force in 1982 at the time of the electricity supply to the factory.

The court added it was satisfied that the power supply to the factory had been provided and installed by Enemalta in 1982. It was only in 1994 that the corporation had realised that this supply to the company had been irregular. Enemalta could not, said the court, oblige the company to regularise works that had been carried out by Enemalta at the company's expense.

Mr Justice Valenzia concluded by upholding plaintiff company's writ against the corporation.