Court halts retraction case pending constitutional challenge over judges’ recusal

The Civil Court, First Hall, in its constitutional jurisdiction, has ordered the temporary suspension of a retraction case linked to a decade-long dispute over farmland and a farmhouse, pending the outcome of a related constitutional challenge.

The interim order was delivered by Judge Giovanni Grixti on 4 November. The Sammut family is contesting a retraction procedure currently before the Court of Appeal, in which they are seeking to overturn a judgment delivered in February this year that declared their previous appeal “frivolous and vexatious”.

The family argues that the same judges who decided the appeal are now due to preside over the retraction request, and that this breaches their right to a fair hearing. A request to have those judges recused was previously denied, prompting the family to file constitutional proceedings claiming a violation of Article 39 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

They asked the constitutional court to step in urgently and suspend the retraction proceedings until the fair-hearing claim is decided, warning that if the case continues, the opposing party could obtain an enforceable judgment before the constitutional court has ruled.

The State Advocate and the Registrar of Courts opposed the request, arguing that the applicants could have sought a suspension directly before the Court of Appeal, and that interim measures are generally granted only in situations of extreme urgency such as threats to life or physical harm. They also pointed out that the constitutional court would still be able to order a rehearing before a different panel if the Sammuts succeeded in their claim.

However, the court said that interim measures must be assessed case by case, and noted that the matter did not concern property alone but raised issues of natural justice and judicial impartiality. It referred to previous decisions where interim suspensions were granted even outside the most severe categories of harm, including cases involving slander and administrative decisions.

The retraction proceedings have now been put on hold until the constitutional case is decided. Costs relating to the request were imposed on the State Advocate.