|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
Κυπριακή νομολογία στην οποία κάνει αναφορά η απόφαση αυτή:
NIKI CHR. GEORGHIOU ν. REPUBLIC (MINISTER OF INTERIOR AND ANOTHER) (1968) 1 CLR 411
REPUBLIC (PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) ν. LEFKOS GEORGHIADES (1972) 3 CLR 594
CYPRIAN SEAWAY AGENCIES ν. REPUBLIC (1981) 3 CLR 271
CHRISTOU AND OTHERS ν. REPUBLIC (1982) 3 CLR 634
Μεταγενέστερη νομολογία η οποία κάνει αναφορά στην απόφαση αυτή:
Δεν έχει εντοπιστεί απόφαση η οποία να κάνει αναφορά στην απόφαση αυτή
(1987) 3 CLR 1049
1987 June 2
[A. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, LORIS, PIKIS, KOURRIS, JJ.]
THE.PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (NO. 3),
Appellant - Respondent,
v.
MARINA POTOUDES AND OTHERS,
Respondents-Applicants.
(Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No. 680).
Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal — Issues not raised by the notice of appeal — Whether such issues can be raised — Subject to exceptions enumerated in Maratheftis and Another v. The Republic (1986)3 C.L.R.1407 and Republic v. Lefkos Georghiades (1972)3 C.L.R. 594, the question is answered in the negative.
Revisional Jurisdiction appeal — Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules — Applicable mutatis mutandis in virtue of the Appeals (Revisional Jurisdiction) Rules, 1964.
The question in issue is the amenity of an interested party, arguing in support of an appeal, filed by the respondents in the recourse (appellants before this Court) to take up a point not raised in the notice of appeal.
Held, (1) The relevant rules make applicable mutatis mutandis Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
(2) The fact that the appeal is by way of rehearing does entail that the issues in the appeal are identical to those of the recourse. Subject to the exceptions enumerated in Republic v. Maratheftis and Another(1986)3 C.L.R. 1407 and Republic v. Lefkos Geo,hiades (1972)3 C.L.R. 594 the issues in a revisional appeal are confined to those raised by the notice of appeal.
Cases referred to:
Republic v. Maratheftis and Another(1986) 3 C.L.R. 1407;
Branco Salvage Ltd. v. Republic (1967)3 C.L.R. 213;
Georghiou v. Republic (1968)1 C.L.R. 411;
Cyprian Seaway Agencies Ltd. v. Republic (1981) 3 C.L.R. 271;
Christou v. Republic (1982) 3 C.L.R. 634;
Republic v. Liverdos (1985)3 C.L.R. 935;
President of the Republic v. Louca and Another(1984) 3 C.L.R. 241;
Republic v. Lelkos Georghiades (1972)3 C.L.R. 594.
Application.
Application by interested parties arguing in support of an appeal taken by respondents at the trial Court, now appellants, to take up a point not raised in the notice of appeal.
A. Vladimirou, for the appellant.
A. Angelides, A. Ladas and N Papaefstathiou, for the respondents.
L. Papaphiippou, for the interested parties.
A. LOIZOU J.: The Interim Decision of the Court will be given by Pikis, J.
PIKIS J.: What is immediately at issue is the amenity of an interested party arguing in support of an appeal taken by the respondents at the trial Court, appellants before us, to take up a point not raised in the notice of appeal. Relying on the authority of Republic v. Maratheftis and Another counsel submitted that the proposed course is feasible considering that everything is in issue on appeal and that the proceedings in essence involve reassessment of the factual and legal implications of the sub judice decision. The point decided in Marathefti (supra) is a narrower one confined to the proposition that a point taken up before the trial Court and left undecided because of the disposal of the case on other grounds, may be pursued on appeal.
The rules regulating the exercise of revisional jurisdiction on appeal make applicable mutatis mutandis the provisions of Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Branco Salvage Ltd. v. Republic and Niki Chr. Georghiou v. Republic decide that Ord. 35 finds application in appellate revisional proceedings in much the same way as it does in civil appeals (Also see Cyprian Sea way Agencies Ltd. v. The Republic; David Christou v. The Republic; Republic v. Liverdos; The President of the Republic v. Yiannakis Louca and Another - Full Bench).
In Republic v. Lefkos Georghiades it was decided that a first instance Court of revisional jurisdiction may, if it is considered unnecessary for the purposes of determination of the case, refrain from determining all grounds put forward in support of the motion for annulment. But the successful party may, if faced with an appeal, seek the determination of unresolved issues by way of cross-appeal.
In the present case the issue that counsel for the interested party wishes to raise is wholly outside the grounds of appeal and on that account it cannot be heeded. The fact that proceedings on appeal are by way of rehearing does not entail that the issues on appeal are identical to those raised before the trial Court. They are confined to those issues made the subject of appeal in the notice of appeal subject to the exceptions enumerated in Maratheftis and Georghiades (supra).
Counsel will not be allowed on behalf of the interested party to raise the point he wishes to take as it is not a ground raised in the notice of appeal.
Order accordingly.