IN THE MATTER OF THE ORDER OF THE KING IN COUNCIL AND CHRISTODOULOS KOURTELLOS (V12) 1 CLR 86

IN THE MATTER OF THE ORDER OF THE KING IN COUNCIL AND CHRISTODOULOS KOURTELLOS (V12) 1 CLR 86 ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ CyLaw | Αναφορικά μ'εμάς | " target="_top">Επικοινωνία | Όροι χρήσης Έρευνα - Κατάλογος Αποφάσεων - Εμφάνιση Αναφορών (Noteup on) - Αρχείο σε μορφή PDF - Αφαίρεση Υπογραμμίσεων (V12) 1 CLR 86 1926 June 26 [NETTLETON, C.J. AND DICKINSON, P.J.] IN THE MATTER OF THE ORDER OF THE KING IN COUNCIL PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL FOR THE COLONY OF CYPRUS AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION PETITION OF CHRISTODOULOS KOURTELLOS. This is an application by respondent, the successful candidate at an election for a seat in the Legislative Council of Cyprus under the powers conferred by Imperial Order in Council May 1, 1925, to dismiss the petition of the petitioner on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner had not duly served him with a copy of the petition either within five days of the filing of the petition as required by Parliamentary Election Petition Rules of Court in force in England, or at all. HELD: In the absence of special Rules of Court governing the practice and procedure of Cyprus Legislative Council Election Petitions, that the Rules of Court governing such practice and procedure in Parliamentary Election Petitions in force in England shall apply, subject to such minor alterations as may be necessary to meet local requirements, e.g., where under such English Rules of Court it is incumbent on the petitioner to file certain documents with the Master-as in Cyprus such officer does not exist, such documents must be filed with the Chief Registrar. The facts are as follows:- The respondent was the successful candidate in an election held on the 12th October, 1925, for an electoral division of Cyprus under the new constitution granted by the Imperial Order in Council, May 1, 1925, and was duly gazetted as such in the Cyprus Gazette No. 1726, dated the 23rd October,

1. The petitioner was a voter at that election. The petitioner presented his election petition against the return of the respondent on the 6th November,
2. From that date until the 6th May, 1926, the petitioner made no effort to have the petition set down for hearing, and he never served a copy of the petition on the respondent. On the 5th day of May, 1926, the petitioner applied to Court to set down the petition for hearing, and the Court ordered him to set out a statement of claim showing the items on which he based his petition by the 21st day of June, 1926, and at the same time ordered that he should serve a copy of such statement of claim on the respondent on or before the 21st day of June, 1926, and further that the respondent should file his reply on or before the 29th day of June, 1926, and that issues should be framed on the day of 5th July,
3. The Court at the same time fixed the date and place for the hearing of the petition on July.l2th,
4. The petitioner duly filed his statement of claim on the 18th day of June,
5. The respondent by the present applicant asked the Court to dismiss the petition because, inter alia, the petitioner had failed to comply with the Rules of Court governing Parliamentary Election Petitions in England, and in particular, because petitioner had failed to serve respondent with a copy of the petition within five days, or at all. This fact petitioner (respondent in the application) admitted. Pavlides and Lanitis for Respondent (Applicant in the application). Pitsillides for Petitioner (Respondent in the application). Judgment: As no Rules of Court have been framed to deal with the practice and procedure to be observed in Cyprus Legislative council Election Petitions, following the ruling in the judgment of this Court in the case of Chacalli v. Emphiedji and on general principles, we must hold that the Rules of Court governing practice and procedure in Parliamentary Election Petitions in England must be followed. cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο