REPUBLIC ν. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KYRENIA EX-PARTE LONGHINOS HJITHOMA (1970) 2 CLR 50

(1970)2 CLR 50 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

(1970)2 CLR 50 1970 April 17 [JOSEPHIDES, J.] THE REPUBLIC, Applicant, v. THE DISTRICT JUDGE AT KYRENIA, EX-PARTE LONGHINOS HJITHOMA, Respondent. (Application 7/70). Prohibition-Application for leave to apply for an order of prohibition (in a criminal case)-Inferior Court vested with jurisdiction to try the aforesaid criminal case-No excess of jurisdiction or departure from the rules of natural justice-Application refused. Prohibition-Grounds upon which it may issue. Observation by the Court: The practice of filing last-minute applications for prohibition, immediately before criminal cases are due to be heard, is undesirable and is to be deplored, unless there is real substance in the complaint. Cases referred to: The Republic v. District Judge at Morphou-Ex-parte L. Theofanous and Others.

(1969)1 C.L.R. 607, atpp.611-612. The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court refusing leave to apply for an order of prohibition directed to the District Judge of Kyrenia prohibiting him from further proceeding with the trial of Criminal Case No. 196/70 against the applicant. Application. Ex-parte application by Longhinos HjiThoma for leave to file an application for an order of prohibition directed to the District Judge at Kyrenia prohibiting him from further proceeding with the trial of Criminal Case No. 196/70 against the applicant. Chr. Mitsides, for the ex-parte applicant. The following judgment was delivered by:- JOSEPHIDES, J.: This is an application for leave to file an application for an order of prohibition directed to the District Judge in Kyrenia prohibiting him from further proceeding with the trial of criminal case No. 196/70 against the applicant. In the course of counsel's address I intimated that I saw no substance in the present application. The principles applicable in such cases are well settled and I have referred to them in a recent case, The Republic v. District Judge at Morphou-Ex-parte L. Theofanous and Others

(1969)1 C.L.R. 607 at pp. 611-612. I need not, therefore, elaborate on this point in the present case. For an order of prohibition to issue there must be either excess or absence of jurisdiction or a departure from the rules of natural justice. All the facts in this case do not appear in the meagre affidavit in support. So far as I was able to glean them from the documents produced and the address of counsel, they are as follows: The applicant was, on the 20th February, 1969, served with a notice under section 15(

1. a)of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96 (as amended), informing him that his house, in plot 256 at Ayios Amvrosios, was in a dangerous state and requiring him to repair it. As he did nothing from February until November, 1969, he was served by the District Officer with a new notice, dated the 15th November, 1969, informing the applicant that his building was still in a dangerous state and that, if he failed to demolish it within 15 days, legal proceedings would be taken against him. The next step in this case is that a criminal prosecution (case No. 196/70) was filed against the applicant on the 17th February, 1970, and it was fixed for hearing on the 16th March, 1970. The charge against him is for failing to pull down a dangerous building, contrary to the provisions of section 374 (
2. e)of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154. This section provides that any person who wilfully neglects or fails to repair or pull down any building which is in a ruinous or dangerous state, when ordered in writing so to do by the District Officer, is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds. Pausing there, there is no doubt that the District Judge in Kyrenia has jurisdiction to try this case and it cannot be argued that the Judge is acting either in excess or absence of jurisdiction. The summons was duly served on the applicant who failed to appear before the Court in Kyrenia on the 16th March, 1970, and a warrant of arrest was issued against him. Two days previously, on the 14th March, 1970, he filed a recourse (case No. 81/70) before the Supreme Court in its revisional jurisdiction, claiming a declaration that the Improvement Board of Ayios Amvrosios and the Government of Cyprus have no right to interfere with his property (plot 256), and an order of the Court restraining them from so interfering. Subsequently, on the 24th March, 1970, the applicant appeared before the District Court of Kyrenia, he was charged and pleaded not guilty and the case was fixed for hearing on the 18th April, 1970, that is, tomorrow. Nothing was done until the 13th April, when the present application for leave to apply for an order of prohibition was filed in this Court at 4 p.m. On these facts it is obvious that, as already stated, the judge has jurisdiction to deal with the case in Kyrenia and that there is no departure from the rules of natural justice. It is not for this Court to say what, if any, are the rights or remedies of the applicant. Suffice it to say that, so far as this application for leave is concerned, this Court finds no substance and the application should accordingly be dismissed. I should, perhaps, add that the practice of filing last-minute applications for prohibition, immediately before criminal cases are due to be heard, is undesirable and is to be deplored, unless there is real substance in the complaint. In the result, the application is dismissed. Application dismissed. cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο