[WILSON, P.; ZEKIA, VASSILIADES and JOSEPHIDES, JJ.] ELENI COST1 TSANGAR! AND ANOTHER Appellants (Defendants), r. ELENI COSTI TSANOARI A N D ANOTHER V. FOTB SAVVA FOTIS SAVVAS Respondent (Civil (Plaintiff). Appeal No. 4370) Civil Procedures-Duty of trial Judgesto deal fuliy with disputed facts and conflicting evidence—Attentiondrawn to the Court'sobservation In the caseofEconomides v. Zodhlatls 1961 C.L.R. 306. Observationsby the High Court : Finally, we would like to observe that the Judge ought to have dealt morefully with the facts of the caseand the witnesses generally, and that he shouldhave given a fuller Judgmentthough not necessarilya longone. In this connectionwe would invite attention to the observations of this Court In the caseof Economldes v. Zodhlatis, (supra), The respondent-plaintiff on the Instructions of the second appellant acting as a servant and/or personally, on different dates authorised the respondent-plaintiff to repair motor car No. 4818 and supply spare parts to the sum of £56.050 mils and he actually did so. This was denied by the appellant-defendant and judgment wasgiven in favour of plaintiff-respondent for £56.050 mils w i t h ' Interest and costs. < 1\ v The appellant-defendant appealed.'·against this judgment and the High Court found that the second appellant was acting asagent for the first appellant and therefore varied the judgment by directing that Judgment should be entered against appellant No. I. Held : (I) As the second appellant was acting as agent for the 1st appellant his wife and considering the whole of the evidence judgment should be entered only against appellant No. I.
(2)" In the circumstance of this case each party should pay its own costs of appeal. 257 1962 Oct. 25 1962 CM 25 El UNI ( « M l TsANl.ARI AM) -VNOIHIK Per curiam ; The trial Judge ought t o have dealt more fully with the facts of the case and the witnesses generally and he should have given a fuller judgment though not necessarily long one. V. Judgement of trial Judge varied. Judgment entered against appellant No. I only. I'lMIS S*\ \Λ Cases referred to :— Economides v. Zodhiatis 1961 C.L.R.
- Appeal. Appeal against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia, sitting at Lefka, (P.E. Papaioannou, D.J.)> dated the 20th February, 1962 (Action No. 107/61) whereby the defen dants were adjudged to pay to the plaintiff the sum of £56.050 plus £20.650 costs, being balance representing his remunera tion for services rendered to the defendants as a motor mecha nic and the value of motor car spare parts supplied to them. l.ejkos N. Clerides for the appellant. C. M. Mclissas for the respondent. The judgment of the court was delivered by :— JOSEPHIDES, J. : This is an appeal against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia, sitting at Lefka, given in favour of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendants in the sum of £56.050 mils with interest and costs. The respondent's claim was for £56.050 mils balance representing his remuneration for services rendered lo the defendanls as a motor-mechanic and the value of motor-car spare parts supplied to them. In the statement o f claim it was avened that the respon dent, on the instructions o f the second appellant, acting as a servant and/or agent o f the first appellant, and/or personally. on different dates authorised icspondent to rcpaii motor car No. 4818 and supply spare parts, and that the respondent ren dered the services and supplied the sjxnc parts described in detail in the lists attached to the statement o f claim. The defendants, in their statement of defence, denied 258 that, after the signing of a bond by the first appellant on the 21st May, 1959, any repairs were carried out by respondent and/or ifany such repairs werecarried out, then they had been paid off. At the hearing respondent gave evidence in support of his case, and in the course of his evidence he produced five invoices of the work done and spare parts supplied, which are exhibits Nos. I, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in this case. In the course of his evidence he stated that he rendered the services which are enumerated in the invoices and that he supplied the spare parts stated theicin. The second appellant, who is the husband of the first appellant, gave evidence denying the respondent's claim, and another four witnesses werecalled in support of the appellant's case. At the conclusion of the evidence counsel addressed the Court and the learned trial Judge then gave a brief judgment. The opening words of that judgment are: "I find exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 conclusive". Now, there is no doubt that that wording was unfortunate. The invoices produced in support of the plaintiff's claim cannot be conclusive. Furthermore, Mr. Clerides submitted that those invoices were not admissible in evidence, but we arc not prepared to accept that submission. The invoices were produced to show the particulars of the services rendered and the materials supplied to the appellants, and nothing more. Thetrial Judge went on to say that "the claim of plaintiff was proved by overwhelming evidence.· I do not believe the defendant in his evidence. His demeanour when giving evidence impressed me unfavourably". On reading the whole record of the evidence in this case, we have no doubt that what the Judge meant was that having heard the evidence adduced on both sides, and having had the opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses while gmng evidence, he prefened the version of the respondent to that o\' the appellants ; and on the respondenl's evidence he gave judgment in his (respondent's) favour. As lo the form of judgment. Ihe husband, second appellant. was acting as agent for his wife, the first appellant, and on the evidence, we consider that the judgment should be 259 1962 Oct. 25 ELENI COSH TSANGARl AND ANOTHFR V. FOTIS SAWA Joscphides, J. 1962 Oct. 25 ELENI COSTI TSANGARI A N D ANOTHhR V. f-ivm SAVVA lotephidcs. J. given against the wife only, i.e. the first appellant. To that extent the appeal is allowed and thejudgment varied. In the circumstances of this case, we direct that each party should bear its own costs of appeal. Finally, we would like to observe that the Judge ought to have dealt more fully with the fads of the case and the witnesses generally, and that he should have given a fuller judgment though not necessarily a long one. In this connection we would invite attention to the observations of this Court in the case of Economides v. Zodhiutis, Civil Appeal No, 4347, reported in 1961 C.L.R. p.
- Appeal allowed in part. 260