1966 June 9 [VASSILIADLS, TRIANTAKYLLIDIS, PETROS Λ Ν Τ Ο Ν Ι Ο ϋ PRROSANIONKHI JOSEPHIDI-S, J J.] O F LIMASSOL, P. Appellant-Plaintiff, YASIIAK ElMA/ v. \N1) ΛΝΟΊΉΙ-Κ YASHAR I L M A / A N D A N O I M I K Respondents- Dejeiuiants. {Civil Appeal No. 4566). Practite— Appeal -Findings of fact made by trial Courts ciples applicable when such findings are Appellate Court—Appeal on the ground -Prin considered by the that the reasoning behind the findings on which the judgment appealed from rests, is unsatisfactory Open to the trial Court to find as it did -No sufficent reasons shown for disturbing such findings- Prayer for a re-trial on the ground of undue delav in the deli very of judgment after the last hearing of the case-lerv exceptional circumstances developed in the Island soon after the conclusion of the hearing Re-trial avoided in the parti(idnr circumstances of this case. Prat tit c liia/ in tivil caves hcai ing of cases - Both Piecemeal hearings Delay in the undesirable - /itigant 's right highly to a hearing of his case " within reasonable time " /// the sense 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution And within the notion of " due process " in American law Undue delay between of of paragraph closing of the hearing and delivery Untlesirahle -Especially Judgment--Reserved in cases turning judgment— on issues of fact. judgment —There should be no undue delay between the closing of the hearing and the delivery of judg ment above. See, also, under Practice Constitutional law—Speedy trial—Right of a litigant to a hearing of his case "within reasonable time " —Paragraph 2 of Arti cle 30 of the Constitution - " Due process " in American law— Speedy trial is within the notion of "due process·*' as aforesaid. American law- -" Due process—See under Constitutional law above. T h e subject mutter of this appeal is a j u d g m e n t of the District C o u r t of Limassol in a civil action heard before a bench of t w o judges, challenged by the appellant on the g r o u n d t h a t the reasoning behind the findings on which the 210 Iiidginini icsts is uns.nisl itioiy Anoihet giound ol ap- "'' l puil is Ihti ι pi.ιiiid ol o v u iwo years elapsed between (he i.isi h u u i n g ol llit case .ind the delivery ol lht iiidgnitiil, on this g i o u n d . the appL.lt.mt piays lor a ic-hearing of the case c ΙΊ IKOSAMONI-HJ n ^ ASHAR h i \\\7 In dismissing lltld ιhe a p p u i l ι IK'/ Supieme Couit .
(1)(
- a)R c i ' m l l i s s ot what \iew SNn A M I M i r R we init-hl lake ol (IK evidence in tin. fust insiaiue we think that it was open to (In tiia! luiUes io Imil is ihcv did (
- b)Ihe position icgaidnig I Hidings ol tact by the trial Court when considered on ippuil is now well settled in a u u m b u ol ι ises, to wlmli ι\ι ined not spccihcally ictei exccpi loi \tanun \ tin tuna Η ρ I ' v tiii/
- t)win.κ MIL i i i i i u i /wes (reported in tins Pail was again laised I he I Hidings in this iasc picstiit eonsideiable diiliLiiltv , bm eventual!) liic view pievaikd ih.it on the evidence hetoic tin Ή ii ( oint they could be m ide, and no sufhcient i c i s o n s l u u bet η shown for ilisluibing them ( Ί ) ( ι ) « t e n d i n g the iiicgulaiil\ ol the p r o c e e d i n g lliis ( oiul ha^ icpi.tledlv eKpiesstd its views on the question ol ιΐκ piopei piosetution ol 11 ui Is Ihe litigant s light to a l i e n i n g ol his ,_asc within reasonable time by the a p p i o p n a t e Coin I as declaied by Ai title U) of our C onstitution and as p i o t c t l e d by the notion ol due process in A m e n u i n law is a v u y impoilanl tight And this Couil has stiessed its importance in seveial c.isis (sie //// Nuofuou ν (itnnel and Inotlui ( l % 5 ) I ( I « A2\ at ρ 411 and the u s e s quoted in (hat judgment dud) Considering theproteedings in this ease in the hghl ol the above we had v u y gieal dillicullv indeed, in avoiding a new lii.il lint in the paiiKulai eiieumstances ol Ihis e ise and (hi. vei ν exceptional conditions winch developed in lhe Uland sunn altei the conclusion of the hearing, when judg ment was ιest rved, we eventually reached the decision to avoid ,t re-tual (
- c)Bui notwithstanding this, v\e must say how undesirable is suih a big delay between the closing of the hearing and the dehvei ν ot judgment especially in cases which Uuη on issues ol Iact as in this case And how the piecemeal healing could have aflccied the Imdings of the tnal C o u i l , resting on evidence taken in SIR h manner \ppeal dismissed a\ to tosts •Ml Λ*» oidtr ** |,,(,ί * June 9 PETROSANTONIOU '•· COSTS referred to : Mamas v. Anna Tyres (leported in this Part at p. \5X ante); lift Nicolaou v. Uuvrieland Another
(1965)1 C.L.R. 421 YASHAR ELMAZ a l ΛNO ANOTHLK 4 3 , . Nicola v. Chhstofi and Another
(1965)1C.L.R. 324 at p. 338; Tsiartas and Another v. Yiapana 1962 C.L.R. 198, at p.
- Appeal. ° Appeal against the judgment of the District Court of Limassol (llkay & Stavrinakis D.JJ.) dated the 3rd January, 1966 (Action No. 300/63) dismissing an action for damages for injuries in a traffic accident. ,1/. lioury with M. Koumas and St. <
- Mcliride, for the appellant. I. M. licrberoglou, for the respondents. The judgment of the Court was delivered by : VASSII.IAIUS, J. : We have carefully and exhaustively discussed the position arising in this appeal. Ίhe subject matter of the appeal is a judgment of the Distnct Court of Limassol in a civil action heard before a bench of two Judges, challenged by the appellant on the ground that the reasoning behind the findings on which the judgment rests, is unsatis factory. Another ground on which the appeal is taken, is that a period of over two years elapsed between the last hear ing of the case and the delivery of judgment ; on this ground the appellant prays for a rc-hearing " in the interests of jus tice ", as he put it. The findings of the trial Court are crucial in this appeal, as the issue of liability is the main dispute ; and it turns on such findings. Our approach, as an appellate Court, at this stage of the case, must be to consider and determine the ques tion whether it was open to the trial Court, on the evidence before them, to make the findings in question. Regardless of what view we might take of the evidence in the first instance, we think that it was open to the trial Judges to find as they did. The next question raised by the appellant, is whether the reasoning behind the findings of the trial Court is unsatis factory to the extent of justifying intervention by this Court. 212 The position regarding findings o f fact by the trial Court, when considered on appeal, is now well settled in a number o f cases, to which I need not specifically refer, except for Manias v. Ίlie Anna Tyres ( i c p o i l e d in ibis Pait at p. 158 ante) where the matter was again raised. ,%f > une PMROSANIONIMU ''• YASHAK ELMAZ AND \NOTHER The findings in the case under consideration, present con s i d e r a t e difficulty ; they were discussed in the light o f able argument on both sides ; but eventually the view prevailed that on the evidence before the Court, they could be made, and no sufficient reasons have hcen shown for disturbing Ihem. The ne\l matter which calls for consideration is the irre gularity of the proceedings'. This Court has repeatedly expressed its view regarding the proper prosecution oi" trials. The l i tigant's right to a hearing of his case " within a reasonable I'ine ", by the appropriate Court, as declared in Article 30 οϊ oin Constitution, and as protected by the notion o f " due process " in American Law, is a very important right And this ( ouri has stressed its impoitance in several cases. I shall only icier heiv to lljiNicohuui v. (torrid and Another (.!%'>) 1 ( .1 R ρ "·12Ι. l"hc President o f this Court, M i . Justice '/ekia, delivering the judgment o f the Court had this lo say. as reported at ρ 4 i l · ' i n . l i l y v.v desire to e\piess once more mir disapproval * foi the delays in (he hearing of cases. In a icceiil judg ment (Ninthi' ν ί hristofi ami Another (196!)) I C.L.R. 324 at p. 3 i S ; we had occasion to reiterate our pre vious observations deprecating the piecemeal hearing o f ca.scs and the delays in the delivery o f reserved j u d g ments. We also expressed (he view that adjournments «•hould. a- fa ι as possible, be avoided except in unusual circumstances, mid that once a trial was begun, it should proceed continuously day in and day out, where pos sible, uiinl its conclusion, (see also Tsiartas ami Another v. Ynipaiuu l%2 C L.R. ρ 198 at p. 2 0 7 ) " . Coivadeung the proceedings in this case in the light o\' the nbo.e, we had veiy great difficulty indeed, in avoiding a new * trial with the ennseipieul lurthei delay and expense. In the particular eircuuKlances o f this case, and the conditions ν hich devehip-.-d in the island soon after the conclusion o f the hear ing, when judgment was reset vc-d, we eventually reached. the decision 1> avoid a re-trial. But I may say that the case 213 iyw. balanced a good deal on this question. And I repeat that "e it was with very great difficulty that we did not find ourselves pFiRtwANroNiou compelled to order a rc-trial. Jil /Λ YASIMR RLMAZ AM> ANorHt-R 1 need not go into further detail ; a mere look at the record j s sufficient to show how this trial proceeded, and how the piecemeal hearing must have affected the findings of the trial Court, resting on evidence taken in such manner. Very exceptional and unfortunate circumstances did take place in this Island soon after the conclusion of the trial, which probably arc, in a way, the cause of the delay ; or at least part of the delay, in delivering the judgment οΓ the trial Court. But, notwithstanding this, we must say that the case in hand is yet one more case showing how undesirable is such a big delay between the closing of the hearing and the delivery of the judgment ; especially in cases which turn on issues of fact as in this case. With all that in mind, however, we did, even tually, reach the conclusion that in the interests ofjustice a re-trial should be avoided ; and this litigation over an acci dent which occurred in October 1962, should at this long end come to a conclusion. In the result the appeal fails ; and is dismissed. But, in the circumstances, we think wc should make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. ( 214