(1980)1979 April 11 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., L. LOIZOU, SAVVIDES, JJ.] ANTHOULLA HERACLEOUS, Appellant-Defendant, v. KATER1NA NICOLA DEMETRIOU, Respondent-Plaintiff. (Civil Appeal No. 5720). Credibility of witnesses—Findingsof trialJudge as to,based oncogency of evidence and on demeanour of witnesses—Appellant failed to discharge onus of satisfying Court of Appeal that this is one of the exceptional cases in which it shouldinterfere withsuch findings. This appeal turned on the findings of the trial Court on the 5 credibility of the witnesses. The trial Judge accepted the evidence of the respondent as reliable and he stressed that he did so because hefound it to be cogent; he, also, said that he had based his finding as to the credibility of the respondent on her demeanour as a witness. 10 Regarding the evidence of the appellant, which was rejected, the trial Judge stated in hisjudgment that it was confused. Upon appeal by the defendant against the judgment of the trial Court adjudging her to pay the amount of C£58.850 mils to theplaintiff as balance due to her in respect of supply 15 of water: Held,that a perusal of the record of appellant's evidence shows that the view of the trial Judge, that such evidence was confused, was fully warranted; that the appellant has failed to satisfy this Court, by discharging the onus cast upon her, that this is one 20 of the exceptional cases in which this Court should interfere with the findings on credibility which were made by the trial Judge (see, inter alia, on this point Charalambides v. HjiSoteriou & Son,
(1975)1 C.L.R. 269, 277); and that, accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. 25 Appeal dismissed. 192 \ \ \ \ I C.L.R. 5 \ Heracleousτ. Demetrioa Cases referred to: Charalambides v. HjiSoteriouSTSon,
(1975)1 C.L.R. 269 at P· 277; Charilaou v. HjiGeorghiou(\916) 1 C.L.R. 193atp. 196; Achillides v. Michaelides
(1977)1 C.L.R. 172 at p. 179; VassilikoCement Works Ltd., v. Stavrou
(1978)1 C.L.R. 389 at p. 396; Kika v. Lazarou
(1979)1 C.L.R. 670 at p.
- Appeal. 10 Appeal by defendant against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia (Laoutas, D.J.) dated the 3rd May, 1977, (Action No. 491/77) whereby she was ordered to pay to plaintiff the sum of £58.850 mils as balance due in respect of .supplying. water_ to her^ __ _ 15 A. Danos, for the appellant. Chr. Ioannou, for the respondent. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.gave thefollowing judgment of the Court. This is a case in which the respondent, as plaintiff, brought an action against the appellant, as defendant, claiming an amount 20 of C£58.850 mils as balance due to her in respect of supplying water to theappellant during theperiod from April to November 1975, in accordancewith an oral agreement which was concluded between them in, or about, March
- The total value of the water supplied under the said agreement 25 was C£73.850 mils and, according to the evidence of the respondent, the appellant paid an amount of C£15 on August 26, 1975, leaving thus due a balance of C£58.850 mils. In this connection the respondent produced a detailed statement of account which was admitted in evidence without any objection 30 on the part of the appellant. 35 The appellant denied having made herself any agreement with the respondent regarding water supply as alleged by the respondent; she stated, however, that she did pay to the appel lant, on instructions of her mother,C£20,and not C£15,in 1976, and not in
- The trial Judge accepted the evidence of the respondent as reliable and he stressed that he did so because he found it to be 193 Triantafyllides P. Heradeoas ?. Demetriou
(1980)cogent; he, also, said that he had based his finding as to the credibility oftherespondent onherdemeanour asawitness. Regarding theevidence ofthe appellant, which thetrial Judge rejected, itisstated inhisjudgment that itwasconfused; andwe do, indeed, agree with him in this respect because a perusal of 5 the record of such evidence does show that his aforesaid view was fully warranted. As a result the trial Judge gave judgment in favour of the respondent in accordance with her claim. Weare of the opinion that the appellant has failed to satisfy 10 us, bydischarging the onuscast upon her, that thisisoneof the exceptional cases in which weshould interfere with the findings on credibility which weremadebythetrialJudge(see,interalia, on this point Charalambides v. HjiSoteriou & Son,
(1975)1 C.L.R. 269, 277, Charilaou v. Hji Georghiou,
(1976)1 C.L.R. 15 193, 196, Achillides v. Michaelides,
(1977)1 C.L.R. 172, 179, VassilikoCement WorksLtd. v. Stavrou,
(1978)1C.L.R. 389, 396, and Kikav.Lazarou,
(1979)1C.L.R. 670,676). We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs. Appealdismissed withcosts, 20 194