(1981)1981 November 17 [LORIS, STYLIANIDES, PIKIS, JJ.] PIONEER CANDY LTD. AND ANOTHER, Appellants-Defendants. v. STELIOS TRYFON & SONS LTD., Respondents-Plaintiffs. (CivilAppealNo. 6075). Reasoned judgment—Article 30.2 of the Constitution—Principles applicable—Elements required torenderjudgment a duly reasoned onetotallylacking—Judgment notreasonedinthesenseofArticle 30.2 of the Constitution—Set aside—New trial ordered before a new bench. 5 At the commencement of the hearing of this appealcounsel were invited to address theCourt on the preliminary issue as to whether or not thejudgment appealed from was a reasoned one; and counsel agreed that the judgment under appeal was not a duly reasoned one as mandatorily required by Article 10 30.2 of the Constitution. Held, that for the requirement of due reasoning there must be an analysis of the evidence adduced in the light of the issues as arising and defined by the pleadings, concrete findings as the necessary prelude to thejudgment of theCourt and a clear 15 judicial pronouncement indicating the outcome of the case; that these elements are totally lacking in the present case; that, therefore, thejudgment under appeal isnotreasoned inthesense of Article 30.2; accordingly it is set aside and a new trial of the action before a new bench is ordered. 20 Appeal allowed. New trial ordered. Cases referred to: loannidou v. Dikeos
(1969)1 C.L.R. 235. 540 1 CX.R. Pioneer Candy Ltd, γ. Tryfon & Sons Appeal. Appeal by defendants against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia (Chr. Ioannides, P.D.C.) dated the 31st December, 1976 (Action" No. 2461/73) whereby they' were 5 adjudged to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of £1,627.790 mils due by the defendants on account·offivebills. E. Vrahimi (Mrs.), for the appellants. P. Sarris,for the respondent. LORIS J. gave the following judgment of the Court. At 10 the commencement of the hearing of the present appeal we invited theadvocates appearingtoaddress usonthepreliminary issue as to whether or notthejudgment appealed from, in the light of the contents of the judgment, is a reasoned one as required by Article 30.2 of the Constitution and the inherent 15 attributes of the judicial process. Counsel agreed that thejudgment under appeal is not a duly reasoned one as mandatorily required by the Constitution. The authorities establish that for the requirement of due reasoning, there must bs:20 (a) An analysis of the evidence adduced in the light of the issues as arising and defined by the pleadings; (b) Concrete findings as the necessary prelude to the judgment of the Court; and, 25 (c) A clearjudicial pronouncementindicatingthe outcome of the case. (Theodora Ioannidou v. Charilaos Dikeos,
(1969)1 CX.R. 235). These elements are totally lacking in the present case, a fact evident from the judgment itself. We are,therefore,driven tothe conclusionthat thejudgment 30 under appeal is not reasoned in the sense of Article 30.2 of the Constitution. In fact such judgment, as pronounced, does not amount to a sufficient judicial determination of the disputes between the parties. For all the foregoing reasons we order that the judgment 35 underappeal be set aside andwe ordera new trial of theaction 541 Loris J. Pioneer Candy Ltd. v. Tryfon & Sons
(1981)before a new Bench. In view of the fact that the present appeal refers to Action No.2461/73,that isto say, toanaction raised in 1973, we trust that all necessary arrangements will be made to ensure a speedy new trial. The costsof thefirsttrial to becostsin the causeinthe new 5 trial; the same to apply to the costs of this appeal, subject to such costs not becoming in any event costs against the appellants. Appealallowed. Newtrialordered before a new Bench. Orderfor 10 costs asabove. 542