(1983)1982 December 15 [HADJIANASTASSIOU. LORIS, PIKIS, JJ.] CHRISTOFOROS SIETTOULOU, Appellant-Plaintiff. ANDREAS TRIMIKLINIOTIS, Respondent-Defendant. (Civil Appeal No. 6337). trespass to land—Extent of land alleged to be trespassed upon very small—Impossibility of establishing trespass over area of such a small extent. Practice—Adjournment—Leading to piling of costs altogether out of proportion to the dispute—Deprecated—Court refraining from making an order for costs. 5 This was an appeal against a judgment dismissing plaintiff's action for trespass. According to the evidence of a D.L.O. clerk the trespass was committed over an area of 5-6 sq. feet; and according to another D.L.O. clerk the trespass was over JQ •Λ smaller area ranging from half to two feet. Held, that although the judgment of the trial Court is not .is well reasoned, as it might be, having regard to the evidence, and not altogether happily worded, nevertheless, there is little room for this Court to interfere having regard to the evidence j5 before the Court and the virtual impossibility of establishing trespass over an area of such a small extent; accordingly the appeal must fail.
(2)That the costs incurred in this case, because of the numerous adjournments for which this Court expresses its 20 consideration, were altogether out of proportion to the dispute of the parties; accordingly this Court will refrain from making an order for costs. Appeal dismissed. 140 1 C.L.R. Sicttoulou v. Trimikliniotis Appeal. Appeal by plaintiff against the judgment of the District Court of Lnnassol (Artemis, D.J.)dated the 10thOctober, 19SI (Action No. 512/77) whereby hisaction for trespass and nuisan5 cecommitted by the defendant by an encroachment on his land was dismissed. A'. Kyriakides, for the appellant. A. Neocleous, for the respondent. HADJIANASTASSIOU J. gave the following judgment of the 10 Court. This is an appeal against the decision of the District Court of Limassol dismissinganaction fortrespassandnuisance, allegedly committed by the respondent at the expense of the appellant by an encroachment on his land adjoining to that of the respondent, and the alteration of existing state of affairs,in 15 connection with a water channel and theflow of watei over the roof of a building standing on the land of the respondent. The facts Before thetrial Court there wasevidence coming mainly from the pariies and two D.L.O. clerks tending to shed light on the 20 boundaries of the properties and theresponsibility of a trespass and nuisance having been committed. The parties offered conflicting evidence as the trial Court noted, whereas the evidence of the two clerks wasfound to be inconclusive. Oneof them spoke of thepossibility ofa trespass 25 having been committed over an area of 5- 6 sq.ft, whereas the other spoke of a possibility of encroachment over a still smaller area ranging from half to two feet. The unevenness of the surface made thetask of this witness harder still and in theend as both stated before the trial Court they could not ignore the 30 possibility of an error in their calculations. To put himself better in thepicture the trial Judge visited the locus without success. Speaking of such a small area a visit to the locus washardly designed to reveal whether there existed a trespass over such a small area of land. Finally the trial 35 Court dismissed both the action for trespass and nuisance with costs against the appellant. Appeal The appeal was directed against both parts of the judgment 141 Hadjianaslassiou J. Siettoulou v. Trimikliniutis (Ι!>Ε3) but at the hearing before us the decision entailing the dismissal of the action for nuisance was withdrawn. Today we are only concerned todecidethecorrectnessof thedecision regarding the the question of trespass. AJthough the judgment of the trial ; Court s notas wellreasoned,as itmightbe,having regard tothe 5 evidence, and not altogether happily worded, nevertheless, thereis littleroom for ustointerfere having regard totheeviden ce before the Court and the virtual impossibility of establishing trespass over an area of such a small extent. That being the case, wc feel constrained to dismiss the appeal and uphold the 10 judgment. Before concluding we must express our conster nation at the time taken to conclude this case because of the numerous adjournments and the costs that eventually piled up. With thisinmindwedonotfeel weshall exceed thelimits of our discretion if we refrain from making an order for costs in this 15 appeal. We have the fesling that the costs incurred in this case are altogether out of proportion to the dispute of the parties. This is a factor to be taken into consideration in adjudging costs. Appeal dismissed without costs. 20 Appealdismissed without costs. 142