the above Article, 5 the validity of a final judgment of the Supreme Court given in a criminal appeal in the exercise of thejurisdiction
After Counsel for the applicant had been heard in support of applicant's application for orders ofcertiorari and prohibition, he applied for leave to amend the Statement which was filed in relation to his earlier application for leave to file the present application, which has, also, been based on the contents of such Statement. 10 By means of the application as originally framed applicant 15 sought orders ofcertiorari and prohibition in respect of a warrant for his arrest which was issued because of his failure to pay an amount of C£6,207 which he was ordered to pay by the District Court of Nicosia in criminal case No. 7780/
.4 of the Constitution, the validity of a final judgment of the Supreme Court given in a criminal appeal in the exercise of the 852 25 1 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 In re Petros Yerolemides jurisdiction
.1 of the Constitution; and it is quite clear from the order of this Court granting leave tothe applicant to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition in .the present instance that it was never intended to grant leave to him to test thereby the validity of the'judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid criminal appeal; and that had such leave been applied for it would, and could, never have been granted;, accordingly the application must fail. Held,further, that it is not permissible for an applicant to alter radically the basis on which leave was granted to himto apply forprerogative orders, suchasaretheorders of certiorari and prohibition which arebeing sought onthepresent occasion because according to the existing practice, the Statement filed insupport oftheapplication for leavetoapply foraprerogative order,
.4 of the Constitution, is, also,- relied on in support of the application for such an order which is filed after leave hasbeen granted in this respect; andthat, thus, any radicalamendment oftheStatement atthestageofthe hearingoftheapplication fortheprerogative order concerned would, in effect, result in rendering nugatory the prerequisite of leave and the proceedings for obtaining such leave. Application dismissed. Application. , Application for leave to amend the statement filed in relation 25 to applicant's earlier application whereby he applied for leave tofileanapplication seekingordersofcertiorari andprohibition. L.N. Clerides, for the applicant. L. Georghiadou {Mrs.), for the respondent. •• Cur. adv. vult. 30 TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the> following judgment. After this application, by means of which the applicant seeks orders of certiorari and prohibition, was filed, and after counsel for the applicant had been heard in support of it, he applied for leave to amend theStatement which was filedin relation tohis 35 earlier application for leave to file the present application, which has, also, been based on the contents of such Statement. Counsel for the respondent opposed the applied for, by counsel for the applicant, amendment of the said Statement. 853 Triantafyllides P. In re Petros Yerolemides In the form in which the present application is framed, pursuant to the leave granted by this Court, it is an application for orders of certiorari and prohibition in respect of a warrant for the arrest of the applicant which was issued because of his failure to pay an amount of C£6,207 which he was ordered to pay by the District Court of Nicosia in criminal case No. 7780/ 71.
.4 of the Constitution, the validity of a final judgment of the Supreme Court gi\en in a criminal appeal in the exercise of the juris- 20 diction
.1 of the Constitution; and it is quite clear from my order granting leave to the applicant to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition in the present instance that it was never intended to grant leave to him to test thereby the validity of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the afore- 25 said criminal appeal; and had such leave been applied for it would, and could, never have been granted. Moreover, it is. in any event, not permissible for an applicant to alter radically the basis on which leave was granted to him to apply for prerogative orders, such as are the orders of 30 certiorari and prohibition which are being sought on the present occasion. It must be borne in mind, in this respect, that, according to the existing practice, the Statement filed in support of the application for leave to apply for a prerogative order,
.4 of the Constitution, is, also, relied on in 35 support of the application for such an order which is filed after leave has been granted in this respect. Thus, any radical amendment of the Statement at the stage of the hearing of the application for the prerogative order concerned would, in effect, 854 1 C.L.R. In re Petros Yerolemides TrtantafyHides P. result in rendering nugatory the prerequisite of leave and the proceedings for obtaining such leave. So if in a case it is intended to seek a prerogative order on a radically different basis from that onwhich leavewasgranted to apply for such an order. 5 a new application for leave to apply for that order, supported by an appropriately amended Statement, should be filed all over again. In the light of all the foiegoing.1 dismiss the application for leave to amend the Statement in this case and. consequently. 10 the present application has to be determined on the basis of the Statement which was filed initially and on the strength of which leave was granted to file the present application. I do not propose to make an order as to the costs of the just dismissed application for amendment. 15 Application dismissed with no ordei as to costs. 855
AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.