(1984)1984 August 24 [A. Loizou, MALACHTOS AND STYLIANIDES, JJ.] MICHAEL CHRtSTOU AND ANOTHER, Appellants-Defendants, v. MARIA ANGELIDOU AND ANOTHER, Respondents-Plaintiffs. (CivilAppealNo. 6632). Reasonedjudgment—Tried Judgefailing todetermine theissues which had arisenandgive reasonsfor his decision—New trial ordered —Article 30.2 of theConstitution. Civil Procedure—Trial Judgefailing to evaluate, analyse or even refer to evidence of a materialwitness—And to determinethe 5 issues whichhad arisenandgive reasons for his decision—His judgment not amounting toa sufficient judicialdetermination of the disputesbetween theparties—New trial ordered. The appellants-defendants were found 30% to blame for an accident in the course of which a motor-lcrry driven by 10 appellant 1 collided with a car driven by respondent 1. The collision occurred whilst respondent 1 was in the process of overtaking appellant 1 and whilst the latter was about to turn to the right. The trial Judge in bis judgment referred to the evidence of the two parties in the litigation but failed 15 completely to evaluate, analyse or even refer to the evidence of a witness who supported the version of the appellant. Upon appealby thedefendants: Held, that thejudgment does not amount to a sufficient judicial determination of the disputes between the parties; that 20 the trial Court failed to determine the issues which had arisen and give reasons for his such decision; and that accordingly the judgment under appeal must be set aside and a new trial of the actions before a new Bench is ordered (see Article 30.2 of the Constitution). 25 Appeo.1allowed Newtrialordered. 492 1 CX.R. 5 ChristouandAnotherv.AngelldouandAnother Cases referred to: Papaellina v. EPCO (Cypns) Ltd.andLion Products Ltd.
(1967)1 C.L.R. 338 at p. 362; PioneerCandy Ltd. andAnother v. Stelios Tryplion& Sons Ltd.
(1981)1 C.L.R. 540 at p.541; loannidou v. Dikaeos
(1969)1 C.L.R. 235; Chambou andOthers v. MichaelandAnother
(1981)1 C.L.R. 618; Bray andAnotherv. Palmer[1953] 2 All E.R.
- 10 Appeal. Appeal by defendants against the judgment of the District Court of Limassol (Korfiotis, D.J.)dated the 30th September, 1983 (Actions Nos. 2211/79 and 2212/79) whereby they were found 30% to blame for an accident in which the plaintiffs 15 sustained personal injuries and material damage to property. J. Mavronicolas, for the appellants. N. Pelides, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. A. Loizou J.: Thejudgment of the Court will be delivered 20 by H.H. Judge Stylianides. STYLIANJDES J.: This appeal is directed against a judgment of the District Couit of Limassol whereby the appellants were found 30%to blame for an accident in which the respondents sustained persoual injuries and material damage to property. 25 Appellant No. 1atthe material time wasdriving motor-lorry F.U. 682carrying cement in thecourse of hisemployment with appellants No.
- Respondent-plaintiff in Action No. 2212/79 wastheowner anddriver ofmotor-vehicle D.J.001havingashis only passengei his wife, respondent-plaintiff in Action No. 30 2211/
- The special damages were agreed and the Court assessed the generaldamagesforpersonal injuries ofthe respondents. There is no complaint against such assessment. The appellants* motor-lorry wasbeing driven along the main 35 Nicosia-Limassol road, followed by another lorry of appellants No. 2, driven by D.W.3, Thalis Katsounotos. 493 Stylianides J. Christou and Another v. Angelideu and Another
(1984)Both drivers involved as well as Katsounotos testified before the trial Court. It was the version of the respondent-driver that he overtook the lorry driven by Katsounotos before negotiating a curve, then he followed the lorry driven by the appellant and when he was 5 sure that it was safe for him to overtake appellant's lorry, he indicated hissuchintention, sounded thehorn, started overtaking but at the time of the overtaking, due to a right turning of appellants' lorry, an impact occurred between the left side of his car with the right part of the front mudguard of the lorry. The 10 driver of the lorry did not indicate in any way his intention to turn to the right towards a side-road leading to Vassiliko Chemical Industries Plant. It was the version of the appellant before the trial Court that he was driving motor-lorry F.U. 682followed by Thalis Katsou- 15 notos (D.W.3), who was driving trailer G.Q.I35; when he approached the side-road, he signalled with his hand and trafficator that he was about to turn right; he noticed that Katsounotos, who was following him, had noticed his signals and actually Katsounotos himself gave a similar signal withhishand. 20 Katsounotos testified that he noticed the signal of the trafficator and the hand of the preceding lorry; he signalled himself with his hand; then a Rover car, maintaining a high speed, overtook him and proceeded to overtake the front car of the appellant and thus the impact, as aforesaid, occurred. Both 25 Katsounotos and the appellant stated that no horn was hooted by the respondent-driver. It isan undisputed fact that fiom theend of the curve upto the opening of the side-road the distance is 800ft. and the visibility is unobstructed. The trial Judge in hisjudgment refeired to the evidence of the two parties in the litigation but failed completely to evaluate, analyse or even refer to the evidence of D.W.3, Katsounotos. He failed to reach a finding whether the appellant signalled, as he and Katsounotos testified; whether Katsounotos noticed the signal of the preceding car and he himself made a signal with hishand; whether therespondent-driver's car overtook Katsounotos's car before or long aftei the curve. 494 30 35 1 C L.R. Chrislou and Another v. Angelidou and Another Sljlianidcs J. There is a need for the trial Judge to formulate clearly in his judgment the specific issue or issues of fact arising between the parties and to state his finding on such issue or each one of such issues. Judges trying civil disputes should unfailingly do so. 5 (Papaellina v. EPCO {Cyprus) Ltd. and Lion Products Ltd.,
(1967)1 C.L.R. 338, at p. 362). Paragraph 2 of Article 30 of our Constitution provides that thejudgment of a Court in civil or criminal proceedings "shall be reasoned". 10 In Pioneer Candy Ltd. & Another v. Stelios Tryphon ά Sons Ltd.,
(1981)I C.L.R. 540, at p. 541, it was said:"The authorities establish that for the requirement of due reasoning, there must be: 15 (
- 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 (
- c)A clear judicial pronouncement indicating the out come of the case". 20 25 In the present case the judicial process was faulty. The judgment does not amount to a sufficient judicial determination of the disputes between the parties. The trial Court failed to deteimine the issues which had arisen, and give reasons for his such decision -(Theodora Ioannidou v.Charilaos Dikaeos,
(1969)1C.L.R. 235; Chambou&Others v. Michael & Another,
(1981)I C.L.R. 618). In Bray and Another v. Palmer,[1953] 2 All E.R. 1449, a new trial was ordered when the Judge did not come to some definite conclusion on the evidence, as he was unable to decide which party was in the right. For all the aforesaid reasons thejudgment under appeal is set aside and a new trial of the actions is ordered before a new Bench. 35 As the present appeal refers to an accident which occurred in 1978, we trust that all necessary arrangements will be madefor a speedy new trial. 495 Stylianides J. Christou andAnother v. Angelidou and Auother
(1984)The costs·of thefirst'trial'to1be costsin'the cause-in thenew trial, the same with1the'costs Before tHifrCourt, but not to1be against the appellants· at any rate. Appeal allowed. Re-trial ordered. 496