1C.L.R. 1987February13 (PIKIS,J) INTHE MATTEROF THEAPPLICATION OFPANICOSEFTHYMIOU,OFNICOSIA,FOR LEAVE TOAPPLY FORANORDEROFCERTIORARI, AND INTHE MATTEROFANORDERAND/ORJUDGMENTOF THE RENTCONTROLCOURTOFNICOSIA,DATED10121986, INAPPLICATIONSNOS E43/85ANDΕ308/86 (Civil Appl No 23/87) 5 10 15 Prerogativeorders—Certiorari—Leavetoapply—Pnnaplesapplicable—Purpose ofcertioran—JudgmentsandordersofRentControlCourt—Amenabletothe jurisdiction underArticle1554 of the Constitution—Right of audience safeguarded byArticle 303 of the Constitution—Modification ofan order issuedbythesaidCourtinproceedings inwhich applicant wasapartybya subsequentorderofthatCourtIssuedinapplicant'sabsenceinproceedings inwhichhewasnotaparty—Primafacieapplicantisentitledtorelief—Leave granted TheapplicantcomplainsthathisnghtsunderanorderoftheRentControl Court dated 20985 andissued mproceedings in which hewasaparty, having been sued bythe ownersof the premisesinhis capacity as tenant, were prejudicedbythe orderimpugnedissuedon101286inproceedings betweentheownersandathirdparty,whohadbeensuedassub-tenantofthe premises Perusal of therecord clearly suggest that thesecond orderwas madeinapplicant's absence ~ Held,grantingleave toapplyforanorderofcertioran
(1)Leavetoapply depends ontheapplicant makingoutapnmafaciecaseofentitlementtothe remedy ofcertioran Atthisstageitissufficient ifthefactsdisclosed,pondered ontheirfacevalue,justify thereliefsought 20 25 (2}Thejudgmentsand orders oftheRentControl Courtareamenableto judicialreviewunderArticle 1554oftheConstitution
(3)Thegnevanceoftheapplicant isthathisnghtsweresenously curtailed without noticeoropportunity todefend them mbreach ofthe furfdamental nght ofaudience before aCourtofLawsafeguarded byArticle303ofthe . Constitution Pnmafacieapplicant appearstobeentitledtorelief Leavegranted 17
(1987)In re Efthymlou Casesreferredto. R v. BodminJusticesU947] 1 All E.R. 109; ReKakos
(1985)1 C.L.R.250; Frangosv.MedicalDisciplinaryBoard
(1983)1C.L.R.256; ReHjiCostas
(1984)1 CL.R.513. 5 ReDroushiotis
(1981)1 C.L.R
- Application. Application for leaveto apply for an order of certiorari to bring up and quash an order oftheRentControlCourtofNicosia dated 10.12.
- A. Ladas,for the applicant. Cur.adv. vult. PIKISJ. read the following judgment. Thisisan application of Panicos Efthymiou, for leave to apply for an order ot certiorari to bring up with a view to quashing an order of the Rent Control 15 Court of 10th December, 1986, allegedly prejudicing his rights without opportunity having been afforded to him to be heard in thematterofthejudicialcause.The orderimpugned modified and amended an earlier order of the Court (made on 20.9.1985) notwithstanding the fact that the parties in the two proceedings 20 were not the same. Whereas the applicant was a party to the proceedings that led to the order of 20th September, 1985, sued by the owners in the capacity of tenant of the premises, the subsequent order of 10th December, 1986, was made in the context of proceedings between the owners and the third party 25 sued as sub-tenant of the premises. Itisthecasefortheapplicanttheorderof 10thDecember, 1986, was made in his absence and in derogation of his rights safeguarded by the order of the 20th September,
- Seemingly the order of 10th December, 1986, purported to do 30 away with therightacknowledged tothe applicant bythe orderof 20th September, 1985,toa newtenancy upon payment of a sum of £9,000.- to Androulla Elia described as sub-tenant of the premises.Perusal ofthe recordoftheproceedingsassociated with the order of 10th December, 1986,clearlysuggeststheorderwas 3 5 made in the absence of the applicant. Should the Court upon 18 10 1 C.L.R- In re Efthymlou Pikls J - these facts give leave to apply for certiorari? The jurisdiction to makean order ofcertiorari, counsel submitted, isreadily invoked in aid of a party praying for the quashing of an order made in breach of fundamental norms of the administration ofjustice*. 5 Leave to apply for certiorari is dependent on the applicant making out a prima facie case of entitlement to the remedy of certiorari. The attributes of a prima facie case were thoroughly discussed by the Full Bench in the case of Re Kakos**. The applicant's case need not, at this stage, appear to be 10 incontrovertible; itissufficient ifthe facts disclosed, pondered on their face value, justify the relief sought. The range of the jurisdiction of theSupeme Court under Art. 155.4wasdebated in Frangos v. Medical Disciplinary Board***, ft is primarily jurisdiction of a corrective character designed to enable the 15 Supreme Court to ensure that inferior Courts within the limitsof theirjurisdiction and inaccordance with fundamental preceptsof justice. In Re HjiCostas****\iwas decided that judgments and orders of the Rent Control Court are amenable tojudicial review under Art. 155.
- There are dicta to the same effect inthe earlier 20 case of ReDroushiutis*****. It follows that the order sought to be reviewed, made by the Rent Control Court on 10th December, 1986, isamenable to the jurisdiction of the Court bymeans of certiorari and, the complaint made of a character that could ground the remedy of certiorari. 25 ~The grievance of the applicant is that his rights,were seriously curtailed without notice or opportunity to defend them in breach of the fundamental right of audience before a Court of law safeguarded by Art.30.
- Prima facie applicant appears to be entitled to relief. Therefore, leave is hereby granted to apply for 30 certiorari.The application must be filed within 10 days and itwill be heeded bythe Court on 12th March,
- Application granted. *R. v. BodminJustices
(1947)1 ALLER 109. **
(1985)1C.LR.250 *** (198311C.LR256 ****
(1984)1 C.L R513. '•"*
(1981)1CLR.708 19