3C.L.R 1987 June 2 [A LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, LORIS. PIK1S, KOURRIS.JJ ] THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION {NO3), Appellant-Respondent, v. MARINA POTOUDES ANDOTHERS, Respondents-Applicants (RevisionalJunsdichon 5 Appeal No 680) Revisional Junsdichon Appeal — Issues not raised by the nouce of appeal — Whether such issues can be raised— Subject to exceptions enumerated in Marathefhs andAnother ν TheRepublic
(1986)3 C LR 1407 and Republic ν Lefkos Georghiades
(1972)3CLR 594, the question isansweredin the negative Revisional Junsdichon appeal — Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules — Applicablemutatis mutandis invirtueof theAppeals(RevisionalJurisdiction) Rules, 1964 10 The question in issue is the amenity of an interested party, arguing in support of an appeal, filed by the respondents in the recourse (appellants before thisCourt)totake up apointnotraised inthenoticeof appeal Held,
(1)Therelevant rules* makeapplicable mutatismutandisOrder35of the Civil Procedure Rules 15 20
(2)The fact thattheappeal isby way of rehearing doesentailthattheissues intheappeal areidentical tothose of therecourse Subject tothe exceptions enumeratedinRepublic ν MarathefhsandAnother {1986)3C LR 1407 and Republic ν Lefkos Georghiades(1972}3 CLR 594 theissuesina revisional appeal areconfined tothose raised by thenoticeof appeal Casesreferred to Republic ν Marathefhs andAnother
(1986)3 C L R 1407, BrancoSalvageLtd ν Republic
(1967)3 C L R 213, Georghiou ν Republic
(1968)1CLR 411, Cypnan Seaway Agencies Ltd ν flepub/ic
(1981)3 C LR 271, Christouν Republic
(1982)3 CLR 634, *TheAppeals(RevisionalJurisdiction)Rules, 1964 1049 P.S.C.(Νο.3)ν,Potoude»&Others
(1987)Republicv. Uverdos
(1985)3C.L.R.935; PresidentoftheRepublicv.LoucaandAnother
(1984)3C.L.R. 241; Republicv. LefkosGeorghiades
(1972)3CLR.594. Application. Application byinterestedparriesarguing insupportofanappeal taken by respondentsatthetrialCourt,now appellants,totake up a pointnotraised inthe noticeof appeal. 5 A. Vladimirou, for the appellant. A. Angelides, A. Ladas and N. Papaefstathiou, for the respondents. 10 L. Papaphilippou, for the interested parties. A. LOIZOU J.: The InterimDecision of the Courtwillbe given by Pikis, J. PIKIS J.: What is immediately at issue is the amenity of an interested party arguing in support of an appeal taken by the 15 respondents at the trial Court,appellants before us, to take up a pointnotraised inthenoticeofappeal.Relying ontheauthorityof Republic v. Maratheftis and Another* counsel submitted thatthe proposed course isfeasible considering thateverything isinissue on appeal and that the proceedings in essence involve 20 reassessment of thefactual andlegalimplicationsofthesub judice decision. The point decided in Maratheftis (supra) is a narrower one confined to the proposition thata pointtaken up before the trial Courtand left undecided because of the disposal of the case on othergrounds, may be pursued on appeal. 25 The rules regulating the exercise of revisional jurisdiction on appeal** make applicable mutatis mutandis the provisions of Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Branco Salvage Ltd. v. Republic***and Nih Chr. Georghiou v. Republic**** decide that Ord. 35 finds 30 *
(2986)3CLR. 1407,
- " 1964Appeals{RevisionalJurisdiction)Rules• OfficialGazetteNo. 368, 19thNovember,
- **·
(1967)3CLR. 213. ·***
(1968)1 CLR. 411. 1050 3CUR P.S.C(No.3)v.Potoude*&Oth«i» PfUaJ. application inappellaterevisionalproceedingsinmuchthesame wayasitdoesincivilappeals(AlsoseeCyprianSeawayAgencies Ltd. v. The Republic*;David Chnstou v. The Republic**; Republic v. Liverdos***; The President of the Republic v. 5 YiannakisLoucaandAnother****-FullBench). In Republicv. Lefkos Georghiades***** it was decided that a first instance Court of revisional jurisdiction may, if it is considered unnecessary forthepurposesofdetermination ofthe case,refrain from determiningallgroundsputforward insupport 10 ofthemotionforannulment.Butthesuccessfulpartymay,iffaced with an appeal, seek the determination of unresolved issuesby wayofcross-appeal. Inthepresentcasetheissuethatcounselfortheinterestedparty wishestoraiseiswhollyoutsidethegroundsofappealandonthat 15 accountitcannotbeheeded.Thefactthatproceedingsonappeal arebywayofrehearingdoesnotentailthattheissuesonappeal are identical to those raised before the trial Court. They are confined tothoseissuesmadethesubject ofappealinthenotice ofappealsubjecttotheexceptionsenumeratedinMaratheftisand 20 Georghiades(supra). Counselwillnotbeallowedonbehalfoftheinterestedpartyto raisethepointhewishestotakeasitisnotaground raisedinthe noticeofappeal. Orderaccordingly. '
(1981)3CLR.271. "
(1982)3CLR.634. **·
(1985)3CLR.935. •—
(1984)3 CLR.241.
(1972)3CLR.594. 1051