(1987)1987 October7 [SAWIDES, J} INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION PETER BROWN, Applicant, ν THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH 1 THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR, 2 THE DISTRICT LANDS OFFICER LIMASSOL, Respondents (Case No 150/86) Immovable property — Aliens— Acquisition of immovableproperty by aliens — TheImmovable PropertyAcquisition (Aliens)Law,Cap 109,asamended by Laws 52/69 and 55/72 — Section 4
(2)— Deed of trustconcerningland executed before the coming intooperationof Law55/72 — 77ie beneficiary thereunder, an alien, complied with requirements of section, but his applicationfor registration of thetrustwiththe DLO wasrefusedonground that it amounted to an acquisition of immovable property by an alien prohibited by section3 of the aforesaidlaws— Refusalannulled The applicant is an alien within the definition of s 2 of Cap 109 as amended by section 2 of Law 52/69andsection 2 of Law 55/72 The applicant is beneficiary under a deed of trust concerning a parcel of landsituated atYermasoyia village, Limassol Thedeed was executed before the coming intooperation of Law 55/72 On5 9 72 thedeed was presented to the Ministry of Intenorand was indorsed accordingly in accordance with section 4
(2)of Law 55/72, which reads asfollows 5 10 15 •Nothing in this Law provided shall affect the rights of an alien subsisting at the date of thecoming intooperation of this Law undera trust for hisbenefit relating, inwhole orinpart,toimmovable property, provided thatthedocumentcreating thesaid trustshall be produced to the Minister of Interior within two months of the said date for noting 2 0 thereon the date of its production, and such note of the date shall constituteundisputable evidence of theproductionof thedocumentas aforesaid» 1376 3C.L.R. Brownv. Republic On 8 2 85 theapplicant filed anapplication totheDistnctLands Office of Limassol for theregistration ofthesaidtrustinaccordancewiththe provisions of section 65E of the Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration and Valuation) Law, Cap 224, as amended by Law 2/78 ί* The DistrictOfficer refused registration of the trust,on the ground that it amountstoacquisition ofimmovable propertybyanalien,whichisprohibited by section3 of Cap 109, asamended Hence this recourse TheCourt,after citingtherelevant provisions of the aforesaid law 10 Held annullingthe subjudice decision
(1)Thecontentionof counsel for the respondent thatthe documentin question was nota deed of trust,buta contract for sale, was not raised or examined by the respondent before reachingthesubjudice decision 1& 20
(2)Inthelight of theprovisions of section4
(2)of Law 55/72 and oncethe prerequisites of suchsection hadbeen compliedwith,thesubject-matter trust deeddidnotfallwithintherestnctionsofthelawandwas notaffected thereby
(3)Intheresult respondent
(2)by refusing tohave thesaid deed registered for the reasons contained in his letter embodying the sub judice decision, operated under a misconception of law and his decision isin excessand/or abuse of his powers Subjudice decisionannulled Costsagainstrespondent Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to effect 25 registration of a piece of land at Yermasoyia village on the applicant as a beneficiary under a deed of trust executed on 25.6.1972. A. N.Lemis, for the applicant. Gl Hadjipetrou,for the respondents. 30 Cur. adv.vult. SAWIDES J. read the following judgment. The appltcant is a citizen of the United Kingdom and resides permanently abroad. He isthe beneficiary underadeed of trustexecuted on25.6.1972 concerning a parcel of land situated at Yermasoyia village, 35 Limassol. Such deed was presented on the5thSeptember, 1972, 1377 SawideaJ. Brownv.Republic
(1987)to the Ministry of Interior in accordance with the provisions of section 4
(2)of the Immovable Property Acquisition (Aliens) (Amendment) Law of 1972 (Law 55 of 1972) and was indorsed accordingly. On the8th February, 1985,theapplicantthrough hisadvocate, 5 filed an application totheDistrictLandsOffice of Limassolfor the registration of the said trust in accordance with the provisionsof section 65EoftheImmovable Property (Tenure,Registration and Valuation) Law, Cap. 224, as amended by Law No. 2/78. The District Lands Officer referred the matter to the office of the 10 Attorney-General of the Republic on whose advicehe refused to effect suchregistration andhisrefusal iscontained inaletterdated 20th December, 1985, addressed to the applicant's counsel the contentsof which read asfollows: «With reference toyourapplication dated 8.2.1985forthe 15 registrationofatrustoftheCompanySAVESTATESLTD.,of Limassol Iwishtoinform youthatthiscannotberegistered as it amounts to acquisition of immovable property by an alien which is prohibited under s. 3 of the Immovable Property Acquisition (Aliens) Law, Cap. 109 and the amending Laws 20 (Opinion oftheAttorney-General No.11(A)/44/l1 dated20/ 5/1985).» Asa result the applicant filed the present recourse challenging the above decision and prayingfor itsannulment. The following legal grounds were advanced in support of the 25 prayer: The respondents arbitrarily, wrongly and in violation of the provisionsof the Law, Cap. 109,asamended byLaw55of 1972 andinparticularsection4
(2)and/orinviolationofArticles146and 82 of the Constitution and/or in excess and/or abuse of powers 30 refused toregisterthesaidtrustinfavour of the applicant. Inarguing hiscasecounselforapplicantsubmittedthatthetrust deed inquestion wasexecutedbySavestates Co.Ltd.,the owner of the land and subject-matter of the deed, in favour of the applicant, prior to the enactment of Law 55/72, under the 35 provisionsofwhichanalienisprohibitedtoacquireanyinterestin immovable property without a permit from the Council of Ministers.Inanyevent, counsel contended, under the provisions of such law a trust deed executed prior to its enactment is 1378 3C.L.R. Brownv. Republic S a w l d · · J. excluded, provided it is presented to the Ministry of Interior for inspection and indorsement within two months from the date of the coming intooperation of the law. h thepresent case counsel argued the prohibition for the acquis.don of property by aliens 5 does not apply as the case of the applicant falls within the exceptions provided by the law. Therefore, the refusal of the District Lands Officer to accept the trust deed for registration is arbitrary, wrong andwas takeninabuse and/orexcessof powers. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the District Lands 10 Officer rightly refused to accept the said deed for registration as suchdeed, inthelightof itscontents,isinfact notatrustdeedbuta contract of sale by the owner of the land to the applicant, of the subject-matter property. Therefore, counsel added, theapplicant being an alien was prohibited by law to acquire any immovable 15 property withoutapermitfrom theCouncilof Ministersandinthe present case nosuch permithad been obtained. It is common ground thatfor the purposes of thepresent case the applicant is an alien within the definition of s. 2 of the Immovable Property Acquisition (Aliens) Law, Cap.' 109 as 20 amendedby section2ofLaw 52 of 1969, andsection2ofLaw55/ 72. Section3 of theLaw, Cap. 109hasbeen repealed and replaced by section 3 of the Immovable Property Acquisition (Aliens) (Amendment) Law of 1972 (Law 55/72) which provides as 25 follows: «3-(DΑπαγορεύεταιηυ π όαλλοδαπού κτήσις,άλλως ή αιτία θανάτου, ακινήτου ιδιοκτησίας άνευ προηγουμένης αδείας του Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου.» The English translation reads. 30 (*3-(l)No alien shall acquire, otherwise than mortis causa, any immovable property withoutthepermitof theCouncilof Ministersfirstobtained») The word «acquisition of immovable property» as defined in sub-section 6 of section 3 includes interalia: 1379 SawtdesJ. Brownv.Republic
(1987)«(γ) την δημιουργίαν καταπιστεύματος π ρ ο ς όφελος αλλοδαπού το οποίον α φ ο ρ ά , εν όλω ή εν μέρει, εις ακίνητον ιδιοκτησίαν, μίσθωσιν ακινήτου ιδιοκτηοίας εμπίπτουσαν εις τας διατάξεις της π α ρ α γ ρ ά φ ο υ (α) ή μετοχήν εταιρείας της οποίας η κτήσις εμπίπτει εις τας 5 διατάξεις της π α ρ α γ ρ ά φ ο υ (θ).» The English translation reads. («(c)thecreation of atrust for thebenefit of an alien relating, in whole or in part, to immovable property, to the lease of immovableproperty fallingwithin theprovisionsofparagraph (a) or to a share in a company the acquisition of which falls within the provisionsof paragraph (b).») 10 Furthermore under sub-section
(4)of section 3 it is provided that: («
(4)Ουδέν των εν τ ω παρόντι Νόμω 15 διαλαμβανομένων επηρεάζει το δικαίωμα αλλοδαπού ό π ω ς προβή εις τας εν τω άρθρω 2του περί Πωλήσεως Γαιών (Ειδική Εκτέλεσις) Νόμου αναφερόμενος ενεργείας.») The English translation reads. 20 («
(4)Nothing in this law provided shallaffect therightof an alien to do any act specified in section 2 of the Sale of Lands (Specific Performance) Law.») And section 4
(2)provides: «
(2)Ουδέν των εν τ ω παρόντι Νόμω διαλαμβανομέ- 25 νων επηρεάζει τα κατά την ημερομηνίαν της ενάρξεως της ισχύος αυτού υφιστάμενα δικαιώματα αλλοδαπού δυνάμει καταπιστεύματος π ρ ο ς όφελος αυτού αφορώντος, εν όλω ή εν μέρει, εις ακίνητον ιδι.οκτησίαν, νοουμένου ότι το έγγραφον της δημιουργησάσης το εν 30 λόγω καταπίστευμα πράξεως θ α προσαχθή εις τον Υπουργόν Εσωτερικών, εντός δύο μηνών α π ό της ρηθείσης ημερομηνίας, ίνα σημειωθή επ' αυτού η ημερομηνία της προσαγωγής του, η δε τοιαύτη σημείωσις της ημερομηνίας θα συνιστά 35 αναμφισβήτητον απόδειξιν της ω ς εν τοις ανωτέρω προσαγωγής του εγγράφου.» The Englishtranslation reads. 1380 3C.L.R. 5 10 Brown v. Republic SawidesJ. («
(2)Nothing inthis Law provided shall affect therightsof an alien subsistingatthe date ofthe comingintooperationof this Law under a trust for hisbenefit relating, in whole orin part, to immovable property, provided that the document creating the said trust shall be produced to the Minister of Interior within twomonthsofthesaiddate fornoting thereon the date of its production, and such note of the date shall constitute undisputable evidence of the production of the document as aforesaid.») Having dealt with the relevant legal provisions Iam revemng now tothe facts ofthe case. Theopinion ofthe office ofthe Attorney-General onwhich the DistrictLandsOfficer reliediscontainedinaletterdated20thMay, 1985,addressedtotheDirectorofLandsandSurveyswhich reads 15 as follows:-Irefer toyour letterNo. 102/54 of the 10th May.1985. 20 2. The creation of a trust amounts to acquisition of immovable property by an alien, which is prohibited by section 3 of the Immovable Property Acquisition (Aliens) Law.» There isnodoubtthatthecreation ofatrustinfavourofanalien amounts to acquisition of an interest in land in accordance with section 3
(6)(c) of Law 55 of 1972 which under the provisionsof sectio 3
(1)of the Law, Cap. 109,as amended by Law55/72,is 25 prohibited savewith the permission ofthe Council ofMinisters. Nothing ismentioned inthe above opinion of theprovisionsof section 4
(2)ofLaw55/72 andwhether undersuch provisionsthe trust deed in question was or was not exempted from the operation of the provisions of the law. Nor did the Director of 30 Lands and Surveys enquire further whether the trust deed in question wassoexempted ornot,buthetookitasgrantedthatthe creation of atrustwasprohibited generally. According to his written address,counsel for the respondents contended thatthetrustdeed inquestion isnotinfactatrustdeed 35 butisanagreement forthesaleofproperty. Such matterwas not raised bythe District LandsOfficer inhis replytothe applicant inwhichthereasongivenfornotaccepting 1381 SavvldesJ. Brownv.Republic
(1987)registration of the trust isthat a trust deed cannot be created in favour of an alien as it amounts to acquisition of immovable property by an alien. This leads to the inference that the application wasconsidered allalongon thatbasisonly. The situation in the present case isverysimple.There isatrust 5 deed which wasinexistence priortothecomingintooperationof Law55/72.Such trustdeedwaspresented bytheapplicanttothe MinistryofInteriorwithintheperiodprescribed undersection4
(2)of Law55/72 and itwasindorsed with the date of itsproduction. In the light of the provisions of section 4
(2)of Law 55/72 and 10 oncetheprerequisites ofsuchsectionhadbeen compliedwiththe subject-matter trust deed did not fall within the restrictions of the lawand wasnotaffected thereby. In the result respondent
(2)by refusing to have the said deed registered for the reasons contained in his letter embodying the 15 sub judice decision, operated under a misconception of law and hisdecision isinexcessand/or abuse ofhispowers. Fortheabovereasonsthisrecoursesucceedsandthesubjudice decision ishereby annulled with costsinfavour ofthe applicant. Sub judice decision annulled withcostsin favourof applicant 1382 20