(1987)1986February8 [TRIANTAFYLUDES. P.J INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION
- ZENADEMETRIOU,
- AKISDEMETRIOU, Applicants, •v. THEMUNICIPALCOMMITTEEOFNICOSIA, Respondent. (CasesNos. 22/84,23/84). Time within which to file a recourse — 'Complete knowledge» of sub judice decision—An essentialelement, whichsetsinmotion therunningoftime— Building permits in respect of buildingsto be erected on land adjacent to applicants' land — Building works commenced in July 1983 — In the circumstances, time begantorunon 3.11.83, becauseitisonly on thatday 5 that applicants were furnishedwithinfonnation enabling them to ascertain precisely their rights. Legitimateinterest—Building permitsforerectionofbuildingsonlandadjacentto applicants' land—Allegation astodetriment toapplicants'rightsasaresult ofsuchpermits —Prima facieapplicantspossessalegitimateinterest. 10 Thefactsof thiscaseappearsufficiently from thejudgment ofthe Court. Casesreferredto: Moranv.TheRepublic, 1R.S.C.C.10,13; Cariohu v.TheMunicipalityofKyrenia
(1971)3C.L.R. 455; WCostasv. 7he/?epub/ic
(1974)3C.L.R. 1; ZMasv.TheMunicipalityofPaphos
(1975)3C.L.R.349; Aspriv.TheRepublic
(1979)3C.L.R.490; brigatlonDivision<KatzHos*v.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.1068; lacovou v. TheRepublic
(1984)3C.L.R.1508; 1996 15 3 C.L.R. Denwtriouv. M'palC'tte·N'«ia Ploussiou ν TheCentralBank of Cyprus
(1982)3 C.L R. 230, Ttofimsν Theocharides
(1983)2 CLR.
- Recourses. 5 Recourses against the decision of the respondent to grant building permits totheinterested parties. M.Montanios, for theapplicants. K.Michaelides,for therespondents. A. S.Angelides, for the interested parties. Cur. adv.vult. 10 TRIANTAFYLLIDESP.read thefollowingjudgment. By means of these two recourses theapplicantsare,ineffect, complainingin respect of building permits granted by the respondent to the interested parties, the «Greek Evangelical Church of Cyprus» (to be referred to hereinafter as «the Church» and «The Alpha and 15 Omega Evangelical, Educational Foundation Limited» (to be referred tohereinafter as «theFoundation»). Applicant 1istheregistered owner ofaplotofland(No.35/2)at Gladstonestreet,inNicosia,and onsuch plottherehasbeen built a house in which applicant 1 resides with herhusband, applicant 20
- The interested parties are the registered owners of two plotsof land (Nos. 183 and 182) which are adjacent to the property of applicant 1.Ontheoneplot(No. 183)thereisachurchandonthe other plot (No. 182) there are school buildings used by the 25 American Academy of Nicosia. Both the Churchand the Foundation appears tobe institutions controlled by one andthesame body of persons. On 12 January 1983 the respondent issued a building permit enabling the Church to effect internal alterations and make 30 additions to the buildings standing on plots 182 and 183, on condition thaithesaid two plots would be amalgamated andthat theproposed buildings would be ata distanceof tenfeet from the boundaries of theproperty of applicant
- 1997 Yriarataffpffidao P. DiGsfflK2ttrioav.K]*EKilC*tteeproio
(1987)On 27 September 1983 a building permit was issued to the Foundation for theerection of additional buildingson plots 182 and 183,and there were imposed the same conditions asthose imposed when abuildingpermitwasissuedon 12January 1983 totheChurch,asaforesaid. 5 Bymeans of the motions for relief inthese tworecourses the applicantsareseeking,amongotherthings/theannulmentofthe aforementioned building permits in so far as they relate to buildingswhichare,allegedly,beingconstructed atadistanceof lessthantenfeetfromtheboundariesoftheplotsinquestion. 10 Boththeserecourseswerefiled on16January
- Counsel for the interested parties has raised two preliminary objections,namely,thatthepresentrecoursesareoutoftimeand theapplicantshavenolegitimateinterest,asenvisagedbyArticle 146.2oftheConstitution,entitlingthemtofiletheserecourses. 15 Regarding hisfirst objection counsel for the interested parties hasargued thatastheapplicantscametoknowsinceJuly 1983 thatbuildingworkshadcommencedonplots182and 183andas theyhadbeen informed on6September 1983,byaletterofthe Head of the Church, and on 15September 1983,bya letterof 20 respondent, that building permits had been issued in respectof suchplots,theyshouldhavefiledtheirrecourseswithinthetimelimit provided for by Article 146.3 of the Constitution, that is before the lapse of seventy-five days as from, at the latest, 15 September
- Ontheotherhand,counselfortheapplicantshassubmittedthat they had gained complete knowledge of the building permits concerned only on 26 April 1984 when copies of such permits were attached to the Oppositions of the respondent in these proceedings, and, in any event, not before 3 November 1983, 30 when the necessary information was given to them by the Municipal Engineer of the respondent and, therefore, the time envisagedbyArticle146.3begantorunasfromthenonly. It is well settled that «complete knowledge» is an essential elementwhichsetsinmqtiontherunningoftimeforthepurposes 35 ofArticle146.3oftheConstitution;andusefulreference maybe madeinthisrespecttotheprinciplesexpoundedbythisCourtin, inter alia, the cases of Moran v. Republic,1 R.S.C.C. 10, 13, Cariolouv.TheMunicipalityofKyrenia,
(1971)3C.L.R.455,462, 1993 ffi 3C.L.R. D«m«trimv.M'p«IC'R««N'«ia TrtaaUfytUde· P. 463, HjiCostasv. The Republic,
(1974)3 C.L.R. 1, 12,Zivlasv. TheMinicipalityofPaphos,
(1975)3C.L.R.349.361,Aspriv. The Republic,
(1979)3 C.L.R.490,497, Irrigation Division *Katzilos* v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1068,1076, 1077 and lacovou 5 v. TheRepublic,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1508,1512,1513. I have considered the particular circumstances of the present cases,bearinginmindthatanydoubtasregardstheapplication to them of the provisions of Article 146.3 should be resolved in favour ofthe applicants (see,interalia,inthisrespect, Neophytou 10 v. TheRepublic, 1964C.L.R.280,290, Phussiou v. TheCentral Bank of Cyprus,
(1982)3 C.L.R. 230, 236 and theIrrigation Division«Katzilos»case,supra, 1077). Asprior to3 November 1983onlypiecemeal information was givenbytherespondent totheapplicantsandasonlyonthatdate 15 they were furnished with information enabling them to ascertain preciselythe possibledetriment totheirrightsIam inclined tothe viewthatitisasfrom 3November 1983thatthetimeenvisagedby Article 146.3of the Constitution began to run and, therefore, the present recourseswere notfiled out oftime. 20 Regarding, next, the second preliminary objection of counsel fortheinterestedpartiesIhavereachedtheconclusion,inthelight ofthe circumstances of thepresent cases and of case-lawsuch as Ttofinis v. Theocharides,
(1983)2 C.L.R. 363, that since the applicants allege detriment to their rights as a result of building 25 permits granted by the respondent to the interested parties in relation toplotsof landadjacent tothepropertyofthe applicants, there appears, atleastprima facie, to exista legitimate interestof the applicants, in the sense of Article 146.2 of the Constitution, entitlingthe applicantstofilethese tworecourses. 30 Consequently, both the preliminary objections raised by counsel for the interested parties cannot be sustained and these caseswillhavetobe heardand determined on theirmerits Orderaccordingly. 1999