3 C.L.R. 1987 May 14 (A LOIZOU J ] INTHE MATTEROFARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION, ASSOCIATIONOF CONTRACTORS FOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS, Applicants, ν 1 THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, 2 THE MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONSAND WORKS. Respondents (CaseNo 148/76) RevisionalJunsdictionAppeal — Time— Enlargingthe timeof filingthe appeal— 5 TheSupreme ConstitutionalCourtRules—Rule 3makingapplicablemutatis mutandis Ord 35 of the CivilProcedureRules—Rule 2 of Order35 provides that thepower is exercised subject to Ord 57, rule 2 — Discretion — Pnnciplesgoverningits exercise—Review ofthe authonties 10 Recourse for annulment/Revisional Junsdiction appeal — Interested party — Meaning of— Personseeking the annulment of the sub judice act — Not an interestedparty— Toallowsuchaperson tojoin theproceedings iscontrary to Art 1463ofthe Constitution — Inany event aninterestedpartycan take partinopposition, but not insupportofthe annulment ofthe sub judice act 15 Thisisanex parteapplicationfor enlarging thetime,withinwhichtofilean appeal against the judgment, whereby the recourse had been dismissed It must be noted that the present applicants were not the applicants in the recourse,but they were joined as«interested parties» in the recourse on the 14 6.85, whentheyobtainedtherelevant leave ^" Held,dismissing theapplication
(1)Thepower toenlarge thetimeof filing an appeal is derived from Rule 3 of the Supreme Court (Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal) Rules 1964, which provides that Ord 35of the Civil Procedure Rules shall apply mutatismutandistoan appeal from aJudge or Judges exercising revisional jurisdiction Order35rule2provides such power isexercised, subject totheprovisions ofOrder57 rule2
(2)The baste principle concerningsuch power is thatitisamatterof free discretionandthequestion iswhether on thefacts of anyparticularcase such discretion should beexercised Such extention was granted inthe pastin 817 Electrical Contractors v. Council of Ministers
(1987)cases where the relevant application was filed before the expiration of the time. This application was filed after the expiration of the time of filing the appeal.
(3)An interested party is a person,whose interests stand tobe affected by the annulment of the sub judice decision. The present applicant joined the 5 proceedings, not for the purpose of supporting, but for annulling the sub judice decision. The description of the «interested party» does not in fact representthecorrectstatusof theapplicants.Toallow suchapartytoproceed in revisional proceedings, would be contrary to the express provision of Article 146.3 of theConstitutionastothetimeof filingarecourse.Even ifthe i n applicants have the status of an interested party they still cannot proceed, because inarecourse ora revisional appeal,such aparty mayonly be heard in opposition, but not in support of the annulment of an administrative decision. Recourse dismissed. No orderas tocosts 15 Casesreferredto: CyprianSeaway Agencies Ltd. v. TheRepublic{1981)3 CL.R.271; Turkish Co-operative Carob Marketing Society Ltd. v. Lufti Kiamil and Another
(1973)1C.L.R. 1; 20 LanitisBrosLtd. v.MunicipalCorporationof LimassoHl972) 2C.L.R 100, Ioannidou v.Dikeos
(1970)1C.L.R. 241; Georghiou v. TheRepublic
(1968)1C.L.R.411; Pavlou v. Cacoyannis
(1963)2C.L.R.405; Loizou v.KonteaOs
(1968)1C.L.R.291; 25 Finch FrederickPeter v.Police
(1963)1CL.R 42; Charalambousv. CharalambidesDairiesLtd.
(1984)1C.L R. 19; Theodorides ν Ploussiou
(1976)3 C.L.R. 319; Bagdades v.Floussiou
(1984)3C.L.R. 1556; Republic v.Nissiotou
(1985)3 C.LR.
- Application. Exparteapplicationbythe«interestedparties»inarecoursefor enlarging the time by one day for filing an appeal against the judgmentdismissing such recourseseeking theannulmentofthe 818 30 3 C.L.R. Electrical Contractors v. Council of Ministers order made by respondent 2 under reg. 53 of the Electricity Regulations. K.Talarides, for the applicants. Cur. adv. vult. 5 A. LOIZOU J. read the following judgment. This is an ex parte application for an order of the Court enlarging thetimebyonedayforfilinganappealagainstthejudgmentofthe Court delivered on 11th December 1986, dismissing a recourse filed by the Association of Contractors of Electrical Installations 10 seekingan annulment of the order made byrespondent 2, under Regulation 53 of the Electricity Regulations, published in Supplement No.III(I)oftheOfficial Gazetteofthe2ndApril1976, under Notification Number 1266, as well as the Electricity (Amendment) Regulations of 1976 published inSupplement No. 15 IIII(I) of the Official Gazette of the 12th March, 1976, under Notification No.
- It may be mentioned here that the said applicantsintherecourseitself havenotappealed againstthesaid judgment. On the 14th June 1985, leave was granted to the present 20 applicants, the Association of Licensed Electrical Contractors (POVEK),totakepartintheproceedingsasan«interestedparty». Intheirrelevantaddressbefore thetrialCourt, filed onthe 12th November 1986,the present applicantsstated that theyjoined in theproceedings because asubstantial partof itsmemberswere at 25 the time of the filing of the recourse members of the applicant Association, «thus the interested party takes part in the proceedings on behalf ofitsmembers who were members of the applicant Association and on behalf of whom the recourse was filed. These members are too late to file a separate recourse but 30 are naturally interested inthe outcome ofthe recourse whichwill affect alsotheirprofessional interests». Intheaffidavit filedinsupportthereof itisstatedthattherelevant judgment was communicated to them by letter of their lawyer dated 16th December 1986, in view, however, of the Christmas 35 vacations and the fact that itsmembers are all over Cyprus, they considered the matter on the 20th January 1987 and instructed their lawyer to file an appeal late in the afternoon of the 22nd January 1987, on which date time had also expired. It is also alleged that the applicant Association did not know of the time 40 limitof forty-two daysfor filing an appeal. 819 A. Loizou J. Electrical Contractors v. Council of Ministers
(1987)The legal position asregardsthe power of theCourtto enlarge the time for filing an appeal has been considered on numerous times in the past. Such power is derived from Rules 3 of the Supreme Court {Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal) Rules 1964 which provide thatOrder35 oftheCivilProcedureRulesrelating 5 to appeals shall apply mutatis mutandis to an appeal from -a decision of a Judge or Judges exercising revisional jurisdiction. And by Order 35, rule 2 such power is exercised subject to the provisionsof Order57,rule 2. The basic principle concerning such power isthat itisa matter 10 of discretion which is free and the question that must be considered by the Court iswhether on the facts of any particular case such discretion should be exercised. (See Cyprian Seaway Agencies Ltd., v.Republic
(1981)3C.L.R.271atp.275andtothe authorities referred to therein). Whilst on thispoint I find ituseful 15 to refer tosome of the authorities. Such extension was granted in the past ih cases where such application had been filed before expiry of thetime. See Turkish Cooperative Carob Marketing Society Ltd., v. Lutfi Kiamil.and Another
(1973)1 C.L.R. 1; Lanitis Bros Ltd., v. Municipal 20 Corporation of Limassol
(1972)2 C.L.R. 100. (The Court record inboth above cases being late inbecoming available.) InIoannidou v.Dikeos
(1970)1C.L.R. 241the non-availability of the record and the fact that the appellant was acting without legal assistance, including the belatedness of the objection of the 25 respondent thattheappeal wasoutoftimeasaresultofwhich the application forextensionoftimewasfiledlate,wereconsideredby the Court as sufficient reasons for exercising its discretion and granting the extension. InGeorghiou v.Republic
(1968)1 C.L.R.411itwasconsidered 30 bythemajoirty ofthe CourtofAppealthatfailureofcounselto file the appeal within time was sufficient ground to grant the extension. OntheotherhandinPavhu v. Cacoyannis
(1963)2C.L.R., 405 failure of counsel or the litigant to take the appropriate steps withintimewasheld nottojustifytheexerciseofsuchdiscretionin favour of the applicant. In Loizou v. Konteatis
(1968)1 C.L.R. 291, the applicant consulted a new advocate after the time for appeal had expiredextension wasrefused. 820 35 40 3 C.L.R. Electrical Contractors v. Council of Ministers A. Loizou J . In Finch Frederick Peter v. Police
(1963)1 C.L.R. 42, an extension was refused as the convenience of counsel (his departure abroad), was considered as not a good cause; and in Charalambousv. CharalambidesDairiesLtd.,
(1984)1 C.L.R. 19, 5 theillnessofcounsel wasnotconsidered asafactor excusing noncompliance. . In Cyprian Seaways Agencies Ltd. v. Republic (supra) it was held that the failure of the applicant to take steps within time for filing an appeal because it awaited the views of the Cyprus 10 ShippingAssociation whichwasnotawareoftheexistenceof the time limit, was not sufficient reason tojustify enlargement of the time, as either such appeal could have been filed in time and discontinued at a later stage, or such application for extension could have been filed before the expiration of the time. 15 The legalposition beingso,the first matterthat I must consider indealingwiththisapplication isthestatusof the applicant. Iconsiderthatthedescriptionofinterestedpartydoesnotinfact represent its correct status, an interested party being a person whose interests stand to be affected by the annulment of a 20 decision, and whoappears intheproceedings forthepurposeof protecting such right. See: Theodon'des v. Pioussiou
(1976)3 C.L.R.319;Bagdades v. Pioussiou
(1984)3C.L.R. 1556at15581559;Republic v.IviNissiotou
(1985)3 C.L.R. 943. In the present case this «interested party» joined the present 25 proceedings almostmineyearsafterthefilingoftherecourse, not forthepurpose ofsupportingthesubjudicedecisionbutasitlater transpired from the addressfiled, forthepurpose of annullingit. Inthefirstplace, toallowsuch apartytoproceed inrevisional proceedings underthe alleged statusof an«interested party»,for 30 the purpose of obtaining the annulment of a decision would be contrary to the express provisions of Article 146.3 of the Constitution as to the time a person may file a recourse. This applicantisbyaboutnineyearstoolate. Secondly, even if this applicant had in fact the status of an 35 interested party according to Republic v. IviNissiotou
(1985)3 C.L.R. 943,atpp. 945-946: «aninterestedpartymayonlybeheardinproceedingsina 821 A. Loizou J. Electrical Contractors v.Council of Ministers
(1987)recourse under Article 146 or in a revisional jurisdiction appeal, in opposition, but not also in support, of the annulment ofanadministrativedecisionwhichrelatestohim andwhichisthesubject-matter oftherecourseorappeal.» In the circumstances therefore I consider that the present application mustbedismissedwithnoorderastocosts. Applicationdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 822 5