1C.LR. 1988 June 16 (KOURRIS.J.) IN THEMATTEROFARTICLE155.4 OFTHECONSTITUTION ANDS. 9 OFTHECOURTSOFJUSTICE(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)LAW, 1964. AND IN THE MATTEROFANAPPLICATION BY ELENIKYRIAKIDOU FOR LEAVE TOAPPLY FOR ANORDER OFCERTIORARI. -·ι (ApplicationNo. 95/88). Prerogative orders—Certiorari — Leave to apply for— Applicant should make out aprimafaciearguablecase. The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court. 5 Leave to apply for an Order of Certiorarigranted. Casesreferred to: Attorney-General v.Christou,\962 C.L.R. 129; • Re Papadopoulos
(1968)1C.L.R.66; 10 Re NinaPanaietou
(1972)1C.L.R. 165; Re Kakos
(1985)1C.L.R.
- Application. • *•• . Application for leave to apply for an order ot certiorari to bring up and quash an order of .the District Court of Nicosia in 15 Application No. 65/
- Chr. Triantafyllides, for the applicant. Cur. adv. vult. 20 KOURRIS J. read the following decision. This is an application for leave to apply for an Order of certioran for the purpose of quashing an Order of the District Court of Nicosia in Application No. 65/
- •381 Kourris J . Inre Kyriakidou
(1988)The facts of the case as they appear from the affidavit swom in support of the application by Andri Charalambous, an advocate working for the counsel who appeared in the application before the District Court of Nicosia,are as follows: On 15thAugust, 1987,anapplication bysummonswasfiled for thecancellation ofa mortgageunderLaw9/65andaJudgeofthe District Court of Nicosia granted the application. 5 On 5th December, 1987, the applicant filed an ex parte application fortheamendment oftheOrdergrantedon 17.9.1987 and the sameJudge granted the Orderforamendingtheprevious 10 Order. Again, on 1.2.1988 the applicant filed another ex parte application for the amendment of the original Order granted by the Court. The same Judge again amended the said Order on 16.2.
- Subsequently, the applicant received by post an Order of the CourtinrespectofherapplicationbywhichthelearnedtrialJudge cancelled the two amendments and restored the Order in its original form of 17.9.
- Itshould be noted thatthisOrderisnotdatedanditappears that 20 ithas been made asa result of a letterof theDistrictLands Office, Nicosia, addressed tothe Presidentofthe DistrictCourtofNicosia which isexhibit 6 inthis application. Counsel for the applicant argued that the Order of the Court under consideration was made without affording an opportunity 25 totheapplicant tobeheard inbreach oftherulesofnaturaljustice. Counsel also contended thatthe learned Judge actedinexcessof jurisdiction in that he made the order without being moved by anyone. The question which falls for determination byme atthisstageis 30 whetherthere isa prima facie arguable casemadeout sufficiently tojustify the granting of leave to the applicant to move thisCourt indue coursetoissuean Orderof Certiorari.Itisnotnecessary for me to go into the matter thoroughly, but it issufficient if on the basis of the applicant' sstatement and theaffidavit insupport, the 35 Courtissatisfied thatsuch leaveshouldbegranted.(See AttorneyGeneral v. Panayiotis Christou, 1962 C.L.R. 129at pp. 133 and 134;exparte CostasPapadopoullos
(1968)1 C.L.R.66;inreNina 382 15 1C.L.R. Inre Kyrialddon Koarris J . Panaretou
(1972)1 C.L.R. 165;inreKakos
(1985)1 C.L R 250.) I have considered the argument of learned counsel for the applicant and at thisstage, itwould appear that the applicant has a prima facie arguable case that there has been a breach of the rules of natural justice and that the learned Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction and, in the circumstances, 1grant leave to the applicant tofilean application foran Orderof Certiorari within 15 days from today. Application granted. 383