(1988)1988July 12 (SAWIDES J) INTlIF MATTER OFARTICLE 155 4OFTHE CONSTITUTION INTHE MATTER OFANAPPLICATION BYKERMIAPALACE ENTERPRISES LTD .FOR LEAVETOAPPLY FORORDERSOF ChR I'lORARl ANDMANDAMUSTOTHE DISTRICTCOURT OFNICOSIA and INTHE MATTER OFARULING DATED23 6 88MADE AND/OR ISSUED BYDISTRICTCOURT OFNICOSIA (HADJICONSTANTINOU S DJ) (ApplicationNo 114/88) Prerogative orders — Certiorari —Leave to apply for— Pnnciples applicable —«Prima facie» case Immovable property —Assessment of value of, by Director o' Department of Lands and Surveys —Appeal under section 80 o. Immovable Property Law, Cap 224 —Decision that once section 69
(1)
(4)of said law isnot applicable, the decision isnot executory and therefore, neither the DistrictCourt nor the Supreme Court under Art 146 1of the Constitution hasjunsdiction m thematter— Leave to apply for an order of certiorari quashing such decision granted 5 10 Jurisdiction —Constitution. Art 146 1—The Immovable Property Law Cap.224, s.80 —See Immovable property, ante. The facts of this case appear sufficiently Court in the judgment of the Leave toapply foran 15 an OrderofCertiorai granted Casesreferred to ReSawa «Pambos»
(1986)1 C LR 518 Re Kotsonis and Another
(1986)1C LR 634. ReKakos
(1985)1C L R 250 446 20 1 C.L.R. In re Kermla Palace Enterprises Application. Application for leave toapply for an order of certiorari to bring up and quash the ruling of the DistrictCourtof Nicosia in Appeal/ Application No. 43/86 dated 23.6 88 and for an order of ^ mandamus directing the District Court Nicosia {Hadjiconstantinou, S.D.J.) to hear and determine according to law the above Appeal/Application. P. Poiyviou, for theapplicant. Curadv.vuit. 10 SAWIDES J. read the following decision. By the present application applicant seeks leave toapply for- (a)An order of certiorari to remove in the Supreme Court and quash a ruling and/or decision issued by the District Court of Nicosia dated 23rd June, 1988, by means of which the District 15 Court of Nicosia dismissed appeal/application No 43/86 by means of which applicants had challenged a valuation decision and/or notice issued by the DistrictLands Office. Nicosia (b) An order of mandamus directed to the District Court of Nicosia {Hadjicons+antinou. S.D.J.) requiring him to hear and 20 determine according to law appeal/application No.43/86 filed before the DistrictCourt of Nicosia. The facts relevant to the present application are briefly as follows: Applicants are a company registered in Nicosia and deal, inter 25 alia, with immovable property and thedevelopment thereof. 30 35 Applicants are the owners of property under registration 298 at Ayios Andreas quarter of Nicosia, plot 34. of an extent of two donums, 2 evleks and 2300 square feet. The Dirpctor of Lands and Surveysassessed thevalue of such property as at 1st January. 1980 at £215,000. Applicants objected to such valuation and by letter dated 1st July, 1985, requested the reassessment of the value of the property. On the 24th May, 1986, the Director of Lands and Surveys informed them that he revalued the property at £300.000.- as at 1stJanuary, 1980 as against thealleged by theapplicants value οί £550,000.- Applicants as a result filed en appeal by way of an application No 43/86 in the District Courtof Nicosia challenging 447 Savvides J. In re Kcrmia Palace Enterprises
(1988)the decision of the Director of Lands and Surveys. Evidence was given on the part of both sidesand eventually the learned Judge after both sides had closed their caseasked that written addresses should b* filed On or about the 3rd June, 1988, the Court addressed a notice 5 to the sides inviting argument whether the challenged decision was an administrative one or not, a question which was touching the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate in the matter. The District Court asked that on 13th June, 1988, both sides should address argument with regard to the matter of jurisdiction. Both 10 counsel representing applicants and respondents, respectively, appeared before the Court andargued thattherewasno question of an administrative act and/or decision, that the Supreme Court had nojurisdiction inthe matter and thatjurisdiction inrespectof the matter in issue was vested in the District Court inaccordance 15 with the provision of s.80 of the Immovable Property Law, Cap.224. as amended. On 23rd June, 1988 the District Court of Nicosia delivered its reserved ruling in the matter by means of which it held that no Court had jurisdiction in the matter with the result in effect that 20 applicants are without a remedy. The reasons for concluding as above, as appearing in the judgment of the learned trialJudge read as follows: «Therefore, once the sub judice decision of the Director according to paragraph 4 of s.69(l) of the law has no 25 application itisnot executory and itdoes not create orvarya legitimate result or interest, I find that the company has no cause which can be tried either by this Court or by the Supreme Court byvirtue of the provisions of Article 146.1of the Constitution.» Counsel for applicantsinarguinghesubmitted thattherulingof the District Court of Nicosia isvitiated by errorsof lawon the face of the record in that it holds that the District Court has no jurisdiction inthematterinquestioninobviousdisregardofs.80of theImmovable Property Law.AlsoitgoesontoholdthatnoCourt 35 hasjurisdiction inthe matterwith the result thatapplicants are left without a remedy, notwithstanding the fact that the AttorneyGeneral'sdepartment, whoappearedfortherespondents,isinfull agreement with the position adopted bythe applicants. 448 30 1 C.L.R. Inre Kermla Palace Enterprise* S a w i d e s«J. The question which hastobe considered by me atthisstage is not whether the orders applied for should be issued but whether onthe materialbefore methereisaprima faciecasesufficiently to . justify the granting of leave to apply for orders of certiorari and 5 mandamusbearing inmind the meaning thatshould be attributed to the word «prima facie». Useful reference may be made in this respect tothe case of InRe Sawa (Pambos)
(1986)1C.L.R. 518 at p.522, InRe Kotsonis andAnother
(1986)1C.L.R. 634 asto the principles governing the issue of certiorari and also to the 10 decision of the Full Bench in the case of In re Kakos
(1985)1 C.L.R. 250astowhatconstitutesaprima facie caseforanorderof certiorari and mandamus tobe made. Inthe light of the materialbefore me I am satisfied that a prima facie arguable case has been made out and I will make the 15 following order: (
- a)The applicants are granted leave to apply for orders of certiorari and mandamus within one month from today.' Any opposition to be filed within one month from service of such application. 20 (
- b)Copy of this order to be sent to the Registrar of the District Court ofNicosia and be communicated tothejudge concerned. Appliestiongranted. 449