(1988)1988 September 23 (PAPADOPOULOS J ) INTHEMATTER OFANAPPLICATION BY MICHAELA PETRIS ANDOTHERSFORLEAVETOAPPLYFORANORDEROF CERIIORARIAND PROHIBITION and INTHEMATTEROFANORDERGIVENBYTHEDISTRICTCOURTOF NICOSIAINACTIONNO 5827/88WHEREBY THEHEARINGOFTHE APPLICATION FORCONTEMPTFILEDONTHE16 988 WAS FIXED FORHEARINGONTHE24 988 and INTHEMATTER OFTHEAFORESAID ACTIONANDAPPLICATION FILED IN CONNECTIONTHERETO and INTHEMATTER OFANORDEROFTHETRIALCOURTOFTHE SAMEDAY ASSUMINGJURISDICTIONTOTRY THE CASE (ApplicationNo 146/88) Prerogative Orders—Cerhoran/Prohibition — Leave to apply for— Prtncipesapplicable The facts of this case appear sufficiently inthe Judgment ofthe Court Leave to apply for Certiorari 5 andProhibitiongranted Casesreferredto Attorney- Genera!ν Chnstou, 1962 CLR129, Re NinaPanaretou
(1972)1 CLR165, ,Ar ExparteCostasPapadopoulos >^ I CL.H 66, ReKakos
(1985)1C.L R250 Application. Application for leave toapply foran order of cerhoran for the * purpose of quashing the order of the District Court of Nicosia 552 10 1 C.L.R. I n re Petri» and Others made on 17.9.88 in Action No. 5827/88fixingthe hearing of an application for contempt on the 24.9.
- R. Stavrakis, for the applicants. Cur.adv. vult 5' PAPADOPOULOS J. read the following decision. This is an application for leave toapplyfor (a)AnOrder of Certiorari for the purpose of quashing the Order made on the 17/9/88 bya Judge of the District Court of Nicosia, whereby the hearing of the application for contempt in case 5827/88 of the District Courtof 10 Nicosia was fixed for the 24/9/88 AND (b)An Order prohibiting the trial Judge from further proceeding with the' trial of the applicants in the said action and the applications pending in connection thereto and generally an order prohibiting the aforesaid Judge from exercisingjurisdiction intheabove cause or 15 causes. Theverybrief factsofthecasethattranspire from theaffidavit in supportoftheapplication ofMr.MichaelPetris,arethe following:Theplaintiff inaction5827/88wasfound guiltybytheTurf Club of dishonest activities and he was «warned off» for a period of six 20 months.Ashefeltaggrieved withthedecisionoftheTurf Club, he filed the above action in the District Court of Nicosia praying for thecancellation ofthedecision of theTurf Club.Atthesametime, healsofiled anexparteapplication foraninterimorderforthestay of execution of the decision of the Turf Club until the final 25 determination of the action. His application for stay was granted and madereturnable.Asitwasopposed, itcameupforhearingon -he 17/9/
- Theplaintiff relyingonTurfClubregulationsappliedtotheClub foralicenceasaracinghorsetrainerfortheperiod 4/9/88 until 4/ 30 9/89 but hisapplication was rejected. Itappears that the plaintiff considered thatthe rejection ofhisapplication forregistration asa racinghorse trainer bytheTurf Club, amounted toa contempt of CourtinviewoftheOrderoftheCourtforthestayofthe execution of the decision oftheTurf Clubpendingthefinaldetermination of 35 theaction. So, hefiledan application for contempt of Court. This application hasbeen fixed for hearing on the 17/10/
- When the-application for an interim order came up for hearing on the 17th of September, 1988, there was an application for adjournment after the 17th of October, 1988, when the other 553 PapadopotdosJ. EnrePetri»andOthers
(1988)application was also fixed and because one of the respondents had not been served with the order. The advocate of the other side, not only agreed, but alsoapplied for such an adjournment. The Judge insistedon hearingtheapplication priortothe 17thof Octoberand fixed itfor hearingon the24/9/88. 5 Further to the above, there are numerous allegations which associate the trialJudge with theplaintiff and thattheJudge was so involved inthe proceedingsthatitwouldnotbeinaccord with the Rulesof NaturalJustice thathe should proceed with the case himself, as such involvement might possibly impair his 10 impartiality. The question which falls for consideration and decision at this stage, is whether mere is a prima facie arguable case made out sufficiently tojustify thegrantingof leavetotheapplicanttomove this Court in due course to issue an Order of Certiorari. It is not 15 necessary for me to go into the matter thoroughly, but it is only sufficient ifon the basisof the applicant* sstatementand affidavit insupport,the Courtissatisfiedmatsuchleaveshouldbe granted. (SeeAG. v.PanayiotisChristou, 1962C.L.R. 129atpp. 133and 134;exparte CostasPapadopoulos,
(1968)1C.L.R.66;inreNina 20 Panaretou
(1972)1C.L.R. 165;inreKakos
(1985)1C.L.R.250). Inthe lightof the contentsoftheaffidavitfiledinsupport ofthis application, and having heard arguments by the counsel for the applicants,Iamsatisfied thataprimafaciearguablecasehasbeen made outfor grantingthe application. 25 I,therefore, make the following order
(1)The applicant is granted leave to apply for an Order of Certiorari and Prohibition within 15 days from today. Any opposition tobefiledwithin 21days thereafter.
(2)Allproceedings related to CivilAction No.5827/88 of the 130 District Court of Nicosia by wayof application for disobeying the Court*s order or for contempt of Court or otherwise, are stayed for 15daysasfromtoday.Iftheapplicantsapplywithinthatperiod hereinabove provided or such extended time as the Court may orderforan orderof Certiorari,then thestayshallcontinuetobe 35 in operation untilfurther orderofthe Court. Copy of this order to be served on the Registrar of the District Court. Application granted. 554