1988September27 (MALACHTOS,POOS,PAPADOPOULOS,JJ.) IOANNISCONSTANTINIDESKOLOKOUDIASANDOTHERS, Appellants-Respondents, v. THOULLAVARNAVIDOUANDOTHERS, Respondents-Applicants. (CivilAppeal No. 7477). Jurisdiction —Objection asto— Theproper approach ofatrialCourt. Words and Phrases:«TheJudicialact». Abuse of process —Proceedings for a declaration that Court before which such proceedings were instituted has no jurisdiction to trya particular dispute between the parties —An odd approach, bordering abuse ofprocess ofthe Court. 5 Jurisdiction —Judicial act issued by an inferior Court having no jurisdiction inthe matter —A nullity. Rent Control —Rent Control Court—AninferiorCourt—Applicability ofprinciples governing jurisdictionofinferiorCourts. 10 The respondents are the owners of a hotel at Kakopetria village and the appellants are the tenantsinoccupation ofthebuilding. . The respondents applied to the Rent Control Court for a declaration that such Court lacksjurisdiction to take cognizance of theirdisputewithappellants. Notwithstanding an objection by thetappellants, thai the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application, the Court proceeded on the merits and found that the appellants were notstatutory tenants. Held, allowing the appeal:
(1)Thefirstandparamount dutyofthe 2 0 trial Court was to examine the question ofjurisdiction and only ifit found that it had jurisdiction, itcould have proceeded to examine 566 15 further theapplicationbefore itonitsmerits. ThetrialJudgeshould nothaveissuedajudicialact,ifhehadnojurisdiction. 5
(2)TheRentControlCourtisaninferiorCourtand,therefore,the principlesapplicable asregardsthejurisdictionofsuchCourtsapply to thejurisdiction of such Court.The deliberations of suchCourts shouldbeconfined tomatterswithintheirjurisdiction.
(3)Inthelightofthe above theapproachof the trialCourtwas erroneous. 10
(4)Theapproachoftherespondentsinthiscasewasoddandone that bordered abuseofprocess oftheCourt. Itisacontradiction in germstopronounceona subject thatavowedly the Courthas no •competencetopronounceupon. Appealallowedwithcosts. Casesreferredto: 15 ChristoHandOthersv. Iacovidou
(1986)1C.L.R.236; Phitippouv.Philippou
(1986)1C.L.R.689; Frangosv. MedicalDisciplinaryBoard
(1983)1C.L.R.256; Efthymiadouv.Zoudros
(1986)1C.L.R. 341. Appeal. 20 Appeal by applicant against the judgment of the Rent Control Court, Nicosia (App!. No. 180/86) dated 28th August, 1987 wherebyitwasdeclaredmatithadnojurisdictiontotrythecaseas thepremises, a hotel,arenotsubject torentcontrol. E.Odysseos, fortheappellants -respondents. 25 Ph. Pelides with A Anastassiou (Mrs.), for the respondents applicants. Cur.adv. vult MALACHTOSJ.: Thejudgment of theCourtwillbe delivered by Papadopoulos,J. 30 PAPADOPOULOSJ.:Thisisanappealagainstadeclarationof the RentControlCourt,thatithas nojurisdiction totrythecaseas the premises, a hotel at Kakopetria, are not susbject to rent control.Thefactssurrounding thecasearethe following: The respondentsaretheownersofahotelatKakopetria village 35 andthe appellants arethe tenantsinoccupationof the building. 1 ι Papado{M>ulo£u[':' KcJoGioaSllaav.V^rqayMafi tf~ *) The respondents, as surprising as it may appear, made an application to the Rent Control Court for a declaration that the Court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of their dispute with appellants as the premises although situate within a controlled area, are not, asalleged bytheRespondents, covered bythe Rent 5 Control Legislation in force. The appellants in reply raised a preliminary objection totheeffect thattheRentControlCourt had nojurisdiction toheartheapplication astheapplicants themselves alleged and/or supported that «the lease of the hotel of the respondents does notfall withintheprovisionsofLaw23/83»and 10 that, even ifitwasfound thattheCourthadjurisdiction tohearthe .application, ithad nojurisdiction to givedeclaratoryjudgment as prayed by the applicants. When the case came up for hearing before the Rent Control Court, the Judge gave directions to Counsel of both sides to file 15 written addresses on the issue of jurisdiction and adjourned the case forclarifications.Afterthesubmissionofthewritten addresses when the case came again before the Court for clarifications, the Judge decided toproceed withthehearing ofthesubstance ofthe application;and adjourned hisdecision ontheissueofjurisdiction 20 to a laterstage. Mr. Odysseos,/acting for the respondents, reserved hisrightsas to the correctness of theproceedings and expressed theviewthat it was imperative that the preliminary objection as to jurisdiction should be decided first, because, as he put it, a decision on the 25 preliminary point would put an end tothewhole case. However, he applied torleavetofileasupplementary addressinreplytothat of Mr. Pelides,[Counsel for the applicants. When the case came up for hearing, Mr. Odysseos submitted thatthe Courtshould giveitsRulingfirstontheissueofjurisdiction 30 before proceeding with the hearing of the substance of the case. The Court rejected the submission of Mr. Odysseos and proceeded tohear the case on itsmerits. The learned trial Judge examined the evidence before him, reviewed a number of cases and referred to various legal 35 principles before decidingthattheRentControlCourthad power to issue declaratory judgments. Furthermore, on examination of the merits of the application before him, he found that the respondents were notstatutory tenants. 568 1 C.L.R. Kolokoudlas v.Varnavldou Papadopoulos J. Going through the record of this case we can discern the eagerness of the Judge to have the case concluded as soon as possible.This isin accord with the wishes of the legislator when establishing Rent Control Courtswithsection 4
(1)of 23/83. 5 However, with all respect to the learned Judge, his first and paramount duty was to examine the question of jurisdiction and onlyifhefound thathehadjurisdiction, hecould have proceeded toexamine further theapplication before himonitsmerits.Hewas not asked in this particular case to proceed to answer a 10 hypothetical question as to whether Rent Control Courts had jurisdiction to make declaratory judgments. He had a concrete casebeforehimbased oncertainfactswhichhehadtoexamineon •ihebasisoftheLawand authoritiesand pronounce hisjudgment. But before doing so, he ought to have examined the issue of 15 jurisdiction. He should not in any way proceed to ajudicial actif he had no jurisdiction; a judicial act as stated by Mr. Justice Stylianides in'thecaseof Chnstofiand Others v.Iacovidou
(1986)IC.L.R. p.236atp.248; 20 «Ajudicialact isone issued byaJudge orCourtand which involved exercise of discretion or judgment. Itisan act by a Courttouchingtherightsofparties|orpropertybrought before it.» Ithas been said by Mr.Justice Stylianides again in the case of Philippou v.Philippou
(1986)1C.L.R. p.689 atp.698 that: 25 • «Thejurisdiction of the inferior Courts inthis.country must -' ·' be traced in the statute establishing them. Trial and decision byaninferior Courtonamatteronwhichithasnojurisdiction isa nullity.» The characteristics of ajudicialactwere defined insome detail 30 bytheFullBench inFrangosv.MedicalDisciplinaryBoard
(1983)1 C.L.R. 256. • · - . · The task of the trial Court as Mr.Justice Pikis observed in the • case of Efthymiadou v. Zoudros
(1986)1 C.L.R. p. 341, in connection withthejurisdiction ofa DistrictCourt, istoconfine its 35 deliberations to matterswithin itscompetence. He put itthus: «The District Court is an 'inferior Court' in the sense of article 152of the Constitution and possessessuchjurisdiction as given it by Law. It cannot assume or exercise jurisdiction beyond that conferred on DistrictCourtsby Law.» 569 Papadopoulos J . Kolofcoudlas v. Vamavldoa
(1988)Andfurther down: «AstheproceedingsbeforetheDistrictCourtwereabortive and inconsequence a nullity, the competence of the District Courtwasconfined to dismissalofthe proceedings.» TheRentControl Courtislikewisean inferior Courtandsimilar considerations apply to the exercise of its powers. Any other 5 decision would be paradoxical. We cannot imagine any Court which knowingly hasno jurisdiction toproceed tothe hearingof the merits of the case to make an assessment on the merits and thengobackandsaythat«1madeamistake.Ihadnojurisdiction». WeareoftheviewthatthelearnedJudgeerredinhisapproachto 10 thesolutionof the problem before him. Reverting to the case of Zoudros above, Iwould liketo quote onemorepassagefromthejudgmentofPikisJ.... Hesaidatpage5: «Itisfor the partiesto reflect on theirrightsand means for theirventilation before a competent Court.» 15 Inthiscasewhat Mr.Justice Pikissaid,becomes more striking. The appellants knowingly|and believing that the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to entertain their case, yet applied to it foranegativedeclaratoryjudgment.Itwouldseemodd,togivean example, for a party to seek an order for habeas corpus from a 20 District Court when itisknown that only the Supreme Court has such jurisdiction. It would appear to us that it is not only an erroneous and inappropriate approach, but one that borders abuse of the process of the Court. Itisa contradiction interms to pronounce on a subject that avowedly has no competence to 25 pronounce upon. Evidently the object of recourse to the Rent ControlCourtwastopre-emptadecisionoftheDistrictCourtthat thedisputeisnotwithin itsjurisdiction. Forthereasons we have explained, the appeal isallowed with costsinthisCourt Appeal allowed with costs. 570 30