3 CX.R. 1988July25 [PIKIS,J.) INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION. ANDREASCHINAS, - ·' ' " j'.· Applicant, v. ' . · . ' 1.THEMINISTEROFFINANCE, ; ».. ' " ' 2.THEDIRECTOROFCUSTOMSAUTHORrTY, Respondents. 5 · . . · . . ' . (CaseNo.522185). ContemptofCourt—Annullingdecisionofanadministrativeactongroundof misconceptionoffact-t-Openswayofre-examinationofcasebyadministration—Since.theannullingdecisionwasnotbasedonanypositive finding offact,itisnotacontemptofCourt,if,uponsuchreconsideration,theadministrationmakesthesamefindingoffact,asthatonwhich'theannulled decisionwasbased. Therespondent turned downapplicant's application for theduty free importationofamotorcar. 10 15 ThedecisionwasannulledfollowingastatementofcounselfortheDirector,acknowledgingthecorrectnessofthestatementmadeintheaddress ofapplicantconcerningthelengthofstayoftheapplicantabroad.Counsel statedthatinhisopiniontherelevantfactshadbeenwronglyinterpretedby theDirector. AsaresulttheCourtanulledthesaiddecisionformisconceptionoftact Theapplicationwasre-examined.Asimilardecisionwasissued founded ontheviewthatLapplicant'sstayabroadwasnotpermanent • <' · Hencetheseproceedingsthattherespodentbepunishedforcontempt ?ri ^ Held,dismissingtheapplication:Theannullingdecisionwasnotfoundedonapositivefindingoffact.Theoriginaldecisionwasannulledformisconceptionoffactand,thus,thewaywasopenedforthere-exaninationof thecase. . •; * • " ·• ' ' *r' Applicationdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1545 Chinas v. Minister of Finance
(1988)Casesreferredto: loannouv.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.1263. KyriacouandOthersv. MinisterofInterior
(1988)3C.L.R.643; Pierisv. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.1054; Yiangouv.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R. 27; Symeou v.TheRepublic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 332. Application. Application for thecommittalof theDirectorof Customs for disobedienceofanorderoftheCourtmadeon 11.4.86underArticle 146.4(b)oftheConstitutionquashingadecisionoftheDi- JQ rectorwherebyherefused anapplicationoftheapplicant forthe importationofadutyfreecar. P.Angelides,for theapplicant. A. Evangelou,SeniorCounseloftheRepublic,'fortherespondent. Cur.adv. vult. PIKISJ.readthe followingjudgment.Thisisanapplication for thecommittaloftheDirectorofCustomsfordisobedienceof an order of the Court made on April 11, 1986, under article 146.4.(b)oftheConstitution,quashingadecisionoftheDirector 20 wherebyherefused anapplicationoftheapplicant(theapplication wasmadeundertheCustomsansExciseDutiesLawunders.11 Order 188/82,ThirdSupplement,PartII,Official Gazetteof 11/ 6/82)fortheimportation ofaduty-freecar.Thedecisionwasannulledfollowing astatementofcounselfor theDirector,ackow- 25 ledging thecorrectnessof thestatement madeintheaddressof applicant concerning thelength ofstayoftheapplicantabroad. 1546 15 3CX:R. Chinasv.MinisterofFinance PikisJ. On that account;the Administration expressed readiness toreexaminetheapplicationfortheimportationofaduty-freecar. 5 10 Inanswerto^questionoftheCourtdesignedtoelicittheerror affecting thedecision of theDirector,counsel statedthatinhis opiniontherelevantfactshadbeenwronglyintepretedbytheDirector.Counselmadeafurther statementofnoclearmeaningto theeffect thatalthoughthestayoftheapplicantinEgyptwastemporary, nonetheless it does notjustify "temporariness". In the event,bothcounseljoinedin anapplicationthatthedecisionof theDirectorbeannulled.Andsotie Courtordered,'holding that thesubstratumofthedecisionrestedonanerroneousbasis. Re-examinationresultedin'asimilardecisionfounded onthe view*thatthestayoftheapplicant abroaddidnotqualify aspermanent.ThedecisionoftheDirectorwasfounded, interalia,on 15 theview of thelaw taken by his Court inloannouv. Republic
(1986)·3C.L.R.1263. Concurrentlywiththeinstitutionof'thepresentproceedingsthe applicantchallenged thevalidityofthenewdecisionbyrecourse totheSupremeCourt(CaseNo.47/87). 20 In a decision given on 11.2.88,1ruled that thejurisdiction conferred by article 150of the Constitution topunish for contempt,isnotdependentonobservanceoftheprovisionsofOrd. 42A of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring service of an endorsedcopyofthejudgmentororderasanindispensableprereq25 uisitefor punishment for contempt.Theappreciation ofthelaw espousedintheabovedecisionwasaffirmed inasubsequentdecisionoftheHullBench-KyriacouandOthersv.Ministerofinterior
(1988)3C.L.R.643.There isjurisdiction to punish for contemptfor disobedienceofanorderorjudgment anniilling,an OQ administrativeactordecision. Thefactual basisof theapplication issetforth inaffidavit of theapplicant wherein thechargeismadethattheDirectorinreexaminingtheapplication for theimportationofaduty-free car 1547 PikisJ. Chinasv.Minister ofFinance
(1988)defied thefactual basisofthedecisionoftheCourtof 11.4.86;in particular, thatcontrary tothesubstratumof thedecisionofthe Courthefeltfreetotreatthestayoftheapplicantabroadasnot entitlinghimtotherightclaimedbyhisapplication.TheDirector of Customs does not, as can be gathered from his affidavit, 5 sworntoinsupportoftheopposition,admitdisobedienceofthe orderoftheCourt Onthecontraryheallegesthathere-examined therequest for theimportation ofaduty-free carandfound that applicantdidnotsatisfy therequirementsofthelaw. Counsel for the Republic submitted that the application for contemptispremisedonaninexistentfact,notably,thattheCourt confirmed byitsjudgment thatthe stayof theapplicant abroad rendered himeligibleunderthelawtoimportaduty-freecar.I thinkheisright.Followingthestatementofcounsel,particularly thatofcounselfor theRepublic,theCourtannulledthedecision, subject matter of Recourse 522/85, for misconception of the facts,openingtherebythewayforthere-examinationofthecase. TheCourtdidnotpremiseitsjudgmentonanypositive findings, such aswouldbindtheAdministrationtoacceptasexistentupon re-examination of thecase.Thesubject isdiscussed atlengthin Pieris v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1054. It is unnecessary, therefore,toexplorefurther inthisjudgmenttheambitoftheobligationcastontheAdministration bypara.5ofarticle 146ofthe Constitution to give effect and act upon thejudgment of the Court. 10 15 20 25 The soundness of thereasons founding the newdecision of the Administration, taken on 17.1.87,is not as such inissuein theseproceedings.Itwill bethesubjectof reviewinarecourse pendingbeforetheSupremeCourt,includingthecharacterofthe decision and itsjusticiability in view of Yiangouv.Republic. 30
(1987)3 C.L.R. 27; (see, also Symeou v. Republic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 332). Fortheabovereasonstheapplicationisdismissed. Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Applicationdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1548 35