3 C.L.R. 1988July30 - , , . - , , , ι- . [DEMETRIADES.I] INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION. NAFEI KiIESHOO, •"- · ' Applicant, v. . ' . THEREPUBUC OF CYPRUS,THROUGH THEMINISTEROFINTERIORANDOTHERS, , r ' -' • h ' » /• '' ' '"' '"'' Respondents. ' ' ' ' (CaseNo".572/88). · J. . *., Provisional order—Thetwoprerequisitesfor grantinganordersuspending the effectofthesubjudicc actpendingdeterminationofthe recourse—Subju'diceactmustbetaintedwithflagrant illegalityand theapplicantmustshow that,iftheorderisnotgranted, hewillsufferirreparabledamage—Jndeter. 'mining theissueof flagrant illegality theCourtmustavoidgoing,into.the meritsof the recourse,/. Thefactsof thiscaseneednotbesummarized.Suffice ittosaythatthe applicantfailed tosatisfy theCourtthattheaforesaid twoprerequisiteswere satisfied. * " ., \ , Casesreferredto: Applicationdismissed. Noorderastocosts. . , - ,( ·t - Sofocleousv. TheRepublic
(1971)3C.L.R. 345; „ ,, · "i •' • Moyo andAnotherv. TheRepublic(\9ΖΗ)'30,.Κ. 1203; • •• Karaliotas v.Tfte/tepuWic
(1987)3C I A . 1701. -1585 .J· V ; ''VJ Ieshoo v.Republic
(1988)Application for provisional order. Application for aprovisional orderfor theremovalofapplicant'snamefrom the stoplistandfor anorderdirectingtherespondentsnottoprohibitapplicant'sfreeentryinCyprus. G.Serghides, for theapplicant. 5 P.Clerides,fortherespondents. Cur.adv. vult. DEMETRIADES J.read thefollowingjudgment Theapplicant, acitizen of Iraq, arrivedin Cypruson the 11thFebruary, 1988,andwasgivenavisitor'spermittostayintheislandtillthe ™ 29thofthatmonth.Onthe4thMarch,hesubmittedanapplication totheImmigrationAuthoritiesfortheextensionofhistemporary stayforamonthandinsupportofhisapplicationheappendeda letterdatedthe3rdMarch,addressedbytheChiefoftheSpecial MissioninCyprusoftheUnitedNationsHighCommissionerfor 15 Refugees totheDirector General of theMinistry of Interiorby whichthelatterwasinformed thattheapplicant hadapplied for recognition asarefugee andthathisapplication wasunderconsideration.TheChief oftheMissionbyhissaidletterfurtherrequestedthattheapplicant'sstayinCyprusbeextendedforaperi- 20 odofonemonth. ' Onthe8th March,theapplicantvisited theImmigration Authoritiesandhandedtothemacuttingfrom"Phileleftheros"daily inwhichitappeared thathehadexchanged with acertainMiss SofiaDemosthenousapromiseofmarriage. TheChiefofthePolicewhowasaskedtoexaminetheapplicationoftheapplicant,didnotrecommendtheextensionofhisstay inCyprus,oneof hisgroundsbeingthatthepassportoftheapplicant, after it was examined by an expert, was found to be forged. 1586 25 30 3C.L.R. Ieshoov.Republic DemetriadesJ. Onthe2ndApril,theImmigrationAuthoritiesinformedtheapplicantthathisapplicationfortheextensionofhisstayinCyprus was not approved and hewas asked tomake all necessary arrangements todepart from Cyprus.The applicant didnotleave 5 Cyprusandon the24thMay,-hemarriedthesaid SofiaDemosthenousattheMunicipalityofStroyolos.After thecelebrationof theirmarriagethecoupleleftforGreece.After heleftCyprusthe nameoftheapplicantwasplacedonthestoplistasaprohibited immigrant * . . . - J< 10 Againstthisdecision oftheadministration the applicantfiled thepresentrecourse.Atthesametimehefiled anapplicationby whichheseeksaprovisionalorderfor,theremovalofhisname from thestoplistand further for anorder'directing therespondentsnottoprohibithisfreeentryintoCyprus. 15 For aCourt to grant aprovisional order, an applicant'hasto. provethattheactordecision soughttobestayedis,tainted.with flagrant illegality.Onefurther elementthathastobeexaminedis whethertheapplicantwillsuffer irreparabledamageiftheorderis notgranted.(See,interalia,thecaseofSofocleousv. Republic, 2Q
(1971)3 C.L.R. 345 and the very recent one Sidney Alfred Moyo&Anotherv.TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R.1203. In deciding whether flagrant illegality was committed, the Courtmustavoid goingintothemeritsoftherecourseasbydoingsothecasemaybedisposedofthereandthenonitsmerits. 25 30 Noflagrantillegalityisrelieduponbytheapplicant Thecasefortheapplicant,asadvancedbyhiscounsel,isthat if theapplicant isnotallowedtocometoCyprus,hewill suffer irreparabledamage.Insupportof thisargumenthementioneda numberofsituationsthataffectorwillaffect theapplicantandhis wife.Amongstothers,heallegedthatthewife,ifshedoesnotreturntoCyprus,willloseherjob,thatthecouplewillnotbeable tocelebrateareligiousmarriage,thatthewifeispregnant,thatif theapplicantisnotallowed toreturn toCyprusthatmeansthat 1587: DemetriadesJ. leshoov. Republic
(1988)eventuallythemarriagewillbreakdownandthiswillleadtoadivorce. Consideringtheargumentsadvanced andhavinginmindthat theburden of proof lieson theapplicant,Ifindthat Ihave not beenpersuadedthathewillsuffer irreparabledamage. 5 Before concluding, I would'like to say that I do not at this stageconsideritnecessarytodealwith therightsoftheStateoftheRepublicof Cyprustoalloworprohibitanalientoenterinto theRepublic,anissuethathasbeenfully discussed in twovery recentjudgmentsoftheFullBenchoftheSupremeCourt,namely 10 YiannisKaraliotasv.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R. 1701and thecaseof SidneyAlfredMoyoandAnotherv. The Republic, (supra). In theresult, theprovisionalorderappliedfor isrefused, but inthecircumstances,Imakenoorderastocosts. 15 Applicationrefused. Noorderasto costs. \ 1588