(1988)1988August29 [SAWIDES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION MOBILOILCYPRUSLTD. Applicants. v. THEMUNICIPALITYOFAYIOSATHANASSIOS, Respondents. .(CaseNo. 17/88). Streets andBuildings—Buildingpermits—Applicationfor—Regulation 5of theStreetsandBuildingsRegulationsprovidingthateveryapplicationfora permit shall be signedby the owner or "his dulyauthorised agent"— Whetherthisexpressionmeansanagent"authorizedbyapowerofattorney"—Questiondeterminedinthenegative. Wordsandphrases:"Authorizedagent"inReg.5oftheStreetsandBuildings Regulations—Whethertheexpressionincludesonlytheagents,whoareauthorizedbyapowerofattorney—Questiondeterminedinthenegative. Wordsandphrases: "Authority"and"Authorized". Agency—Definitionof—TheContractLaw,Cap.149,sections146and147. Applicantswerelesseesofland.Therelevantcontractauthorizedthem tosubmitapplications for buildingpermitsasagentsof theownersofthe land.Anapplicationsubmittedunderthisauthoritywasturneddownonthe groundthattheconditionsof thesaidReg.5werenotsatisfied. Counsel for respondents explained thatastheapplicants werenottheownersnor were they authorized by theownersbyapower ofattorney, therespondentscorrectly turned downtheapplication.Thereasoningof theCourt, whichledtoannulmentofthesubjudicedecision,issufficiently indicated bythehereinaboveheadnote. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Costsinfavourofapplicants. 1646 3 C.L.R. Mobil Oil v. M'lity of Ay.Athanassios Recourse/ · *Λ . , ! • - , ' V ·. »:'•·: w • • ' • ""• >^ . , , . . . . - Recourseagainst therefusal of therespondenttoissuea buil ding permit for'additions and/orextensions totheplantsand/or worksof anexistingpetrolstation. ' * ' * ' . · - • -J-: 't '•' • , ; • - , - , • · . - -. ;. . 1 A:Dildgoropoulos, for theapplicants. '-' - -- ·'-"" · ' ' ' • ' - .- ' ' . *. . ' r . •• . » Chr\Demetriades, for therespondents. fJ , '''•'•*'' ' •' '* ' ; . ' . : " .* τ; y V · • · '• * * ' • . ' ' ' . · • , . .• .Cur.adv.vu.lt. . ; ; ' ι ν ;κ, . ' · ' SAWIDES J.read tiefollowingjudgment Applicants bythe presentrecoursepray for adeclaration thattheactand/ordecision of therespondentstorefuse toissuea building permitfor addi tionsand/orextensions totheplants and/or-works of sinexisting petrolstationwhichwascommunicatedtoapplicantsbyletterdat ed 27th October, 1987, is null andvoid andof noeffect what soever as"having been made and/ortakencontrary totheprovi sions oflhe lawarid/or theregulationsandinexcessand/orabuse of theirpowers. '"'·1;ί··•'• ' · · ι *, · .. -' Thefactsrelevanttothepresentcasearebriefly asfollows: Applicants, a petroleum company operating in Cyprus, are contractualtenantsof theimmovable property underplots 221/4 and221/5 of sheet/planLIV/59 atAyios Athariassios villagein Limassol uponwhich theyerected,operateanduse apetroleum productservicefillingstationinaccordancewiththetermsofate nancy agreement dated 29th July, 1976, signed bythem'and'the ownersof thesaidproperty(photocopyof which was attachedto theapplicationasexhibit 1).' '. " • "!. · ".- r^r. '» : •· 'r . . · · . - . . . -..κ. .'Thepropertyinquestionwas demisedby theowners tothe ap plicantsfor atermof 16years with therighttohave theterm'extendedby further periods of five andfour years after its expira tion. By virtue of ahexpress termin the said agreement under -paragraph4(e)thereof andfor thepurposeofenabling applicants 1647 Sawides J. Mobil Oil v.M'lity AyiosAthanasios
(1988)tocarry outthenecessary worksandplantsfor theoperationof thisstationtheownersaslandlordsagreedandundertook"tosign allnecessaryapplicationstothemunicipality orothercompetent authority";andfurthermore bythesameagreementtheyconstitutedtheapplicants "astheirdulyauthorizedagentstosignallsuch 5 applications and generally doall things necessary on theirbehalf'.Theapplicantsactingasdulyauthorizedagentsoftheownersbyvirtueoftheaforesaidagreementdidinfactonthe7thDecember, 1976and 1stAugust, 1984submittotheImprovement Board of Ayios Athanassios (thepredecessor in titleof the re- 10 spondents) applications signed by them for building permits which applications wereaccepted andtherelevantpermitswere issued.Asimilarapplication wassubmitted byapplicantstothe respondentsonthe6thMarch,1987,whichwasonthe27thOctober, 1987,rejected onthegroundthatitdidnotsatisfy thepro- 15 visionsofregulation5of theStreetsandBuildingsRegulations. Thecontentsofsuchletterreadasfollows: "Irefer toyourapplication dated 6thMarch, 1984,for the issueofabuildingpermitfortheconstruction ofadditionsto theexistingpetrolstationonplot221/5,sh/planLIV/51 atAyi- 20 osAthanassiosvillageandwishtoinform youthatyourapplicationcannot bepursued astheprovisionsofregulation 5 of theStreetsandBuildingsRegulationsarenot satisfied. 2.Fortheaforesaid reason itisnecessary thattheapplication formandotherplansbesignedbytheowners." 25 Asaresultapplicantsfiled thepresentrecoursechallengingthe subjudicedecision. In arguing his casecounsel for applicants submitted thatthe application inquestion wasnotfiled anddoesnotfall withinthe 30 provisions of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law but it falls withintheprovisionsofthePetrolFillingStations(Regulation)LawsNos.94/68and7/72andtheregulationsmadethereunder which do not provide for thefilingand/or signing of the necessary application forms bytheownersof thepropertyupon 35 1648 3 C.L.R. Mobil Oil v.M'lity AyiosAthanassios Sawides J. whichthepetrolstationisconstructed.Hecontendedthatthe rer spondentsmisdirectedthemselvesastothelawapplicableand/or misconceivedtherelevantstatutoryprovisions. . ( -. . Withoutprejudice totheaboveandassumingthatregulation-5 5 of the Streets and Buildings Regulations is applicable counsel submitted that thedecision complained of is still based upona misconceptionoffact andlawrelevanttothecaseinthatregulation 5doesnotrequire anauthorization byapowerofattorney butonlyprovidesthatapplicationsshouldbemadebytheowners 10 orthedulyauthorizedagentoftheowners.Inpresentcase,counselsubmitted,byvirtueofthetermsoftheagreementbetweenthe ownersandtheapplicants theapplicants wereexpressly authorizedtosignanyapplicationsfortheerectionofanyplantsorany additionsthereto. • , ,; , ' 15 Counselfortherespondents,ontheotherhand,contendedthat , , Laws 94/68 and 7/72 should be read in conjunction with the' Streetsand BuildingsRegulationLaw,Cap.96..Infact, hesubmittedthatregulation6(b)oftheregulationsmadeunders.13of Law94/68providesthataprerequisitefortheissueofabuilding 20 permitforapetrolfilling stationisthatsuchpermitshould satisfy therequirementsoftheStreetsandBuildingsRegulationLawand anyregulationsmadeby,virtue.thereof.By,virtueofregulation5
(1)of the Streetsand BuildingsRegulations anapplicationcan onlybeconsideredifitissubmittedbytheownerorhisdulyau25 thorizedagentwhichimpliesthatsuchagentmustbeauthorized toactby.virtueofapowerofattorneyexecutedforsuchpurpose. .Inthepresentcasetherespondentsdidnotrefusetoexaminethe application on itsmeritshadit been submitted properly butreferred itbacktotheapplicantsasnotsatisfying theprovisionsof 30 thelawin^that ithadtobesigned bytheownersorbyaperson holdingapowerofattorneyactingonbehalfoftheownersashis dulyauthorizedagent. ,35 Before embarking onthe argument as towhether,thePetrol Filling Stations(Regulation)LawsNos.94/68and7/72 andthe regulations madethereundershouldbereadinconjunction with 1649 SawidesJ. Mobil Oil v.M'lity AyiosAthanassios
(1988)theStreetsandBuildings Regulation Law,Cap.96,1shallconsider thecaseon the assumption that theStreetsand Buildings Regulationsareapplicableandwhetherregulation5
(1)shouldbe construedassuggestedbycounselfor therespondents,andthen, ifnecessary,Ishallreverttoconsiderthequestionofapplicability 5 ofsuchregulationsinthepresentcase. Regulation5
(1)oftheStreetsandBuildingsRegulationspublishedintheSubsidiaryLegislation ofCyprus,vol.1,p.307providesasfollows: "5-(l) Every application for a permit to erect 10 shallbesignedbytheownerorhisdulyauthorized agentand shallbeinsuchform asmaybeprescribedfromtimeto time bytheappropriateauthority...". The question which poses for consideration is whether the 15 words "dulyauthorized agent"shouldbeinterpreted astomean "an agent authorized bya Powerof Attorney"andnotanagent dulyconstitutedinanyothermanner. Reading from Bowstead on Agency, 14th edition, as to "AgencyandAuthority",thefollowing appearsatp.l: "Agencyistherelationshipwhichexistsbetweentwopersons,one of whom expressly or impliedly consents that the othershouldrepresenthimoractonhisbehalf,andtheother of whom similarly consents torepresent the former or soto act" 20 25 UnderourContract Law,Cap. 149,thefollowing provisions appear whichrelate tothe appointment andauthorization ofan agent: "Section 146: Theauthorityofanagentmaybeexpressed orimplied 1650 30 3 C.L.R. Mobil Oil v. M'lity Ayios Athanassios Sawides J. Section 147:tPmauthority is said tobeexpress when it is given by words spoken orwritten...". ; AgainfromBowstead onAgency, undertheheading"Authori tyandpower",atp.4wereadthefollowing: t 5 "When examined,thisauthorityamountstonomorethan a power of aspecial sort,apower by doing anacttoaffect the principal'slegalrelationsasif hehaddonetheacthimself." andfurther down it is mentionedthatactual authority arises wherethereis agency byagreement. ( 10 Forthe purpose of thepresent case I have sought guidance from thedefinition of "authorize"and"authority"asgiven invari ouslegal dictionaries. . 'InBlack's Law Dictionary,5thedition,wereadthe following atp. 122: 15 ι, • 20 25 "Authorize: Toempower;togivearightorauthorityto act. Toendow with authorityor.effechve legal power, warrant or right.People v. Young100 i l l . App. 2nd 20,241,N.E.2d 587,589.Topermitathingtobedoneinfuture. Ithasaman' datoryeffect ormeaning, implying adirectiontoact. , '' ' - , 'Authorized* is sometimes construed as equivalent to.'per mitted',or 'divested', or tosimilar mandatorylanguage.Pos sessedof authority;thatis,possessed of legal orrightful pow er, the synonymous of which is 'competency' D.oherty v. KansasCity StarCo., 143Kan.802,57 P.2nd 43,45." In RadinLaw Dictionary,2ndedition,wereadthe following atp.28: "Authority: 1. Thepowergrantedtoanagentby his pnnci'paltomakecontractsandenterintotransactionsontheprinci pal's behalf.SeeAGENCY." 1651 Sawides J. Mobil Oil v. M'lity Ayios Athanassios
(1988)In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th edition, Volume 1,the word "authorize"is defined as follows: "InAustralia ithas been saidthat'authorise'shouldberead in its ordinary sense of sanction, approve or countenance (Winstonev. WurlitzerAutomatic Phonographic Co. ofAus. Pty Ltd.
(1946)A.L.R. 422) butit may, likeany other word, becontrolledby itscontext{Exp.Johnson,ReMacMillan, 47 N.S.W.S.R. 16)." In theOxford Universal Dictionary,volume 1,"authorize" is defined asfollows atp. 125: 5 10 "Authorize: Π.1,Toendow with authority;tocommission. 2.To found one's authority upon.3.Togivelegal or for malwarrant to(aperson)todo;toempower,permit authorita tively 1* Authorized: 1.Possessed of authority; thoroughly estab lished; 2. Placed in or endowed with authori ty.3.Legallyorduly sanctionedorappointed." In the Words and Phrases Legally Defined, Volume 1,2nd edition,wereadthefollowing atp. 140: "AUTHORITY: Express authority. By express authority is meanta real or actual authority, whetherit has beenexpresslyconferred in so many words or Impliedauthority By animplied authorityis meantanauthoritywhich isnot express, butwhich is implied by thecourtinthesame way in which any term is implied in a contract ". 1652 20 3 C.L.R. Mobil Oil v. M'lity Ayios Athanassios Sawides J. In Jowitt's Dictionary^of'EnglishLawr^nd'edition, -ppi 164165weread: "Authority, aright;anofficial orjudicial command;alsoa'le• gal power todoanactgivenby one mantoanother.* Aperson'. is said tounauthorisedbrito" have·an authoritywhenhe'isin" suchapositionthathecan'actinacertainmanner(defined by1 -•* theauthority)(a)-withoutincurring theliability-to whichhe"· * would beexposed in'theabsenceof theauthority;*and!(b) soas ' toproduce-thesameeffect asif-thepersongrantingtheauthori ty had himself done the act. Thus, if I authorise A to'-sell goods for meandhedoes so,heincursnoliability for so:do ling, andconfers a goodtitleonthe purchaser.r;See-AGENT; WARRANTY;' '/' ·. - A > , . . .,J.J --'.,• . ..»·,!·-..: Ptri^;' "-.?:'·.Ί* ;·"· .si·: i -uii/C'v ,-·. With reference tothemodeofitscreation, anauthority may be either express (as irith'e-above instance),·implied (orin'ferred), implied-inlaw; customary' (e.g.i therightofalordbf amanortomakegrantsof landin'themanor(Co. Litt-52-(b)), , or-smtutbryvetc. SeeFACTORSACT.^ ' ' - * ' :M..rsr^ '• / - ;;. ?«:,J ' ;. . » : i ' „ - - * : ' V < " > '•' ' '" Λ;.·' i '• With reference to itsextent, anauthoritymaybe general, to actin all theprincipal's affairs, or special, concerningsome particularobject (e.g.,tobuyaparticularpieceof-land);ritmay belimitedbycertaininstructionsastothecohduct'heistopur sue, or unlimited, i.e., leaving his conduct to his discre' ΰοην...,:ι.;.Λ:....;:;.;.;ν'..·:..>. ". Bearing inmindtheabove definitions,Ifindmyself unableto agree with thesubmission of Counselfor therespondentsthat to constitutesomebody anagentduly authorizedtoactonbehalf of another,aPower of Attorney is aprerequisite andjhat suchau thoritycanonly begivenby aPowerof Attorneyrin the present case underthetermsof thelease agreement,theapplicants were underparagraph4(e)constitutedby theownersof thepropertyas "theirduly authorized agents to sign all such applicationsand generally doallthingsnecessary ontheirbehalf' for thepurposes of thesaid plantsandworksandconcerningany applicationsto 1653 SawidesJ. Mobil Oil v.M'lityAyiosAthanassios
(1988)theMunicipalityorothercompetentauthority. Inthelightof theabovetermwhichexpresslyconstitutedthe applicantsasthedulyauthorizedagentsoftheownersforthepurposesofanyadditionsorerectionsonthepropertyinordertooperatesuchpropertyasapetrolfillingstation,Iamoftheviewthat 5 therequirementsof Regulation 5
(1)oftheStreetsandBuildings Regulationsarefully satisfied andthattherefusal ofthe respondentstoacceptapplicants'application,whichwassignedbythem asdulyauthorizedagentsoftheownersandtowhichacopyof theleaseagreementwasattached,wasnotjustified. Infact,ona jo. numberofpreviousoccasionstheImprovement BoardofAyios Athanassios,thepredecessorintitleoftherespondents,hadaccepted similar applications,properly, in my view, acting under regulation5
(1)oftheStreetsandBuildingsRegulations. I,therefore,findthattheapplicants'recoursesucceedsonthis 15 groundandthesubjudicedecisionoftherespondentsshouldbe annulled.Havingfound asabove,IfindthatitismerelyofacademicinteresttoconsiderwhethertheStreetsandBuildings RegulationLaw,Cap.96shouldbereadinconjunction ornotwiththe PetrolFillingStations(Regulation)LawsNos.94/68and7/72. 20 Intheresult,thesubjudicedecision isherebyannulledwith costsinfavouroftheapplicants. ^ Subjudice decision annulled with costsinfavourofapplicants. 1654