(1988)1988 August31. [A.LOEOU, P.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHEINSTITUTION, ALEXANDRACHRISTODOULOUCHRISTOPHI, Applicant, v. THEAGRICULTURALINSURANCEORGANISATION, Respondent. (CaseNo.778/86). Experts—Appreciation offacts inmatter within their sphere—Judicial control—Principlesapplicable—Correctnessfromscientificaspect—Cannotbe examinedbythisCourt. Constitutional Law—Right to recourse beforea Court—Constitution, Art. 30—TheAgriculturalInsuranceRegulations, 1977,Reg. ll
(10)and(ll}— WhetherthefinalityexpressedthereinoffendsArticle30—Suchfinalityrefers totheconclusivenessoftheactionoftheadministration,butdoesnot purporttotakeawaytherighttorecoursetothisCourt. 5 Reasoningofanadministrativeact—Duereasoning—Whatconstitutesduereasoning. 10 Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: HjiMichaelv. TheRepublic
(1972)3 C.L.R.246; Michanicosv.TheRepublic
(1976)3C.L.R. 237; .<• Republicv.Georghiades
(1972)3C.L.R.594; 1700· 15 ( 3 C.L.R. Ί Christofi v. Agr. Ins. Organisation MichaelidesandAnothery.TheAttorney-General
(1978)3CJLR;-285; Cytechnov. TheRepublic
(1916)3C.L.R:407; ^ . . -' Pitsillidesv. TheRepublic
(1978)3C.L.R. 99; Eraclidouv. TheRepublic
(1966)3C.L.R.44; 5 . . . Ho'ppi v. TheRepublict
(1972)3CJuR.
- Recourse. ., Recourse against theassessment ofthedamagecaused-to ap plicant's vineyards byhail.·κ '; P. Soteriou, fortheapplicant. ^ ,-
- . w \, Ch. Kyriakides, CounseloftheRepublic,forthe respondent. ., Cur. adv.yult. 15 A. LOIZOU P.read thefollowing judgment. Bythepresent recourse theapplicant challenges thevadilityofthedecisionof therespondentOrganisation regarding the assessment ofthe damagecausedby hailtohervineyards. 20 The applicantis theregistered owner of two vineyards, one underRegistration No. 8313;Plot 893 ofanextentofseven donums andtheotherunderRegistration No.7990,Plot233ofan extentoftwodonumsandoneevleksituatedatlocality "Skaloua" ofthevillageofArminou. , . :> , · 25 Onthe 13thof-May 1986 ahailstormoccurredinthevillageof Arminouandboththesevineyards weredamaged.In accordance with Regulation 7 of the Agricultrural Insurance Regulations 1977 published intheOfficial Gazetteof the Republic ofthat year,supplementΠΙ
(1)atp.495,applicationsweresubmitted by allconcernedincludingthe.applicant. . 1701 A. Loizou P. Christofi v. Agr. Ins.Organisation
(1988)Theassessment of damage was carried outbetween the27th May 1986 and5thJuly 1986andafter theassessments werecom pleted theconclusions of such assessments were posted onthe 20thAugust
- Objections were submitted asprovided by Regulation 11and 5 the reassessments were carried out in accordance with the said Regulation by two otheragriculturists-assessors onthe 13thSep tember
- During the reassessment it was ascertained and pointed out tothe husband of theapplicant thattheir vineyard, apartfromthedamagefromthehail, hadalsoasevere attack from 10 mildew (στάχτη)andvotritis (βοτρίτις)andwas affected bythe drought,thatis categories of damage which are notcovered by the respondent Organisation. Onthebasisof thisascertainment and thereassessment madeby thesaid experts, theirconclusion was communicatedtotheapplicant. Forthepurposeof theirreas- 15 sessment, they had collected thefollowing facts, -which obvi ously aretheirreasoning. (a)Theapplicanttogetherwiththehusbandcultivates inall43 donumsof vineyards. (b)In1984 which was anormalcropyearfor vineyards hada 20 cropof 16,500okes. (c)In 1985 which was considered ayear of exceptional crop theyhad25,450 okes. "U; (d) In 1986 which was considered a very bad year for the cropsof vineyards with areductionof thecropsby about30%to 25 35% they hada cropof 16,050okes whereas thecropassessed by therespondentOrganization as having beendamaged by hail andcompensatedwas 4,800okes,which makesthetotalcropfor theyear 1986 as being 20,850 okes. Theirreassessment of thedamage suffered from hailwas 30% 30 inrespect of plot underRegistration No.8313,and25%forthe other one,whereas thedamage assessedoriginally was 20%in 1702 3 C.L.R. Christofi v.Agr.Ins.Organisation bothplots. • * * ; • · . . • -· j • . ' ' . A.Loizou P. ,n . * - •· ' " J " Itisthe,casefortheapplicantthattherespondentOrganisation actedunderamisconception offactinasmuchastheauthorised by therespondent Organisation assessor,and the agriculturists5 assessors carried out their assessment andreassessment of the damageof thevineyardsof theapplicant without applying«the necessary specialknowledgeof theagricultural science"asprovided by Regulation 10para. 1of the Regulations, and "they usedothermethodsand/ornomethodsand/ordidnotreassessthe 10 damage,butassessed samefromadistanceand/orin staticway and/orincomparison withthedamagewhichtheadjacent vineyardsor thevineyardsof thearea suffered". Asaresultof such assessmentsandreassessments,therespondentOrganisationactedunderamisconception offact. 15 In support of theseallegations there were filed an affidavit swornbythehusbandoftheapplicantandareportofanagriculturistengagedin "Imports-ExportsWholesales",asitisstatedin hisletterheadingaddressedtothehusband oftheapplicant. Itmay conveniently be said herethat theappreciation of the factsofacase,moresointhecasewherethematterfalls within thesphereofexperts,iswithintheprovinceoftheadministration andthisCourtwillnotinterfere andsuchappreciationcannotbe the subject of a recourse unless there has been established an abuseorexcessofpowerorthattheadministrationhasexceeded 25 the limits of its discrection. See HjiMichaelv. TheRepublic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 246, Michanicos v. The Republic
(1976)3 C.L.R.237,Republic v.Georghiades
(1972)3C.L.R.594, Michaelidesandanotherv.TheAttorney-General
(1978)3C.L.R. 258, Cytechnov.Republic
(1976)3C.L.R.407, Pitsillidesy. 30 The Republic
(1978)3C.L.R.99.In this last case it washeld thattheadministrativeCourtcannotnormallyexaminethecorrectnessfromthescientific aspectofamedicalreportsubmittedonan application for disability pension. AlsoinEraclidouv.TheRepublic
(1966)3C.L.R.44itwasheldthatasregardsfindingsof 35 technicalnaturemade.bytheadministrationtheCourtcanonlyex20 1703 A.Loizou P. Christofi v.Agr.Ins.Organisation
(1988)aminewhetherinmaking suchfindings theadministrationacted inapropermannerfromthepointofviewofconstitutionality,legalityandtheprinciplesgoverningexcessorabuseofpower. Inthecaseinhandnothinghadbeenshowntosuggestexcess orabuseofpowernoranymisconceptionoffact!Theexpertagri- 5 culturists instructed bytherespondent Organisation tocarryout there-assessmentofthedamage,visitedthevineyardoftheapplicantandtheyevenhadaconversationwithherhusbandaboutthe damagefromhailandtheothercauses. The second ground of lawrelied upon is that Regulation 11 10 andinparticularparagraphs
(10)and
(11)thereof,arecontraryto theprovisionsofArticle30oftheConstitutionastheydeclarethe conclusion ofthereassessmentasfinalandconclusiveandsodeprive theinsured of their right tohaverecourse totheCourt to whichtheyareentitledtohaveaccessunderthesaidArticleofthe 15 Constitution. Though nofurther elaborationonthisgroundwasmadeinthe addressof learned counsel for theapplicant,yetI feel boundto pronounceonitbecauseofitsimportance.Theshortanswertoit is that the Regulation in question must be taken torefer tothe 20 conclusivenessoftheadministrativeprocessanddoesnotpurport to take awaytherightsof arecoursetothisCourt underArticle 146of theConstitution, It speaksonly of therebeing "noroom for anyobjection whentheprovisionsoftheRegulationarecomplied with". This interpretation, nodoubt, brings it in line with 25 the said Article of the Constitution (Hoppi v. TheRepublic
(1972)3C.L.R. 269). Needless to say that noobjection whatsoevertotherightoftheapplicanttoproceedwithherpresentrecoursewasraisedbytherespondentOrganisation. The thirdgroundof Lawreliedupon bytheapplicantisthat 30 thesub-judicedecisionisnotdulyreasoned.Whatisduereasoningdependsonthecircumstancesofeachcaseandinthecircumstancesofthepresentcasethereappearstobeproperreasoning. Infact bytheaforementioned paragraph
(10)ofRegulation 11a 1704 3.C.L.R. Christofi v.Agr.Ins.Organisation A.Loizou P. particularFormisprescribedforsettingouttheconclusionsofthe reassessmentsinthesameway assimilarFormsareprescribed byparagraph
(7)ofRegulation 10forthoseoftheassessor. Foralltheabovereasonsthesub-judicedecisionisconfirmed andtherecourseisdismissedbutinthecircumstancestherewill benoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. , «y; • >.t, / . V-i .. v: -V /' · ' .v7L .' 1705