(1988)1988 November10 (A.LOEOU.P.,MALACHTOS,DEMETRIADES.STYUANIDES,PIKIS,JJ.) PHOTOSPHOHADES,PERSONALLY AND/OR INHISCAPACITY ASPARTNEROFPHOTOSPHOTIADES ANDCOMPANY AND ANOTHER, Appellants-InterestedParties, v. TAKIS PHOTIADES, Respondent-applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1. THE MINISTER OFCOMMERCEANDINDUSTRY, 2.THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER ANDREGISTRAR ANDOTHERS, Respondents. (RevisionalJuristiction AppealsNos.692, 697). Partnerships—Registration of—The Partnership Law, Cap. 116, section 56
(1)—Theregistration isneither anexecutory actnor does itbelong inthe domainofpublic law. Executoryact—Registration ofapartnershipunderCap.116—Itisaministerial,notanexecutory act. Acts or decisions in the sense ofArt. 146.1 of the Constitution—The test in determining whether anact isinthedomainofpublic orprivatelaw—The registration of apartnership under Cap. 116 is in the domain of private law. Thequestion in thiscasewaswhether theactoftheRegistrarof Companiestoregistera renewalofapartnershippursuant toanoticesentbyone 2084 3 C.L.R. Photiades v. Photiades & Another of thepartnersis reviewable as thetrial Judge had held,by meansof a re coursefor annulment. Held,allowing theappeal: 1)TheRegistration of a partnershipunder Cap. 116 is a ministerial, notan executory act,because it does notcreate rights,additionaltothosederiving from thepartnershipcontract.The regis tration makes possible thekeeping of public records abouttheexistence of partnership and inspection at a specified fee of theregister kept thereby. Neitherthekeeping of aregister noritsavailability for inspectioncanpossi- bly alterthecharacterof theactof registration. ; 5 10 2)Thereis noanalogy between registration of trademarks and registra tion of partnerships. The former does notdepend on agreement between parties;theanonymouspublic is affected thereby.Theinterest,ontheother hand, of thirdparties in theexistence of a partnership, is limited to those who tradeorcontemplatetrading with thepartnership.Theclassification of theregistration of apartnershipcanappropriatelybecomparedtothe regis tration of mortgages undertheCompany Law., 1 15 3)A substantive criterion is applied todeterminethedomainof the law '* intowhichparticularactionof theAdministration belongs,revolving onthe purpose itis intendedtopromoteandthedegree towhich itis subordinate tothedominantpurpose.Thesubjudice decision is inthedomainof private law. 20 v. » A •• 4Λ Appealallowed. · .") Recoursedismissed. Cases refenedto: 25 I.W.S. Nominee Co.Ltd. v. TheRepublic
(1967)3 C.b-R. 582; * L . Merck v.TheRepublic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 548; „ , * ·\ $ _• χ • ,_ , TheCompanyCarloErbaspa v.TheRepublic
(1977),3 C.L.R;427;, * . " - - ' % . ' ' r . . • • •V " ..- HellenicBank v.TheRepublic
(1966)3C.L.R. 4%\; , Λ , , V ,- Yorkinternational Securities Ltd. v. TheRepublic
(1987)3 <CL.R. 834;· 30 leropoulos v.DistrictLands OfficerLimassol
(1987)3*C.L.R. 830; 2085 J Photiades v. Photiades & Another
(1988)WestparkLimitedv.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R. 1473; Mahlouzaridesv. TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 2342; AntoniouandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1984)3CLM.
- Appeal. Appealagainst thejudgmentofthe.Presidentof theSupreme * Court of Cyprus (Tnantafyllides, P.) given on 29th November, 1986(RevisionalJurisdictionCaseNo.89/86)*wherebythedecisionoftherespondenttorenewthetermofPartnership"Photos Photiades & Co." for a further period of five years asfrom 1.8.1985wasannulled. 10 Chr. Cleriaes*fortheappellants—interestedparties. CLTheodoulou(Mrs.),SeniorCounselof theRepublic, for appellantsinR.A.
- Chr.Tnantafyllides, forrespondents. Cur. adv.vult. 15 A.LOIZOUP.:Thejudgment of theCourtwillbedelivered by Pikis,J. PDCISJ.: PhotosandhisbrotherTakisPhotiades,werepartners in equal shares in the partnership styled"PHOTOS PHOTIADES & CO.";their share in the partnership was 65%and 20 35%respectively.ThepartnershipwasregisteredwiththeRegistrarofPartnershipsforaperiodoftenyears.Itexpiredattheend of July, 1985,afact notified bytheRegistrartothepartnership, accompanied byaquery whetheritsrenewal wascontemplated. Following thereminder a noticefor itsrenewal for aperiod of 25 fiveyearswassubmittedtotheRegistrar,intheprescribed form. *Reportedin
(1987)3CLJt. 1490. 2086 3C.L.R. 5 10 ^ 30 Photiadesv.Photiades&Another 'PikisJ. On 31st August, 1985,the Registrar issued, pursuant to the provisionsofs.56(l)ofthePartnershipLaw,Cap.116,acertificatefor theextension of thepartnership for afive-year period. Theentryintheregisterwasgazetted(Fifth Supplement)on20th December, 1985,inaccordancewiths.59-Cap.116.TakisPhotiadesobjected totheregistration andchallenged itsvalidity for misconceptionofmaterialfacts.TheRegistraracted,inhiscontention,withoutinquiringintothefacts,particularly,witnoutelicitinghisintentionsastotheextensionoftheexpiredpartnership. Thenoticefor theregistration wassigned, unknown tohim,by hispartnerandallegedlycontrarytohiswishes.ForhispartPhotosPhotiadesmaintained theextension wasmadeinaccordance with anagreement of thepartiesandrelevantnoticewassigned byhimonbehalfofthepartnershipinaccordancewithastanding decisionofthepartners. Beforetheinstitutionofthepresentproceedings,anactionwas instituted before theDistrictCourtofNicosiawithaviewtosettingasidethetransferofapieceofimmovablepropertybelonging tothepartnershiptoalimitedcompanyinwhichtheshareholding ofthetwobrotherscorrespondedtothepercentageoftheirshare inthepartnership.Theinstitutionofthecivilactionwasaccompaniedbyanapplicationforaninterimorderdesignedtopreventthe partnershipfromalienating anyofitspropertypendingthedeterminationoftheaction.TheinterimordermadeontheexparteapplicationofTakisPhotiadeswassubsequentlydischargedforfailure on the part of the motioner to make full disclosure of the facts. Theinstitution of thepresentproceedingscoincided with the dischargeoftheinterimorder.Afairinferenceisthatthepresent proceedingsweremountedasadirectsequenceofthedischarge oftheinjunction earlierissuedinthecivilaction,andwithaview tosecuringanalogousinjunctiverelief. Triantafyllides,P.,ashethenwas,setasidetheregistrationof . thepartnership,mainlyonthegroundthatitwasmadeeitherin 35 ignoranceofmaterialfactsorwithoutproperinquiryintothem. In 2087 PikisJ. Photiades v.Photiades & Another
(1988)particular,itwasfound thattheRegistrarfailed toelicitthewishesofbothpartnersbeforeapprovingtheextensionofthepartnershipfor afurther periodoffiveyears.Earlier,thelearnedPresidentdecidedthattheregistrationofapartnershipunders.56(l)of the Partnership Law, was an executory decision of acharacter 5 sounding in thedomain of publiclaw.Infact, hemadeaprovisionalorderupontheinstitutionoftheproceedingsuspendingfor allpurposestheefficacy oftheregistrationorrepresentingthatit subsisted. Registration was, inter alia, intended, as henotedin his firstjudgment, to promotethepurposes set forth by s.60 of lft Cap. 116,that is,facilitate inspection by third parties. Andby analogytotheimplicationsderivingfromtheregistrationoftrade marks noticed in I.W.S. Nominee Co. Ltd. v. TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R. 582,Merckv.TheRepublic
(1972)3C.L.R. 548andThe CompanyCarloErbaspav.TheRepublic
(1977)3 C.L.R.427heconcluded thatadecisiontoregisterapartnership operatesinthedomainofpubliclawandassuchisjusticiableunder article 146.1. Sequentially tohisfirstjudgment, hedebated further thecharacterof thedecision with aviewtodetermining whether it was executory. He decided that registration under 20 s.56(l)hadtheattributesofanexecutoryadministrativeact"Inas much as the subjudice administrative action was intended to clothewithformalvaliditytherenewal,forfiveyears,ofthenew partnership inquestion, Iamof theopinion thatitwasadministrative action which brought about alegalsituationcreatingand 25 affectingrightsofthesaidpartnershipandofitspartners,oneof whom istheapplicant; and,therefore,itisadministrativeaction of anexecutory nature."Separateappealswerefiledagainstthe twojudgments thatattheendofthedaymergedintoone,revolvingonthefollowing threeissues: 30 (a)Thecharacteroftheactofregistrationofapartnership; (b)thedomainoflawinwhichtheactofregistrationfalls;and (c)ifjusticiable,themeritsofthedecision. 2088 3C.L.R. Photiades v.Photiades & Another PikisJ. Counselfortheappellantsarguedthatthepartnershipandmattersincidentalthereto,areprimarilymattersofprivatelawcongnizablebyacivilcourt,aslaid'down inthePartnershipLawitself.Moreover, hesubmitted that thedecision isnot executory 5 becauseitleavesessentiallyunaffected therightsandobligations ofthepartners.TheactionoftheRegistrarisnomorethan acertification withnonoticeableeffects initself on'therightsofthe parties.Theactionwasraised,counselsubmitted,becausetheefforts of theapplicant tosecureaninterimorderbyacivilcourt iQ werefrustrated bythedischargeof theorder.Theaction before thecivilCourt,itmustbestated,waseventuallydiscontinuedunder Ord.15,r.l, of the Civil Procedure Rules and the appeal abandoned. If themerits were tobeprobed at all;PhotosPhotiades was authorised by the terms of the partnership and the agreementofthepartnerstosignnoticesanddocumentsonbehalf of-thepartnership,afactestablishingthattheprerequisitesforan extensionweredulycompliedwith. 25 Forhispart,counselfortherespondentsubmitted thattheextensionhaddirectconsequencesonthepositionofthepartnersin thatitconvertedapartnershipatwill,thepositionthatemergedat theexpirationoftheten-yearperiod,intoapartnershipforafixed term.The analogy with trademarkswashighlypertinent, inso farasthechartingofthedomainoflawwasconcerned;theaction of the Registrar was reviewable and bound to be set aside, as counselcontended,inviewofthefailureonthepartoftheRegistrartocarryoutanyinquiryintothebackgroundofthefacts. CharacterofthedecisionoftheRegistrarofPartnerships unders.56(l) ofthePartnershipLaw, Cap. 116, andreviewability underArticle146.1 oftheConstitution: ™ 35 Foradecision tobeexecutory,itmustbegenerativeof rights. Onlydecisionscreativeinthemselvesofrightsarejusticiableunderarticle 146.1 oftheConstitution.'Theregistrationofapartnershipdoes not per seconfer rightson thepartners additional to thosethattheyenjoy incontract,asaresultoftheformation ofa partnershipbetweentwoormorepersons,nordoesitimposeany 2089 PikisJ. Photiadesv.Photiades & Another
(1988)additionalobligations.ThelearnedtrialJudgedoesnotsayotherwise,asIreadhisjudgment.Allhesaysisthatitconfers formal validity totheagreement.Itmakespossiblethekeepingofpublic records about the existence of partnership and inspection at a specified feeoftheregisterkeptthereby.Neitherthekeepingofa 5 register nor its availability for inspection canpossibly alterthe characterof theactof registration.Theactofregistration ispar excellenceaministerialactentailingthecertification ofanexisting fact. Itdoesnotpersepromotetheendsofapartnership,amatter JQ ofprivatelaw.Forthemaintenanceofanaccuraterecordofpartnerships and the attainment of thatend, the law attaches penal sanctionsfor anydefault inmakingtimelyreturns (s.61)andfor makinganyfalse statements(s.63).Evidently,thelegislatureextendedthearmofthecriminallawtoreinforce theefficacy ofthe ,c provisionsofthePartnershipLawaffecting registration. Therightsof thepartners are,subject toany agreementconcluded between them, regulated by the Partnership Law itself (s.66).OtherprovisionsofthePartnershipLawregulatetheirobligationstothepartnership,aswellastheirobligationsaspartners -n to third parties (see, inter alia, ss.26,70,31,17).Alsothelaw makesprovision fortherightsofpersonsdealing withapartnership (s.38). More significantly, the Partnership Law contains comprehensiveprovisionsfor thedissolutionofapartnershipby theCourt,includingitsdissolutionwheneveritisjustandequita- " ble (s,37).TheCourtvestedwithcompetencetoadjudicateupon suchanapplication,andanyothermatterrelevanttotheexistence of apartnership,andtherightsandobligationsofapartneris,as providedin s.2,theDistrict Court.Apartnership,itmustbeappreciated,is theoffspring ofcontract,thatis,theproductofthe concurrence of the willof twoormorepersons totransact busi- 30 ness incommon.It isparexcellenceamatterof privatelaw, affecting thepropertyrightsandobligationsofthecontractingparties. Theregistration of apartnership leaves unaffected the rights 35 2090 3 C.L.R. 5 Photiades v. Photiades & Another Pikis J. andobligations of theparties. Itproducesnonoticeablelegalcon sequences. Thedecision of theRegistrar toregister apartnership is notamenable tojudicial review underarticle 146.1 of the Con stitution. Not only a decision under,s.56(l) of thePartnership Law, Cap. 116, lacks executory character but,furthermore, it is onewholly incidentaltoadecision affectingprivate law rights. Theanalogy drawn by thelearnedPresidentwithdecisions of theRegistrar involving theregistration of trademarks is, with re spect, wholly inappropriate.The registration ofia*trade mark is ΙΟ not, nor does it presuppose, the agreement of ;any two or more parties. Theregistration of a trademark is in no way dependent on theagreement of any twoormoreparties. What itinvolves is thesignification of thewillof theAdministration inanarea affect ing tradingpublic andthesymbolsandemblems thattraders may , - ^legitimately adopt for the portrayal of their products. There is, with respect, noanalogy between registration of a partnership andregistration of atrademark. -Λ 25 30 The anonymouspublic is directly affected by decisions of the Registrar of TradeMarks andhas acorrespondinginterestinthe sustenanceof thepurity of theregister. Theinterest,ontheother hand,of third parties in theexistence of apartnership,is limited to those who tradeor contemplatetrading with the partnership. Theclassification of theregistration of apartnershipcanappropri ately be compared to the registration of mortgages under the CompanyLaw. InHellenicBank v.Republic* it was decidedthat therefusal of the Registrar of Companiestoregister a mortgage under Part ΠΙof the Companies Law, Cap. 113, was nonjusti ciable because theregister andits keeping weremattersprimarily affecting private law rights andas suchcognizable by acompetent civil court.Relevant also is thedecision inYorkInter-nationalSe curities Ltd. v. Republic** where it was decided thata decision of the Registrar of Companies under s.159 of the Companies Law, Cap. 113,involving theappointmentof inspectorsto *
(1966)3 CLR.481. **
(1987)3 CLJl. 834. 2091 PikisJ. Photiadesv.Photiades&Another
(1988)investigatetheaffairs ofacompanyisnotjusticiableunderarticle 146.1becauseitiswholly incidental totheprotection ofprivate lawrightsandtheextentof thepenalprovisionsofthelawassociated with themanagementof theaffairs of thecompany.Two other decisionscited bycounsel,namely,leropoulos v.District 5 Lands OfficerLimassol* and ^WestparkLimitedv. Republic** alsothrow lightonthechartingofthedomainofpublicandprivatelaw. Theprinciplesrelevanttoidentifying thetwodomainswerethe subject ofextensive discussion bytheFullBenchinMahlouza- JQ ridesv.Republic.*** Weshallnotdebatethoseprinciplesanew, saveto stressthatasubstantivecriterionisappliedtodetermine thedomainofthelawintowhichparticularactionoftheAdministration belongs,revolvingon thepurpose it isintended topromote and thedegree towhich itis subordinate tothedominant ,c purpose. Weconcludebydecidingthatthesubjudicedecisionisneither executorynoronecognizableinthedomainofpubliclaw.Therefore,theappealswillbeallowedandtherecoursedismissed. Appealsallowed. *
(1987)3CL.R. 830. **
(1987)3CL.R. 1473. ***
(1985)3 CL.R. 2342;see, also.Antoniou and Othersv. Republic
(1984)3 CL.R. 623). 2092