(1988)1988November 16 [MALACHTOS, J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION IOANNISLOEIDES, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEMINISTRYOFEDUCATIONAND/OR THEEDUCATIONALSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 182/77). Practice—RevisionalJurisdictionAppeal—Extensionofthetimewithin which to file it—Mistake of advocate in notfilingtheappealin time—Not a groundsufficienttograntanexteniion—Reviewofauthoritiesconcerning thematter. Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appearinthejudgmentoftheCourt. e Applicationdismissed. Noorderasto costs. Casesreferredto: Branco SalvageLtd. v.TheRepublic
(1967)3'C.L.R. 213; Loizou v.Konteati
(1968)1 C.L.R. 291; 10 Georghiou (No.3) v.TheRepublic
(1968)3C.L.R. 563; 2108 3 C.L.R. Loizides v. Republic Cyprian SeawaysAgenciesLtdv. TheRepublic
(1981)3C.L.R. 271; 1 PavlouandAnotherv. Cacoyannis>
(1963)2C.L.R.405; Edwards v.Edwards [19681 1 W.L.R. 149. Application. 5 Application for extension of timewithin which tofile an ap.peal. I, · " • ' · · Chr.Triantafyllides, for the applicant. A.S.AngelideSy for the respondents. , 10 15 Jl or, ..' Cur. adv. vult. . MALACHTOS J. read the following judgment. On the7th May, 1987,judgment was issued inthisrecourse dismissing the claimof theapplicantfor adeclarationof theCourt that the deci sionof therespondentpublished inthe Official Gazetteof theRepublic,-No.717, dated*22.4.1977, taappointto. thepost of In spector 1st Grade-Secondary Education,the*interestedparties, namely, 1.Aris.Georghiqu and2.Andreas Phylactou,"insteadof χ .theapplicant,is"nullandvoid aridof nolegal'effect whatsoever. After theexpirationof thesix weekstimeprescribed'by Order 35,rule 2of.the Civil ProcedureRules,which are applicable in .administrative cases by virtue of the SupremeConstitutional CourtRules 1962,rule 18,within which theapplicantwasentit,ledtofile anappealagainst-thejudgment of diecourt,hefiled an • Ί· · -' - r ' · **' *cv· · **1 "'** •- · '' ·' " r '* applicationforextensionof time. , «c / In.the affidavit in support.of theapplication the,onlyreason ; given as to,why theappealwas notfiled intimeis'that "although theappeal against the decision undertheabove numberandtitle recourse was early prepared andin time,nevertheless, duetoa misunderstandingitwas notfiled withintheprescribedtime". . 2109 MalachtosJ. Loizidesv.Republic
(1988)Therespondentopposedtheapplicationandintheaffidavit in support thereof, alleged that theapplication isnotbasedonany one of therules in force or on the Case Law of the Supreme Court. On9.1.1988,whentheapplicationcameupforhearingbefore 5 the court, counsel appearing for the applicant applied andobtainedleavetowithdrawitandasaresultitwasdismissed. Theapplicanton2.2.1988,throughhispresentadvocate, filed anewapplicationforextensionoftimetofileanappeal.Inthe affidavit insupportthereoftheapplicantallegesthatalthoughimme- 10 diatelyafter theissueofjudgmenton7.5.1987,heinstructedhis advocatetofile anappeal,nosuchappealwasfiled. Anapplicationfor extensionoftimewasfiledafter theexpirationofthesix weekstimeprescribedbytherulesandthisapplicationwaswithdrawn without his knowledge on 9.1.1988. He further alleges 15 thatitisnotfair for himtosuffer forthemistakeofhisprevious advocate. Counselfor applicantinsupportoftheapplicationreferred to BrancoSalvageLtd.v.TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R.213,Loizou v. Konteati
(1968)1C.L.R.291 and Georghiou (NoJ) v. 20 TheRepublic
(1968)3C.L.R.563andsubmitted thatinspiteof theresultofthosecasesthecaseinhandshouldbedistinguished astheapplicantisnottoblameforthedelay. Ontheotherhand,counselfortherespondentinopposingthe application laid stressonthefact thataresponsibleadvocateon 25 9.1.1988appeared before thecourtandwithdrewasimilarapplication.Hefurther cited thecaseof Cyprian SeawaysAgencies Ltd.v.TheRepublic
(1981)3C.L.R.271whereareviewofthe positionasregardsapplicationsforextensionoftimetofileanappealwasmadebyA.Loizou,J.,ashethenwas,wherereference ~* wasmadetoagreatnumberofdecidedcasesbothinprivateand publiclaw. Itiswellsettledthatthepowerofthecourttoenlargethetime 2110 3 C.L.R. 5 Q c " J Loizidesv.Republic Malachtos J. for appeal iswithin its discretion depending alwayson the facts of theparticularcase.InAretiPavlouandAnother v.GeorgeCacoyannis
(1963)2 C.L.R. 405,it wasdecided that the failure of theadvocateorthelitiganttotaketheproper stepsforthefilingof an appeal within theprescribed period, isnota sufficient ground upon which thediscretion of thecourt should beexercised in favour of the applicant. In Edwards v. Edwards [1968] 1 W.L.R. 149,itwasdecided thatalladjudication likeevery pieceof social engineering, is a compromise between a number of desiderata, not allofwhich areeasily madeconsistent.Themostrelevant of all is that it is desirable that disputes within society should be brought toanendas soon asitisreasonably practical and should notbeallowed todragfesteringly onfor anindefinite period. Inthepresentcasetheinterested partiesacquired avestedright judicially declared; Thiswas subject toan appealfiledwithin the time prescribed by therules and after theexpiration of that time theirrightsunder thejudgment becamefinal. Ihold theview that thecauseputforward bytheapplicantbefore methatthedelay to filean appeal wasduetoamistakeon behalf of hisprevious advocate, is not sufficient toexercise my discretion in his favour. Furthermore,we must not lose sight of thefact that a similarapplication wasmadeand waswithdrawn on 9.1.1988. Intheresult,theapplication for extension oftimetofileanappeal isrefused and with theutmost reluctance Imake noorder as tocosts. Applicationrefused. No orderasto costs. 2111