(1988)1988 December 17 [PIKIS.J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION I.CHRYSANTHOSANTONIOU& SONS, Ζ CHRYSANTHOSANTONIOU, Applicants, v. 1.NICOSIAMUNICIPALITY, 2.NICOSIAMUNICIPALCOUNCIL, 3.NICOSIATOWNCLERK. Respondents. (CaseNo. 501184). Recoursefor annulment—Ruling thatsubjudice actis ofanexecutory na ture—RetirementfromtheBenchoftheJudge(Triantafyllides,P. whowas appointedAttorney-GeneraloftheRepublic)whoissuedtheruling',before finaladjudicationoftherecourse—Recourseassignedto anotherJudge— Directionsfor rehearing—WhethertrialJudgeboundbyaforesaidruling— 5 Questiondeterminedinthenegative—Indeed,retrialentailstrialofevery matterputinissuebytheApplicationandtheOppositionandthatincludes thejusticiabilityofarecourse, theforemostissueinanyrecourse—Neither thedoctrineofprecedentnorthedoctrineofResJudicataareapplicableto theissueathand. 10 ActsordecisionsinthesenseofArt. J46J oftheConstitution—TheMunici palitiesLaw, Cap. 240adoptedbyincorporation byLaw64/64, sections 138-140—Decision toservenoticeonapplicantstoremovea nuisance— Nuisance,itscommission andabatement,areprimarilymattersofprivate law—TheaforesaidprovisionsintendtoconferonMunicipalitiespowerto 15 obtaininjunctiverelief—Thesubjudicedecisionisnotanadjudicationes tablishingtheexistenceofnuisance—Therecipientofthenoticeisfreeto applytoaCivilCourtandseekitsdischarge bywayofdeclaration—The criterionofthedistinctionbetweenpublicandprivatelawissubstantive—A notice undersection139isinthedomainofprivatelaw. 20 2494 3 C.L.R. , Antoniou & Sons v. N' sia M' lity Executory act—A notice undersection 139of the MunicipalitiesLaw, Cap. 240, toremoveanuisance—Doesnotaffecttherightsoftheaddressee— Therefore, itisnotofanexecutorynature. The facts and issuesraised it this case,as wellas theprinciplesexpoundedandappliedbytheCourtinthiscase,aresufficiently indicated in thehereinaboveheadnote. t Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. '* Casesreferredto: I ' y I ' '' ι ' ' ' cMakridesv. TheRepublic
(1967)3CX.R.147; Carayiannisy.TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R. 39; Republicv.Demetriades
(1977)3 C.L.R. 213; FrangosandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1982)3 CX.R.53; Pierisv. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.1054; Mahlouzaridesv. TheRepublic
(1985)3CL.R.'2342; AntoniouandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1984)3C.L.R. 623; PhotiadesandAnotherv. TheRepublic
(1988)3 C.L.R. 2084; HellenicBankv. TheRepublic
(1986)3CL.R.481; YorkInternationalSecuritiesLtd. v. TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R. 834. Recourse. Recourse against the notice served on the applicants to abate the nuisance caused by the storage of metals in their site,at Nico sia. 2495 Antoniou & Sonsv.N* siaM'lity
(1988)Chr.Clerides,fortheapplicants. A. Pandelides,fortherespondents. Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS J. read thefollowing judgment. Thiscase has along history that must be recounted in order toexamine the issues 5 raised inperspective.Theapplicants dealinmetals.Theirmerchandiseisstoredona siteatNicosia.Theusemadeofthesite constituted,intheopinionoftheMunicipality ofNicosia,anuisance.In exercise of the powers vested in the Municipality by s.139oftheMunicipalitiesLaw(Cap.240adoptedbyincoipora- 10 tion byLaw 64/64) they served upon theapplicants a noticeto abateit. Section 138(asamendedbys.2ofLaw89/70) defines theingredientsof nuisance according totheStatute.Applicants objectedtothenotice;theydisputedtheview takenbytheMunicipalityoftheusemadeofthesiteandthevalidityofthenoticeit- 15 self. Thepresentrecourse wasraisedin September, 1984.ThereviewofthenoticeandthedecisionreferredtothereinwereSought withaviewtotheirannulment.Thedecisionandthenoticeincidentaltheretoarechallengedascontrarytolaw,namelyss. 138 20 and 139-Cap.240and,asfounded onanunconstitutionallegislativeenactment.Intheircontentions. 139offends theseparation betweenthepowersoftheStategrantedintheConstitutionofthe Republic.Totheextent thissubmission hasbeenarticulatedby theaddressofcounselfor theapplicants,itappearstobetheirpo- 25 sitionthats.139confers aspeciesofjudicialpoweronmunicipal corporations,thatis,anadministrativeauthorityinbreachofthe constitutionalframeworkthatveststhewholespectrumofjudicial powerwhollyandexclusivelyinthejudiciary.Inthegroundsof lawcitedintheapplication insupportoftheremediessought,ref- «« erenceis alsomadetoarticles23,25 and26oftheConstitution the relevance of which is hard todiscernin the context of the presentproceedings.Seeminglythesearticleswereabandonedas abasisforthepleaofunconstitutionality,aninferencethatmay 2496 3CL.R. Antoniou & Sonsv.N'sia M* lity PikisJ. bedrawn from theabsenceofanyreference totheminthefinal addressofcounselforapplicants. Therespondentsopposedtherecourseonthreegrounds:(a)Lackofjusticiabilityofthesubjectmatter. 5 (b)Validityofthedecisiononthemeritsandthenoticeembodyingit;and (c)absenceofanyinconsistenceorincompatibilityoftheprovisionsofs. 139ofthelaw,withanyarticleoftheConstitutionorthedoctrineofseparationofpowers. 10 Articulatingtheirobjection tothejusticiabilityoftherecourse therespondentscontendedthattheactioncomplainedofwasnot executory inthesenserequired byarticle 146.1oftheConstitution. ThetrialoftherecoursewasassignedtoH.H.Triantafyllides, P.ThelearnedJudgedirectedthatthecompetenceoftheCourt.to takecognizanceofthesubjectmatteroftheproceedingshouldbe decided before any inquiry into the merits of the case. On 15.2.86,after hearing theparties,theCourtruledthatthenotice complainedofwasanexecutoryactordecisionandassuchcog20 nizablebytheCourt Thenoticetoabatewhatwasclaimedtobea nuisance,wasprejudicial totherightsoftheapplicantwhocould, therefore, seekitsreviewbywayofjudicialaction.Prayer(B)of therecourse,directedtowardstheomissionoftherespondentsto replytoaletterof theapplicants,wasdismissed asnonjusticia25 ble.Thereafter, thecasewasfixed fordirectionsonnumerousoccasions.Induecoursedirectionsweregivenfor thesubmission of written addresses.On22.7.87directionswereissuedthataddressesbesubmitted by 15.11.87.Thelitigantsfailed tocomply withthedirectionsoftheCourt.Anextensionoftimewasgrant30 edfor thepurposeof facilitating theparties tosubmittheiraddresses; and the case was adjourned for further directions to' 25.4.88.Onorbefore 1.4.88,Trantafyllides, P.retired from his ' 2497 PikisJ. Antoniou & Sonsv.N'siaM' lity
(1988)positionasamemberoftheSupremeCourtconsequentiallytohis appointment totheOffice ofAttorney-General of theRepublic. Bydirectionsof theSupremeCourtthecasesthatwerepending before Triantafyllides, P., werereassigned for trialtotheother members of the Supreme Court.Followingthesedirections and 5 infurtherance thereof,thiscasewas assignedtomefor trial-a factdulynotedontherecordoftheCourtof25.4.
- The addresses of the parties had not been submitted by 25.4.
- The Court, evidently espoused the view that this isa propercasefor thesubmissionofwrittenaddresses,extendedthe timeforthesubmissionoftheaddressinreply,andfixed thecase forclarifications on 10.6.88.OnthatoccasionIsoughttheviews of the parties on the implications of the ruling of the Courtof 15.2.88,intimatingmyreservationsastothejusticiability ofthe subject matteroftheproceedings.Thecasewasfixed forhearing on20.9.88.OralargumentswereadvancedbyMr.A.Pandelides in support of the submission that the ruling of the Court, of 15.2.86,is not binding on mewhereas submissions tothecontrarywereraisedinduecoursebycounselfortheapplicants.Mr. Chr.Clerides madereference, inparticular, totwodecisionsof theSupremeCourtthatestablish,inhissubmission,thatitisincompetent for thisCourt toexamineafresh mattersresolvedby the ruling of the Court of 15.2.86.The decisions are those in Makrides v.Republic
(1967)3CL.R. 147,151and Carayiannis v.Republic
(1980)3CL.R. 39, 42. I havecarefully examined both cases andfar from agreeing withtheratioattributedbycounsel(asderiving)tothem,Iamof the view that they support thecontrary proposition. Both were casesthatwerereassignedfortrialtoothermembersoftheCourt following absence andretirement,respectively,of themembers 30 of theSupremeCourttowhomthecaseshadbeenoriginallyassigned fortrial.ItwasdecidedinboththattheCourtshouldproceedtodisposeofthecases onthebasisoftheaddressesalready raised bycounsel.TheCourt, however, tookpains tostresson both occasions that it was competent for the second Court to 35 which thecasewasassigned,toinvitefurther argumentsorgive 2498 10 15 20 25 3CL.R. ^ 10 Antoniou &'Sonsv.N* sia M'lity Pikis j . suchdirectionsfor theelicitationoftheissuesasitmightdeem appropriate; for theobviousreason that thereasignment of the casesnecessarilyentailedtheir rehearing.Anycontrarypropositionwouldbreachthefundamental rulepervadingeveryfacetof theadministration ofjustice,namelythatthetrialofthecase-that istheresolutionoftheissuesindispute-isheardanddetermined byoneandthesameBench.Incidentalmattersthatmaybeproperlydivorced from theissuesof thecase,such asaninterimorder,maybedeterminedbyaBenchwithadifferent composition, fortheobviousreason thattheyleaveunaffected andtheydo,not prejudge any of themattersatissue.The foremost issue inany proceedingisthecompetenceoftheCourttotakecognizanceof thecase. Nocourtcharged totryajudicial causecanbedenied freedom toexaminetheissueofjurisdiction. Acceptanceofthe contraryviewwouldinevitablyfetterjudicialfreedom ofthought andconscience,incompatible with theexerciseofjudicial functions. Theretrialofacasenecessarilyentailsthetrialofeverymatter putatissuebythepleadings,thatis,theapplication andoppositionthereuvAnd thatnecessarilyincludesthejusticiabilityofthe subjectmatteroftheproceedings.Thequestiondebatedaboveis wholly separate and independent from any questions ofprecedent,thatis,thebindingeffect ofapreviousjudgmentoftheSupremeCourtonsubsequentjudicialdeterminations.Thedoctrine ofbindingprecedentisdeeplyrootedinourjudicial systemand 2 * finds expression daily injudicial pronouncements. This is not propercasetodebateitsspectrumsavetorefertotheleadingcase onthe subject ofRepublic v.Demetriades
(1977)3CL.R. 213 andnotethatfirst instancejudgmentsarenotstrictlybindingon courtsof coordinatejurisdiction. Asexplained inFrangos and 30 Others v.Republic,
(1982)3CL.R. 53judgments ofcourtsof coordinatejurisdiction are,asarule,followed in theinterestof certaintyofthelaw;buttheymaybedepartedfromwheneverthe Courtisoftheviewthattheyarefoundedonawrongprincipleof 35 laworarefraught with an.errorin thereasoning.In thecaseof Frangos, supra,adifferent viewwastakenfrom thatadoptedin anearliercaseofthejusticiabilityofcertainpreparatory actsre2499 PikisJ. Antoniou & Sonsv.N'siaM' lity
(1988)volvingonanalysisof theimplicationsof theactanditscharacter. Resjudicataisyetanothersubjectdebatedbycounselinjuxtaposition totheimplicationsofthedecisionof 16.2.86.InPieris v.Republic
(1983)3CL.R. 1054(F.B.)weexaminedtheappli- 5 cabilityofthedoctrineofresjudicatainthefieldofadministrative lawanditsimplications.Itwasnotedthatthedoctrinefindsapplicationinjudicial adjudications underarticle146.1 provided(a)thereisanadjudication inthemerits,and (b)thepointatissuewasdecideddirectlyorbynecessaryim- 10 plicationinthefirstrecourse. In thiscase not only therewasnoadjudication onthemerits but with thedirections for retrial all matters atissue werereopenedforjudicialconsiderationanddetermination. InthelightoftheabovetheCourtisnotbarredfrominquiring 15 into thejusticiability of the subject matter of theproceedings. Consequendy,thefirst question Imust addressiswhether anoticegivenunders.139ofCap.240isamenabletojudicialreview underarticle 146.
- First, we mustconsider thenatureof the subject matterof a 20 noticeunders.139inordertodeterminethedomainofthelawin which thenoticeoperates.Sections 138-140dealwithnuisance, associated withtheuseoflandandpremises.Nuisance,itscommissionandabatement areprimarilymattersofprivatelaw.Publicandprivatenuisanceareactionabletortsunderss.45and46of 25 theCivilWrongsLaw-Cap. 148.Therelevantprovisionsofthe MunicipalCorporationsLaw(ss.138-140)aredesignedtoconfer power totheMunicipality totakeactiontostemactsofnuisance.Theinterest of theMunicipally in theabatement of nuisance cannot be doubted onconsideration of their statusasthe 30 public authorityresponsible inlaw for ensuring theuseofland and premises within the municipal area, according to law.The 2500 3C.L.R. 5 JQ Antoniou &Sonsv.N'siaM' lity PikisJ. objectoftheChapterentitled "Nuisances"oftheMunicipalCorporationsLaw,isprimarilyintendedtoconferontheMunicipality arighttoapply for injunctive relief.Section 139authorisesthe serviceofnoticeoftheaddresseeoftheviewtakenbytheMunicipalityoftheusemadebythelandorpremisesinorderto afford anopportunity tohimtoremedytheallegedmisuse.Contraryto thesubmissionofcounsel,s. 139isnottantamounttoanadjudicationestablishingtheexistenceofnuisance.Therecipientofthe noticeofthefreetoapplytoacivilcourtandseekitsdischargeby wayofdeclaration.Ontheotherhand,ifuseismadebytheMunicipalityofthepower vestedbys. 140,theycannotactuponthe premisethatanuisancehasbeen committedbyservinganotice under s.
- I am, therefore, driven to the conclusion that the subjectmatteroftherecourseisnotcognizablebywayofjudicial reviewofadministrativeaction. Thechartingofthedomainoflawinwhichadministrative actionoperatesforthepurposeofdeterminingitsreviewabilityunders.146.1of theConstitution, wasthesubject ofexplicitexamination bytheFullBenchoftheSupremeCourtinMahlouzaridesv.Republic,
(1985)3CL.R.2342andearlieroninAntoniou and Othersv. Republic(
(1984)3 CL.R. 623 - a first instancejudgment).Thequestionwascanvassedanewintherecent decisionof theFullBenchinPhotiadesandAnotherv.Republic
(1988)3 C.L.R. 2084; see, also, HellenicBank v.Republic
(1986)3C.L.R.481;York InternationalSecuritiesLtd.v.Re25 public
(1986)3CL.R.834).Thecaselawconclusively establishesthatasubstantiveasopposedtoaformalcriterionisapplied to determinethedomainofthelawtowhichactionoftheAdministration belongs.I amleft in nodoubt thatnotice under s. 139 30 constitutesactionoftheAdministrationthatsoundsinthedomain ofprivatelawandassuchitcannotbemadethesubjectofjudicial reviewunderarticle 146.1.Itmustbementioned thatTriantafyllides,P.wasneveraskedtodetermineatthepreliminarystagethe reviewabilityofthesubjudicedecisionseenfromtheangleofthe 35 domain of law to which it belongs.There would be nothing to prevent him from addressingthequestion attheendoftheday being,asitisalwaysopentotheCourt toexamine, beit onits 2501 PikisJ. Antoniou & Sonsv.N* sia M' lity
(1988)ownmotion,thejusticiabilityofthesubjectmatteroftheproceedings. Furthermore,anoticeunders. 139lackstheattributesofadecisionofanexecutorycharacter andinthisImustvoicemydisagreement with theruling of Triantafyllides, P.,ashethen was, 5 on the subject. Anotice under s.139 does notproduce anynoticeable legalconsequences andinthatwayitdoesnotprejudice anyrightsvested intheaddressee.Asearliernoticed itdoesnot establish thatnuisance hasbeencommitted.Itismore anactof anadvisory natureandtotheextentthatitmaybelinked tosub- JQ sequent,action,anactofapreparatorycharacter.Inanyproceedingsthatmayfollow for theabatementofnuisance,theburdenis ontheMunicipality toestablishitscommissionand theneedfor itsabatement. Forthereasonsindicatedabove,thesubjectoftheproceedings 15 cannotbemadethesubject ofreviewunderarticle 146.1of the Constitution and,forthatreason,it mustbedismissed.AndsoI direct. Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. 20 Noorderastocosts. 2502