1 C L.R. 19ΚΊ July i (SAWinFS KOURRIS BOY1ADJIS JJ ) TAKIS CHRISTOFIb Appellant-Plaintiff ν LOUIS TOURISTAGFNC1ES L T D Respondents-Defendants (Cwil Appeal No 724S) Civil y Procedure — Adjournment of hearing of action — Repeated adjournments at the instance of plaintiff (appellant) — New application for adjournment on the ground of his absence abroad refused with the result that the action was dismissed for want of prosecution — The discretion ot the Court must be exercised 10 judicially — Review of authonties concerning the matter — In this case the tnai Judge correctly exercised the discretion — Judge* should have in mind that itisin the public interest that there should be an end to litigation and that a party is entitled in virtue of the Constitution (Art 30) to a fair tnai within reasonable time r The facts of this case as well asthe principles expounded bythe Court in dismissing the appeal appear sufficiently from the hereinabove headnote Appeal dismissed with costs 1 5 Cases referred to Tsiarta and Another ν Yapana and Another Nicola ν Chmtofi andAnothei HiiNicolaouv 1962 C L R 198
(1965)1C L R 3 2 4 Gavriel and Another
(1965)1C L R 421, Edwards ν Edwards [1968] 1W L R 149, 20 Athanassiou ν The Attorney General of the Republic
(1969)1 C L R 439, International Bonded Stores Ltd ν Minerva insurance Co Ltd
(1979)1C L R 557 Kranidiotisv The Ship Amor {1980) 1C L R 297, 339 Christofis v. LouisTourist Agencies
(1989)Kier(Cyprus)Ltd.v.Trenco ConstructionsLtd.
(1981)1 C.L.R.
- Appeal. Appeal byplainftiff against thejudgment ofthe DistrictCourtof Nicosia (Laoutas,S.DJ.)dated the 27th September, 1986(Action No. 7333/83) whereby the trial Judge refused to grant an adjournment and subsequently dismissed the action for want of prosecution. 5 G.Papatheodorou withChr.Christofides, for the appellant. N. Papaefstathiou, for the respondents. SAWIDES,J. gavethefollowingjudgment oftheCourt.Thisis an appeal against the decision of a Judge of the District Court of Nicosia in Civil Action No. 7333/83 refusing to grant an adjournment of the hearing and subsequently dismissing the action for want of prosecution. 10 15 The facts ofthe case arebriefly as follows: The appellant-plaintiff in Civil Action 7333/83 of the District Court of Nicosia,broughtthesaid action againstthe respondentsdefendants claimingfl ,237.50forgoodssoldanddeliveredtothe respondents. The action was fixed for mention on the 27th February, 1984, when both counsel appeared and applied for an adjournment for mention with aviewtosettlement. After aconsiderable numberof adjournments for mention with a view to settlement which extended till the 20th December, 1984, counsel informed the Court that no settlement could be reached and applied for a date of hearing and the action was fixed for hearing on the 8th May, 1985 when both counsel applied for an adjournment once again with a view to availing themselves of the opportunity of the summer vacations toreach an amicable settlement. The casewasadjourned forhearing tothe4thNovember, 1985 when counsel for appellant applied for an adjournment because, as he said to the Court, he could not proceed with the hearing having failed toserve the otherparty witha notice toproduce the documents referred to in the pleadings. No objection was raised 35 and the hearing was adjourned tothe 15th February,
- 340 20 25 30 I C.L.R. Christofis v.LouisTourist Agencies Sawides J. On the 7th February. 1986,counsel forappellant applied once again for an adjournment of the case for some timein September on the ground that the appellant had left urgently for abroad for professional reasonsand thathe could notattendtheCourt.Asa 5 result of such application the hearing was adjourned by consent and fixed onthe27thSeptember, 1986.Onthedateofthehearing counsel for appellant applied for a further adjournment of the hearing on the ground that his client had left again Cyprus for Baghdad and could not attend the Court and requested that the 10 action be adjourned some time in 1987 in the expectation of the appellant returning toCyprus. The application was strongly opposed by counsel for respondents and the Court after hearing both counsel refused the application having reached the conclusion that there had been 15 considerable delay inthe hearing of thisaction which wascaused ' bythe repeated adjournments askedbycounsel forappellant and that the absence abroad of the appellant in the circumstances of the case wasnot asufficient reason togrant further adjournments as his counsel could have applied that the evidence of the 20 appellant be taken preparatory to the hearing at any time during hisvariousvisitstoCyprusduringthe longtimethatelapsed from the filling ofthe action tillthe final date of hearing Ascounselfortheappellant couldnotadduceanyevidencethe learned trialJudge dismissed the action for want of prosecution. 25 Counsel for appellant in arguing hiscase before us submitted that the learned trialJudge wrongly exercised hisdiscretion inthe present casebearing inmindthatthereason thatthe adjournment wassought was appellant's absence abroad. He submitted thatit was in the interest of justice that the adjournment would be 30 granted asbythe refusal of the adjournment theappellant would suffer irreparable losswhereasanylosswhichmighthave resulted to the respondents concerning costs could be remedied by an order for costsagainst the appellant. It is well settled that the granting of adjournments <sa matter 35 within the discretion of the Court. Ithas been repeatedly stressed byour Supreme Court ina number of casesthat adjournments of thehearingofacasearehighlyundesirableandthat adjournments should be avoided as far as possible and that only in unusual circumstancestheymustbegranted.Thereason forthisisthatitis 40 in the public interest that there should be some end to litigation 341 Sawides J. Chnslofis ν LouisTourist Agencies
(1989)and furthermore it is right of the citizen to a fair trial withm a reasonable time according to the Constitution and the Courts should comply with this constitutional provision with mediculous care The discretion of the Court in granting an adjournment should be exercised in a proper judicial manner 5 In Tsiarta and Another ν Yiapanaand Another, 1962 C l . R 198 the following observations were made by Josephides, J atρ 208. concerning adjournments «A furthei word needs to be said with respect to adjournments They produce justifiable dissatisfaction by 10 litigants and theirwitnessesandstatistical records o f thisCourt confirm the opinion there are far too many Ifan action can proceed the first time itcomes on for trial so much the better When adjournments are necessary there should not be more than one or two After that there should be no more 15 adjournments except in unusual circumstances, as to which the Judge has to decide Having made these comments it must be added these will be very unusual circumstances in which there may be many adjournments, but they should be few m numbei» 20 The above dictum was reiterated in Hji Enni Nicoia ν Charaiambos Chnstofi and Another
(1965)1 C L R 324, 338, Eient Gr Hji Nicolaou ν Manccou Antoni Gavnel and Another
(1965)1 C L R 421. 431 Reference may be made also to the dictum of Sir Jocelyn Simon, Ρ ,in Edwards ν Edwards [1968] 1 25 W L R 149atpp 150-151which was reiterated \nAthanassiou ν The Attorney-Genera! of the Republic
(1969)1 C LR 439 at ρ 455 «It is desirable that disputes within society should be brought to an end as soon as reasonably practical and should 30 not be allowed to drag festenngly on for an indefinite period Thai last principle finds expression in a maxim which English Law took over from the Roman Law itis inthepublic interest that there should be some endto litigation As long ago as Magna Carta King John was made to promise not only that justice should not be denied but also that it should not be delayed and there have been times in our history when various Courts have come under severe criticism for their procedural delays» 342 I C.L.R. Christofis v. Louis 1ounst Agencies Savvide^J. The above principles have been reviewed in International Bonded Stores Ltd ν MinervainsuranceCo Ltd
(1979)1C L R 557 andreiterated inKramdiotisv TheShip Amor
(1980)1C L R 297 Theprinciples expounded inthelasttwo cases were followed 5 inKier(Cyprus)Ltd ν Trenco ConstructionsLtd
(1981)1C L R 30 where atρ 39 the following were added 10 15 «The question whether an adjournment wi!l be granted or not is undoubtedly a matter of judicial discretion As such it hastobeexamined ontheparticularfacts of each case andnot in abstracto whether an adjournment will be granted or not mustalwaysbe considered inthelight of thenght toa hearing within a reasonable timeas provided by Article 30. para 2,of our Constitution and Article 6, para 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, ratified by the European Convention on Human Rights (Ratification) Law 1962 (Law No 39 of 1962)» On the facts of the present case and taking into consideration the repeated opportunities given to the appellant to make arrangements for thepresentationofhiscase we find thattherehas 20 been nowrong exercise oftheCourt'sdiscretion Thelearnedtrial Judge very nghtly intheexercise of his discretion refused a further adjournment of the case as such refusal was in line with the principle expressed in the Latinmaxim thatitisthe public interest that there should be some end tolitigation {interest reipublicae ut 25 sit finis litium) Inthe result the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs Appeal dismissed withcosts 343