clr/1989/1989_3A_475.pdf

(3)and

(4)— Reportingandcountersigningolficcr one and thesameperson — Proper in thecircumstancesof this case Public Oiticers— Promotions — Conlidential reports— Preparation ot — Circular491/79, para 7

(2)— iailurc to communicate an 'adverse" comment — Whathas to beexaminedbytheCourt 15 Bias— Promotion ot PublicOthccrs — Z.iicJt ot impartiality by superior officers against their subordinates must be established, withsufficient certainty, cither by the lacts emerging from relevant administrate recordsorbysateinferencestobedrawnfrom theexistenceolsuchtacts 20 PublicOiticers— Promotions — Headot department— Recommendations ot — Reference therein to duties actuallyperformed by one of the candidates andtospecialzealol oneolsuch candidates— Not improper m the circumstances. 475 Othonos &Another v. Republic

(1989)Rcvisionalappeal— Matter not raisedbeforetrialjudge— Whetheritcan beraisedonappeal— Principles applicable This is an appeal against a first instance judgment of a judge of this court dismissing appellants' recourses challenging the promotion of the two interested parties to the post of Senior Electrical Engineer (Department of Electrical and Mechanical Services) ol the Ministry of Communications and Works instead of theappellants (seeOthonos and Another v.TheRepublic (19S7)3CLR 362). 5 10 The post in question is a promotion post The respondent commission made thesubjudicepromotions havingheard the viewsand recommendations of the Director ot the Department ol Flecincal and Mechanical scr\ices Inhisrecommendations the Director described one of the interested parties as the best ol all candidates and referred to the [5 fact that he was performing the duties of a co-ordmator to his fellow othcersas amatter ot tact. The Director referred tothesecond interested parly as an excellent ofheer uho shows special zeal in the performance of his duties 20 Thevalidityoftheconfidential reportsweieput inissuebyappellants, whocontended that the Director didnot possess direct knowledge of the performance ot theolIicerconcerned, thatheactedbothasreportingand countersigning otticer contrary to Circular 491. that he never communicated adverse comments about the perlormance ol the 25 appellants Moreover, the appellants complained that the director was biased against the appellants 30 Finally,theappellantscomplained that [herehadnot been dueinquiry as to the possession by one of the intcicstcd parties of the necessary qualifications It should be noted that this point had not been raised before the trial judge 35 Held, dismissing theappeal

(1)The prepaiation of confidential reports isnot an executory act It is an intermediate part of a composite administrative process, which leadstoanexecutory act Itmayhaveabearingon thevalidityofthe 4 0 final act 476 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Othonos &Another v. Republic

(2)The preparation of confidential reports is regulated by Circular 491/79. From what emerges from paragraph 3 of the Circularthe provision about separate reporting andcountersigning officers is not an absolute one There arc instances where either because ofthe structure of a service or because of particular circumstances,the reportingandcountersigningofficer maybeoneandthesameperson Theappellants andtheinterested parties were candidatesforthepost of Senior Electrical Engineer At the material time there wasno immediatesuperior tothesaid candidates andthey were allunderthe direct control of the Directorof the Service Inthese circumstances the case falls within the exception in paragraph 3of the Circularin that there was noirregularity inthepreparation of the confidential reports by the Directorasreporting andcountersigning officer 15 20 25 The Court also, agrees with thetrial Judge that there hasbeen no violation of paragraph 4of the Circular The Directorhadageneral supervision of the service andhe must have sufficient knowledge about theperformance of his immediate subordinate officers, andhe w a s WC Hacquainted from various sources about themannerinwhich the works inhis service were executed.

(3)Tailurc of communicating to the officers concerned any adverse comments docs not necessanly lead to annulment of sub judicc promotion What has tobe examinedby theCourt iswhetheror not such failure deprived theCommission from conductinga due inquiry intoamaterial aspectofthecase Inthecircumstancesofthiscase no such conclusion canbedrawn 30

(4)Bias should be established with sufficient certainty, either by tacts emerging from relevant administrative records orbysafe inferences to be drawn from theexistence ofsuch facts Inthis case bias hasnot been established 35

(5)The Court,when hearing arevisional appeal,approaches thematter as a complete re-examination of the case Its power however is limited tothegroundsofappeal ortotheextent thatissueshave been left undeterminedbythe trial Judge ortoissues, which can be raised ex propno motu by the Court,ιc whether anactis executory or whetheraquestion oflegitimate interestexists Asinthepresent case the argument relating to lack of due inquiry as to possession of qualifications byoneoftheinterested parties wasnever raised before 40 477 Othonos & Another v. Republic

(1989)the trial Judge, thisCourt cannot examine such an issue. Appeal dismissed. Casesreferredto: 5 Othonos andAnother v.Republic

(1967)3C.LR. 362, Georghiades v.Republic(I9S2) 3C.LR. 16, 10 Agrotis v. ElectricityAuthority of Cyprus(19S!)3 C.I..R. 503, Savva v.Republic(I9S5) 3 C.LR. 694, Charalambides v.Republic(19S5) 3 C.LR. 992. 15 Tanrasv.Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R.

1. Christouv.Republic (I9S5) 3 C.LR.
2. 20 Christouv.Republic (19S0) 3 C.LR. 437, Kontemeniotis v.CyprusBroadcasting Corporation (I9S2)3C.LR. 1027, N'issis v.Republic(No. 2)

(1967)3 C.L.R.

1. 25 Tasmania flS9QI 15A.C. 223, Karunaratnc v.Fcrdinundus [1902jA.C.
2. 30 Connecticut FireInsuranceCompany v.Kavanaghf!S92} A.C.
3. Warehousing&Forwarding Co. of EiistAfricaLtd. v. Jaffcrali&Sons Ltd. f1964]A.C I, 35 Linou-Flasou-Pctra Co.Ltd. v.Republic

(1976)3C.L.R.

1. Republic v. MarathchisandAnother (19S6) 3 C.L.R.
2. Republic v. Georghiades

(1972)3 C.L.R.594. 478 40 3 C.L.R. Othonos &Another v. Republic Appeal. Appeal against the Judgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Demetriades, J.) reported in

(1987)3 C.L.R. 5 362,whereby the appellants' recourse against thepromotion of the interested parties to the post of Senior Electrical and Mechanical Engineer was dismissed. AS Angelides, for the Appellants. 10 G. Erotocritou(Mrs),SeniorCounsel oftheRepublic,for the Respondents. Cur. adv.vult. 15 A.LOIZOU,P.: Thejudgment oftheCourt willbedelivered by Mr.Justice Savvides. SAVVIDES,J.: This is an appeal against the judgment of a 20 Judge of this Court sitting in the first instance dismissing appellants' recourse challenging the decision of the respondent to promote Georghios Christodoulides and Lazaros Sawides, the interested parties,to the post of senior Electrical Engineer (Department of Electrical and Mechanical Services) of the 25 Ministry of Communications and Works instead of the appellants.Thejudgment appealedfrom isreported as Othonos andAnother v.TheRepublic

(1987)3C.L.R. 362. The facts of thecasearebriefly as follows: 30 Thepost in question isapromotion post. Asthere were two vacant posts for which the Ministry of Finance had given its approval for their filling a departmental committee was set up in order to recommend to the Public Service Commission for 35 promotion candidates that possessed the required under the relevant scheme of service qualifications. The committee met on the 10th June, 19S2 and after it examined the qualifications of the seven candidates who were eligible for promotion to the said post decided that only the two appellants and the two 40 interested parties possessed the required by the scheme of service qualifications. The committee, after evaluating the qualifications of the four candidates, their confidential reports 479 Savvides, J. Othonos & Another v.Republic

(1989)for theprevioustwo years andtheir seniority,recommendedall four in alphabetical order for promotion. On the 6th July, 1982,the respondent commission met and after hearing the views and recommendations of Mr. Ph. 5 Ectorides, the Director of the Department of Electrical and Mechanical Services, proceeded to make, in his absence, their own assessment of the candidates. The Commission then after comparing the candidates amongst themselves and evaluating them andafter having considered allrelevant material from the 10 personal and confidential reports files of the candidate, the report of the Departmental committee and the views and recommendations of the Director of the Electrical and Mechanical Services, found that on the basis of the established criteria as awhole,namely, merits,qualifications and seniority, 15 the interested parties were superior to the appellants and decided to promote them to the permanent post of Senior Electrical Engineer as from the 15thJuly,

1. As the views and recommendations expressed by the Director ofthe Electrical and Mechanical Services are material in the case we find it necessary to refer to same as recordedin the minutes of the meeting of the respondent Commission. Mr Ectorides said the following about the candidates: 20 25 "Georghios Christodoulides and Lazaros Sawides are recommended as the most suitable for promotion. Mr Christodoulides is the best. He has been working near the Director for many years and he performs duties of a Senior Engineer i.e. he performs duties of a higher level than those of the post heisoccupying. Infact, heperforms thedutiesof a co-ordinator to the others and he is very productive and performs such duties fully satisfactorily. He possess the necessary academic qualifications. Certain importance is attachedtoqualifications butmore importance isattached to the performance at work of the officers. Mr. Sawides is an excellent officer with excellent abilities andperformance. Heworksathomeathisown will.Assoon as he finds out that there is an impediment in the office he 40 takes work home which he completes and returns. He is distinguishedforhisresponsibility,hardwork andenthusiasm 480 30 35 3C.L.R. Othonos &Another v.Republic Savvides, J. for the Department. His performance is indeed something unbelievable and the quality and quantity of his work something really beyond imagination. 5 Mr. Stavros Othonos, compared to Mr. Savvides lacks considerably concerning yield, devotion to his work, responsibility in handling matters and in expression in writing. 10 Mr.Michael Hadjiroussos possessestheabilitiesrequiredbut comparatively he follows in merit Mr. Sawides and is superiorto Mr.Othonos. Heisinferior tothe recommended ones inyield anddevotion to duty. More couldbe expected from him because of hishigher qualifications." 15 Both recourse were dismissed bythelearned trial Judgewho came to the conclusion that the sub judice decision was reasonably open tothe respondent commission onthe material before it andaffirmed the promotion oftheinterested parties. 20 As aresult counsel for appellants filed the present appeal. Theargumentsadvancedbycounselforappellantsinsupport of hisgrounds of appeal may besummarized as follows: 25 (a) The validity of the confidential reports. Counsel contended in this respect that the Director of the Department of Electrical and Mechanical Services Mr. Ectorides: 30 35 (i)Had no direct or indirect supervision of their work and therefore hecouldnot possess direct knowledge of their performance enabling him to make a report in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4(a) of Circular No. 491 which regulates the preparation of confidential reports. (ii) He acted both asreporting and countersigning officer in contravention ofsub-paragraphs (b)and(c)ofparagraph 4 of Circular
2. 40 (iii)Though he made some adverse comments about the performance oftheappellantsinsomeofthe confidential 481 Savvides, J. Othonos &Another v. Republic

(1989)reports he never communicated to them any omissions and failed to caution them of any omission or default contrary to regulation 7

(2)of Circular 491. (

1. b)The recommendations of Mr. Ectorides before the 5 respondent Commission were tainted with partiality and were conflicting. Council submitted that he gave undue weight to the performance by interested party Christodoulides of duties as co-ordinaior, which were illegally assigned to him ashe hadnever been appointed to 10 the post of co-ordinator. Furthermore he described in a striking way the excellent discharge of duties by interested party Savvides, which is not reflected in any similar comments in hisconfidential reports. 15 (
2. c)The respondent commission failed to carry adueinquiryas to the possession by interested party Savvides of the necessary qualifications forpromotion contemplated bythe Scheme of service. Counsel contended in this respect that interested party Sawides did not satisfy that part of 20 paragraph 1 of the scheme which requires "at least Syears postgraduate experience..." We shall deal first with the arguments under paragraph (
3. a)hereinabove. The preparation of confidential reports is an act which by itself is not executory and as such cannot be challenged by a recourse. It is well settled however, that such reports being intermediate parts of acomposite administrative process which 30 leads to an executory administrative act, their validity has a bearing on the validity of the final act. In Georghiades v.The Republic

(1982)3C.L.R. 16at p.2Sit washeld that: "In matters of promotion andinparticular thosemadeunder 35 the proviso to section 44

(1)(a) of the Law, confidential reports are intermediate acts and the ascertainment of their invalidity brings the invalidity of all subsequent acts for the issue of which the act found to be illegal constitutes a legal prerequisite." (See Stavros Agrotis v. Electricity 40 Authority of Cyprus

(1981)3C.L.R.503,at p.513,andthe authorities referred to therein). 482 25 3 C.L.R. Othonos &Another v. Republic Savvides, J. The preparation of confidential reports is regulated by administrative circular 491/79. Under paragraph

(3)the confidential reports are prepared by reporting officers and are countersigned by countersigning officers except in cases in 5 whichthereporting andthecountersigningofficer isoneandthe same person (the underlining isours).Under paragraph

(4)the confidential reports must be prepared by a reporting officer who, because of his duties, has. a direct knowledge of the performance and the abilities of his subordinate officer and 10 could express a responsible opinion about him in that respect (sub-paragraph (a)) and is immediately superior in rank (suparagraph (b)). Further that the countersigning officer must be the supervising officer immediately superior of the reporting officer andthat in Ministries.Independent Offices orServicesin 15 which the Head thereof has a direct knowledge of the work of the officer concerned, the reporting officer may be the Head thereof. From what emerges from paragraph

(3)of the Circular the 20 provision aboutseparate reporting andcountersigning officers is not an absolute one and there may be instances in government Departments. Ministries or Independent offices where either because of theirstructure or particular circumstances which may exist,thereportingandcountersigningofficer maybeoneandthe 25 same person. It iscommon ground in the present case that appellants and interested parties were holding the post of Electrical Engineer 1st Grade and they were, candidates for the post of Senior 30 Electrical Engineer, to which the immediately superior post is that of the Director of the Service. At the material time there was no immediate superior to the appellants in the service and they were all under the direct control of the Director of the Service. 35 Thelearned trialJudgeon the material before himconcluded asfollows at pp.367-368: 40 "From all relevant material which was placed before me, I am of the opinion that the Director of the Service had a general supervision of the service, that he must have sufficient knowledge about theperformance ofhisimmediate 4S3 Savvides,J. Othonos & Another v.Republic

(1989)subordinate officers, that he was well acquainted, from various sources,about the manner in which the works in his service were executed and that he was in a position to prepare the confidential reports in respect of them. Strict compliance with the provisions of paragraph

(4)of the 5 circular could not have been observed because of the structure of the Department and the position held, at the material time,by the applicants inthepresent case. In this respect useful reference may be made to the cases of 10 Savva v. The Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 694, 707 and Charalambides v.The Republic

(1985)3C.L.R. 992, 1002 - 1005." In Charalambides case (supra)it washeld at p. 1005,that: 15 "....Mr. Aristidou had a direct knowledge of the work of the applicant and the interested party, that he had a general supervision over all officers of such Department and that he could act as a reporting and countersigning 20 officer being in a position satisfying the circular to make a confidential report about them." We are inagreement with theconclusion of thelearned trial Judge in this respect and wefind that the contention of counsel 25 that there hasbeen a violation of paragraph 4 of the Circular is untenable. Wealsofindthatthepresent caseisaproperone,to fall under the exception in paragraph 3 in that there was no irregularity inthepreparation of theconfidential reports bythe Director of the Department both as reporting and 30 countersigning officer. Wecomenextto considerthecontention that therehasbeen violation of paragraph 7

(2)which provides that for the purpose of ajust andimpanial evaluation theevaluating officers should, 35 during the year of evaluation note the excellent performance, omissions ordefaults of the officers whomthey areto evaluate, drawing their attention to omissions or defaults which may effect unfavourably their evaluation. 40 The learned trial Judge had this to say in this respect at pp. 368-369: 484 3C.L.R. 5 Othonos & Another v.Republic Savvides, J. "Norcan Iacceptthattheallegednon communication tothe applicants,byMr.Ectoridesofanadverseview,inrespectof their performance, or his failure to caution them about possibleomissions ordefaults, prejudiced theinterests of the applicants to such an extent and constituted on the part of himaviolation oftheprovisions oftherelevant circularwith the result that the confidential reports prepared by him shouldhavebeen ignoredbecause of partiality and prejudice against them. 10 15 20 25 In a number of cases of this Court it has been decided that noncommunication ofan 'adverse'report cannotleadtothe annulment of the sub judice decision (see, inter alia, Kontemeniotis (supra) 1033,1034;Tantas v. TheRepublic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 1430, 1436, 1437 and Christou v. The Republic

(1985)3C.L.R.2237,2242). Inthe Christou case,supra,itisstated (at p.2243)thatwhat hastobeexaminedbytheCourt inrespect ofthefailure of a Head of Department to communicate to a candidate for promotion anadversecomment abouthim,iswhetherornot suchfailure deprivedtheCommission from conducting adue inquiry into amaterial aspect ofthecase. Thisisnotsointhepresent caseandIdismissthegrounds for annulment of the sub judice decision based on the aforesaid allegations of counsel for the applicants." We agree withthe above approach of thetrial Court andon 30 the basis of the dicta in Christou case (supra) we find that any failure by the Director to communicate to the appellants any adverse comment has not, in the circumstances of the present case, deprived the respondent Commission from conduaing a dueinquiry inthecase. 35 We shall next embark on the argument of counsel for appellants under paragraph (b). Regardingtheallegation ofimpartiality, itiswellsettledthat 40 lack of impartiality or bias on the part of a superior officer against his subordinates must be established with sufficient certainty to the satisfaction of the Court from facts emanating 485 Savvides,J. Othonos & Another v.Republic

(1989)from official records or by safe inferences drawn from such facts. (See, inter alia, Christou v. TheRepublic

(1980)3 C.L.R.437,449; Kontemeniotis v. TheCyprusBroadcasting Corporation

(1982)3 C.L.R. 1027, 1034; Charalambides (supra) 1006). In this respect we agree with the learned trial 5 Judge that once the allegation of the applicants against Mr. Ectorides for lack of impartiality or prejudice had not been substantiated with the certainty required, not could they be safely inferred from the facts referred to by counsel for appellantssuchallegation shouldbedisregarded. 10 We do not find anything wrong in the way the recommendations ofthe Directorweremadebefore thePublic Service Commission. Concerning his reference to the duties performed by interested party Christodoulides, it was in fact 15 referencetoafactualsituation.Alsoreferencetothespecialzeal of interested party Savvidesinthedischargeofhisdutieswasa matter on whichhecouldexpresshisopinion.Alsohisopinion aboutthe appellants and the interested partieswasnot inany way contrary or inconsistent with his assessment in their 20 confidential reports. We come lastly to consider the argument of counsel for appellants about lack of due inquiry as to the possession by interested party Sawides of therequired,under thescheme of 25 servicequalifications. Thismatterwasnotraisedbeforethetrial Courtandwasadvancedfor thefirst timebeforeus. Theguidelinesastowhenmattersnotraisedbefore thetrial CourtcanberaisedonappealweresetoutbytheFullBenchof 30 this Court in the Case of ChristodoulosNissis No.2 v.The Republic

(1967)3C.L.R.671 atpp.674,675: "No material of any kindwasplaced before the trial Court establishingtheallegedcloserelationshipofMr.Seraphimto 35 twoofthosewhowerepromoted;even,atthisstage,onthe fact ofthenoticeofappeal,thedegreeofsuchrelationshipis notclear. Underrule2of theSupremeCourt (RevisionalJurisdiction) AppealRules, 1964,theprovisionsof Order 35oftheCivil 486 3 C.L.R. Othonos & Another v.Republic Savvides,J. Procedure Rules - governing civil appeals - are applicable, mutatis mutandis,to an appeal such asthe present one. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 As the corresponding provisions in England are closely similartoourown,itisuseful tobearinmindhowthe proper approach of an appellate tribunal to aground raised for the first time on a civil appeal has been laid down by Lord Herschell inThe Tasmania[1890] 15A.C.223,at p. 225: 'My Lords, Ithink that a point such as this,not taken at the trial, and presented for the first time in the Court of Appeal, ought to be most jealously scrutinised. The conduct of a cause at the trial is governed by, and the questionsaskedofthewitnessesaredirectedto,the points then suggested. Anditisobviousthat nocareisexercised in the elucidation of facts not material tothem. It appears to me that under these circumstances a Court of Appeal ought only to decide in favour of an Appellant on a ground there put forward for the first time, if it be satisfied beyond doubt, first, that it has before it all the facts bearing upon the new contention, as completely as wouldhavebeen the case ifthecontroversy hadarisen at the trial; and next, that no satisfactory explanation could have been offered bythose whose conduct isimpugnedif an opportunity for explanation had been afforded them when in thewitness box.' Lord Herchell's view was repeatedly upheld, as correct, in subsequent jurisprudence (see,for example, Karunaratne v. Ferdinandus [1902]A.C.405). In line with theforegoing, it hasbeen held that if it isonly a question of law which is raised for the first time before an appellate Court, and this is done upon facts either admitted or proved beyond controversy after full investigation, then such a plea may properly be entertained (see relevant dicta in Connecticut Fire Insurance Company v. Kavanagh [1892] A.C.473,and Warehousing &Forwarding Co.of East Africa Ltd. v.Jafferali &Sons Ltd. [1964]A.C. 1). Similar principles are applicable to appeals,in Greece, from 487 Savvides, J. Othonos &Another v.Republic

(1989)decisions of first instance administrative courts to the Councilof State (seeConclusionsfrom theJurisprudenceof theGreek,Council ofState 1929-1959pp. 292-293). In the present case the new - and only -ground of appeal 5 reliedupon bytheAppellant doesnot amount,merely,toa questionoflawbaseduponfactsadmitted,orclearlyproved, before thetrial Court. In Linou-Flasou-Petra Co. Ltd. v. The Republic of Cyprus

(1976)3 C.L.R. 25 the following appears in the judgmentofTriantafyllides, P.,atp.29: "Inthecourseoftheproceedingsbeforeussomeoftheissues 15 have been propounded by arguments which were not advancedbeforethetrialJudge;inviewofthelatitudewhich thisCourthassometimeaffordedtopartiesinproceedingsof thisnature,wehaveallowedsuchargumentstobeadvanced, butwemust,ontheotherhand,stressthat itisessentialthat 20 allissuesarisinginarecourseshould,asarule,beraisedand fully arguedbefore thetrialJudge." Thematterwasconsideredfurther inthecaseofRepublicv. MaratheftisandAnother{\9%6)3C.L.R.1407atp.1411where 25 wereadthefollowinginthejudgmentofTriantafyllides,P.: "Inviewofthefactthatwhenithearsarevisionaljurisdiction appeal,such asthe present one,this Court hasto dealwith thecasebeforeitasawhole,wehaveallowedcounselforthe 30 respondentstoargueadditionalissueswhich,thoughtheyare not includedinthenoticeof appeal,theyhadbeenraisedat thehearingbefore thetrialJudge,butwerenot pronounced onbyhiminhisfirstinstancejudgmentsincehehadannulled the sub judice appointment of the interested party for the 35 reasons stated in the aforequoted passage from such judgment." ThepresentcaseisdistinguishablefromthecaseofRepublic v.Maratheftis (supra) asinMaratheftis casetheissueswere 40 raised before the trial Court but were not pronounced upon sincethejudgmenthadbeenannulledonothergrounds. 488 3C.L.R. Othonos & Another v.Republic Savvides, J. The approach of this Court when hearing an appeal from a judgment of one ofitsmembers maybebriefly expressedinthe words of A. Loizou, J. (as he then was) in Revisional Appeal case Republic v.Lefkos Georghiades

(1972)3C.L.R. 594 at 5 p.690is: 'This Court,whenhearinganappeal from ajudgment ofone of its members, approaches the matter as a complete reexamination of the case,with dueregardto theissues raisedby 10 the parties on appeal, or to the extent that they have been left undetermined bythetrialjudgeor incaseof asuccessful appeal in addition to the above,to theextent of the cross-appeal." It hasbeen the practice ofthis Court either exproprio motu 15 or on appeal to decide matters touching the question of jurisdiction arising from the application of Article 146 as to whether an act isexecutory or whether a question of legitimate interest entitling aperson tofile arecourseexists. 20 Wewishhowever,tostressonce againthatitisessential that all issues arising in a recourse to the extent a party wishes to pursue should, as a rule, be raised and fully argued before the trial Court and, that the power of the supreme Court in the exercise ofitsappellatejurisdiction ofcomplete re-examination 25 of the case is limited to thegrounds of appeal or to the extent that issues have been left undetermined by the trial Judge or, they are issues which can be raised ex proprio motu by the Court asabove. 30 In the present casenot onlythe contention asto possession of necessary qualifications wasnot raisedbefore the trial Court but no material of any kind was placed before the trial Court establishing the alleged lack of qualifications so that interested party Savvides could be afforded the opportunity to render an 35 explanation inthis respect. We, therefore, have come to the conclusion that, though counsel for appellants hasraised this question before us,in the circumstances of the case andbearing inmindthe nature of the 40 question raised once counsel has not raised this matter before thetrial Court hewasnot entitledto raiseit on appeal. 489 Savvides,J. Othonos & Another v.Republic

(1989)Havingconcluded asabovewefind that theappealshouldbe dismissedandishereby dismissedwithnoorderforcostsandthe subjudice decision of the respondent Commission is affirmed. Appeal dismissed. No orderasto 5 costs. 490