(COURT OF APPEAL)*

GEORGE TOUNIKIOTIS v. AHMED ABDEL MEGEED

(AC.Revision-83-58)

Principles

·    Appeal, revision and review—Appeal against consent decree

No application may be made to review a decree made by consent of the parties.

Revision

Appellant appeared in person.

May 24, 1958. M. I. El Nur I.: —On January 27, 1958, the District Judge (attached to the High Court) issued a decree in CS-731-57 by consent of both parties providing as follows:

(1) Both defendants (namely first defendant George Tounikiotis (applicant) and second defendant Dimitris Mitropoulos) do pay to the plaintiff jointly and severally £S.8o.

(2) First defendant (applicant) do pay to plaintiff £S.118.360m/ms. (3)The whole sum £S.118.360m/ms to be paid on or before February 28, 1958.

(4)Standard rent fixed at £S.12 per month.

(5) If the £S118.360m/ms is not paid on February 28, 1958, defen dants shall be immediately evicted.

On March 15, 1958, the two defendants having failed to pay the £S.118.360m/ms on February 28, 1958, the plaintiff (respondent) was allowed execution of the’ decree. On April 16,1958, the first defendant (applicant) applied to the judge of the High Court for the revision of the consent decree on the grounds he wanted to contest the standard rent.

On April 4. 1958, the judge of the High Court summarily dismissed the applicant’s application for revision on the grounds that there is no right of appeal against a consent decree. On April 17, 1958, the applicant applied to the Chief Justice for revision of the order of the judge of the High Court dated April 4, 1958. He says after the consent decree, in which he agreed that the standard rent was £S. per month, he came to know that the standard rent was only £S.3.

In my view this is a hopeless application for revision. The learned judge of the High Court was quite correct in saying there is no right of appeal against a consent decree. It is not open for the applicant to have his case reopened every time he finds or thinks he can bring evidence showing that when he agreed to a particular fact he was not aware there was evidence, which contradicts it. The applicant has just this day applied for stay of the execution of the eviction, which was fixed, by the executing court for tomorrow. Clearly he is playing for time. His attempt must fail. Subjecç to the agreement of the Chief Justice this application should therefore be summarily dismissed as hopeless and has no merit in it.

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J.: —This application is summarily dismissed                                     (Application summarily dismissed)

Court: M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. and M. 1. El Nur I.