Trespass — the unlawful and direct interference with immovable property — continues to be one of the most pressing threats to landowners’ rights in Cyprus. Whether in the form of unauthorised entry, refusal to vacate, or continued occupation without legal basis, trespass can cause immediate and often irreparable harm. In such cases, how and when can a plaintiff obtain an interim injunction to stop the unlawful occupation or recover possession?
This article examines the legal conditions and practical considerations that govern the issuance of interim injunctions in trespass actions under Cypriot law.
Understanding Trespass in Cypriot Civil Law
Trespass to land occurs when a person enters, remains on, or places an object on land that is in the possession of another, without legal authority or consent. No actual damage needs to be proven — the act itself is sufficient to give rise to a claim. However, where the trespass is ongoing or recurring, or when the defendant refuses to vacate, urgent interim relief may be necessary.
The Legal Framework: Article 32 of Law 14/60
Under Article 32 of the Courts of Justice Law (Cap. 14/60), the Court has discretion to issue interim orders when the following three cumulative conditions are met:
- There is a serious issue to be tried;
- There is a probability that the applicant is entitled to a remedy in the main proceedings, or at the very least, a visible likelihood of success;
- It would be difficult or impossible to ensure full justice at a later stage if the injunction is not granted.
Once these three elements are established, the Court proceeds to assess the balance of convenience — namely, which party is more likely to suffer greater harm from the granting or refusal of the injunction.
In trespass cases, where the interference is continuing, these criteria are often satisfied, and the balance of convenience typically favours the rightful possessor or owner, particularly where the defendant lacks legal justification for remaining on the property.
Justice Beyond Compensation: The Nature of the Harm
Cypriot case law recognises that in trespass cases, the issue is not limited to financial loss. As held in Highgate Primary School Ltd and Mitsingas v. Timberland, the Court must consider the wider concept of justice, including the landowner’s right to exclusive possession and the immediacy of the harm caused by trespass.
Even if damages might be theoretically available, this does not mean that justice can be served solely through compensation — especially when the trespass undermines the owner’s legal rights or causes continuing harm to the property.
Can the Interim Remedy Mirror the Final Relief? Yes, in Trespass
A common argument against granting interim injunctions is that they mirror the final relief sought in the action — usually recovery of possession. However, Cypriot courts have repeatedly clarified that this does not constitute a legal bar to interim protection.
In Parico Aluminium Designs Ltd v. Muskita Aluminium Co Ltd and Zena Company Ltd v. Demenian Catering Ltd, the Courts affirmed that:
- So long as the Article 32 criteria are met,
- And the trespass is serious and ongoing,
- The Court may grant prohibitory or even mandatory injunctions to restrain or reverse the interference until trial.
This approach is consistent with legal doctrine, including Kerr on Injunctions (6th ed., Ch. 5), which affirms:
“Where the right at law is clear and the trespass is serious or continuing, the Court may grant an injunction pending trial, even if a legal remedy such as ejectment exists.”
Balance of Convenience in Trespass Cases
In determining whether to issue an interim injunction, the balance of convenience is a key factor. In trespass claims, this balance often favours the applicant where:
- The trespass is undisputed or clearly evidenced;
- The applicant is being deprived of possession;
- Continued occupation may cause reputational, legal, or practical damage;
- The defendant has no legitimate claim to remain on the property.
In Zannetou v. A.X. Nicola Bros Ltd (2022), the Court granted an interim possession order to the owners of the property, even though the claim for possession was also the final relief sought. The Court emphasised that the injunction was of an urgent and ancillary nature, and did not prejudge the merits of the main claim.
Conclusion
Trespass is more than just a technical wrong — it is a direct assault on the integrity of property rights. Where the interference is ongoing or unjustified, Cypriot courts have both the power and the willingness to intervene with interim injunctions, even when such relief closely resembles the final remedy.
Key Takeaways:
- Trespass alone justifies interim judicial protection, even without proven damages;
- Interim relief can mirror final relief, especially when the interference is continuing and the right is clear;
- Article 32 of Law 14/60 sets out a flexible but structured approach to granting injunctions;
- The balance of convenience and the goal of full justice often weigh in favour of interim protection for landowners.