The principle of the single presentation of evidence and the limits of judicial discretion

Procedure is not a flexible framework that allows litigants to correct their mistakes after they have presented their case before the court.

Rather, it is a mechanism that ensures the proper, fair and efficient administration of justice, through rules that serve stability and predictability in legal proceedings.

Each party must present their case fully, with all their evidence, when given the opportunity, otherwise, they themselves bear the risk of any omissions.

The possibility of recalling witnesses or presenting additional evidence is not a right, but an exceptional measure left to the discretion of the court. This principle prevents abuse of process and the transformation of the hearing into a field for experimentation.

A good reason for allowing a recall must relate to the delivery of substantive justice, not to the correction of erroneous tactics or contradictory testimony. A fair trial presupposes a single, complete and coherent presentation of the truth.

Court decision

The recent judgment of the Limassol–Paphos Rent Control Court dated October 24 is a characteristic example of the above principles.

The court was called upon to decide an application by a landlord who, after completing his testimony, sought to be recalled to give “supplementary” evidence.

His argument was that during cross-examination he was under “psychological pressure” and, due to a momentary loss of memory, had answered incorrectly as to the date of the first letting of the premises.

The request was accompanied by an affidavit from his sister, who had not been listed as a witness but had attended the hearing.

The landlord argued that this “correction” of his evidence was necessary to clarify the issue of the court’s jurisdiction.

However, this reasoning failed to persuade. The court, exercising its discretion, dismissed the application as “problematic in several respects,” noting first that its legal basis was entirely flawed.

The procedural rule invoked was wholly irrelevant. This was not a minor irregularity but a fundamental error that could not be cured by reference to case law dealing with curable procedural defects.

Only one opportunity is given to a litigant

Beyond the legal weakness, the court focused on the substance of the request, observing: “It is unprecedented for a litigant to seek leave to present evidence contradicting their own prior testimony. A party has the obligation to present their case fully and one opportunity to prove it. That is how Procedure and the Law of Evidence operate.”

This statement confirms that the principle of unity of testimony and procedural fairness does not allow a party to return merely because they believe they have harmed their own case through their answers. The court stressed that it cannot be transformed into a tool for correcting the parties’ errors.

The completion of the inquiry presupposes the existence of a gap, not the wish to overturn an unfavourable answer. The recall of a witness is not intended to grant litigants a second chance to prove their case, but solely to fill genuine gaps that may create doubt in the court’s mind.

Finally, the court addressed with sensitivity but composure the allegation of “psychological pressure,” noting that it deliberately refrained from commenting on it, since the context of an interlocutory application is not suitable for assessing the applicant’s credibility. The claim, it stated, had no relation to the reality reflected in the hearing record.

This judgment reinforces the notion of procedural consistency and the litigant’s responsibility in presenting their evidence. It reaffirms that a fair trial does not mean endless opportunities, but one full and equal process for all.

Judicial discretion is not a mechanism of leniency, but an institutional tool ensuring the balance and credibility of the judicial process.

The principle that emerges is clear and fundamental: a litigant has only one opportunity to prove their case. That opportunity must be used with completeness, consistency and professionalism, for justice does not permit the recall of evidence for reasons of strategy or regret, it allows it only in pursuit of the truth, within the boundaries it itself sets.