|
ÐÁÃÊÕÐÑÉÏÓ ÄÉÊÇÃÏÑÉÊÏÓ ÓÕËËÏÃÏÓ
|
|
|
(1969) 1 CLR 203
1969 April 8
[VASSILIADES P., JOSEPHIDES & STAVRINIDES JJ.]
KYRIACOS THEOFANOUS,
Appellant-Defendant,
v.
ARTEMIS GEORGHIOU,
Respondent-Plaintiff.
(Civil Appeal No. 4725).
Jurisdiction—Territorial Jurisdiction—Cause of action—Contract—The Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law of the Republic No. 14 of 1960) sections 2 and 21(1)—Proper stage at which an objection as to jurisdiction may be taken—In the present case the question as to the territorial jurisdiction was neither raised in the pleadings nor argued before the trial Court—It was first taken as a ground of appeal—Well settled that a point as to jurisdiction may be taken at any stage if all the facts are before the Court (Norwich Corporation v. Norwich Electric Tramways Co. Ltd. [1906] 2 K.B. 119; Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Edwards [1942] A.C. 529)—See also herebelow.
Contract—Debt—Place of payment—No place of payment specified in the contract either expressly or by implication—General rule applicable i.e. that it is the debtor's duty to seek the creditor in order to pay him at his place of business or residence, if it is in Cyprus—For these reasons the objection as to the jurisdiction of the District Court of Nicosia fails—Because this is an action for a sum of money for work done by the plaintiff (respondent) who on the record ordinarily resides within the jurisdiction—Therefore, the cause of action in the instant case can be said to have arisen also within the jurisdiction—See the definition of the expression "cause of action" in section 2 of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960—Consequently, the District Court of Nicosia had jurisdiction to try the case—See also herebelow.
Cause of action—Definition in section 2 of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960—Cfr. section 2(1) of that Law—Contract—Cause of action—In actions founded on contract the cause of action need not arise wholly within the jurisdiction—It is sufficient if the contract was made within the jurisdiction or the breach occurred within the jurisdiction, though the contract may have been made outside the jurisdiction.
Contract—Cause of action—See above.
Place of payment of a debt—See above.
Payment of debt—Place of payment—Duty of the debtor to seek the creditor—See above.
Appeal—Objection to jurisdiction of the trial Court taken for the first time on appeal—Territorial jurisdiction—See above.
Civil Procedure and Practice—Territorial jurisdiction—Stage at which an objection to the jurisdiction may be taken—A point as to jurisdiction may be taken at any stage (even on appeal) if all the facts are before the Court—See also hereabove under Jurisdiction.
Cases referred to:
Norwich Corporation v. Norwich Electric Tramways Co. Ltd. [1906] 2 K.B. 119;
Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Edwards [1942] A.C. 529.
The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court.
Appeal.
Appeal by defendant against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia (HadjiTsangaris Ag. D.J.) dated the 8th May 1968 (Action No. 136/68) whereby he was adjudged to pay to the plaintiff the sum of £30.— being balance of his remuneration for work done and services rendered.
A. Georghiades, for the appellant.
J. Mavronicolas, for the respondent.
VASSILIASDES, P.: We find it unnecessary to call upon counsel for the respondent. The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Josephides.
JOSEPHIDES, J.: In this appeal there were two main grounds of appeal: (a) that the District Court of Nicosia, which heard the case, had no jurisdiction, and (b) that the findings of the trial Court were not warranted by the evidence as a whole.
With regard to the question of jurisdiction, the relevant statutory provisions are section 21, sub-section (1), of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960, and the definition of the expression "cause of action" in section 2 of the same Law.
According to this definition, the "cause of action" comprises the entire set of facts founding the enforceable right, but in actions founded on contract the cause of action need not arise wholly within the jurisdiction. It is sufficient if the contract was made within the jurisdiction or the breach occurred within the jurisdiction, though the contract may have been made outside the jurisdiction.
In the present case, the claim was for work done by the plaintiff (respondent) in the defendant's (appellant's) field with a "bulldozer". The question of jurisdiction was not raised in the defence at all although it was drafted by an advocate. At the hearing before the District Court the defendant appeared undefended, although the trial Judge gave him the opportunity of an adjournment if he wanted to instruct an advocate.
The question as to the territorial jurisdiction was not raised in the course of the hearing and it was raised for the first time as a ground of appeal. It is well settled that a point as to jurisdiction may be taken at any stage if all the facts are before the Court: Norwich Corporation v. Norwich Electric Tramways Co., Ltd. [1906] 2 K.B. 119; Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Edwards [1942] A.C. 529. In the present case the appellant (defendant) concedes that the question of the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court of Nicosia was neither raised in the pleadings nor argued before the trial Court, and the record of the evidence does not show whether the contract was made either in the Kyrenia district or the Nicosia district. Had the question of jurisdiction been raised in the defence, then the plaintiff (respondent) would have had the opportunity of pleading facts showing that the cause of action had arisen either wholly or in part within the limits of the Nicosia district; for example, either that the contract was made in Nicosia or that the payment was due to be made in Nicosia; but, in any event, from the record of the proceedings it appears that the plaintiff (respondent) resides in Pallouriotissa, within the Nicosia district. The general rule is that, where no place of payment is expressly or impliedly specified by the contract, it is the debtor's duty to seek the creditor in order to pay him at his place of business or residence, if it is in Cyprus. For these reasons we are of the view that the ground of jurisdiction fails.
The second ground can be disposed of very briefly. Having read the record of the evidence, we are satisfied that the findings of the trial Judge were warranted by the evidence as a whole.
For these reasons the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.