Jurisdiction, jurisdiction, jurisdiction - importance of approaching the correct court

Image source: Katrin Bolovtsova – 123RF.com

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction refers to the competence of a court to adjudicate a dispute before it and can be, amongst others, determined as follows:

• The value of a monetary claim.
  
• The place where the cause of action arose.
  
• The place of residence or employment of the party against which you are litigating.

Once jurisdiction has been determined, it is then crucial to determine the monetary jurisdiction. This will be the determining factor of which court to approach.

Monetary jurisdiction

District magistrates’ court can adjudicate on matters up to R200,000 while regional magistrates’ court can adjudicate on matters above R200,000 up to and including R400,000. Should the monetary value exceed R400,000 the matter must be adjudicated in the high court.

The position referred to above is to be followed strictly and very rarely do deviations occur. This is particularly so in respect of the magistrates’ courts which are creatures of statute. They must operate and confine themselves to the magistrates’ courts Act 32 of 1944.

This is the position in respect of the magistrates’ court. In an important development in our law, the appeal court in the matter of Vorster v Clothing City (Pty) Ltd [2024] that held that a strict interpretation and application may lead to a miscarriage of justice.

In this case the appellant, fell and injured herself at the premises of the respondent, City Clothing and consequently instituted a claim for damages. The initial claim was for an amount of R255,856.40. The merits were settled at 75/25 in the appellant's favour, which was made an order of court. The only issue left was a determination of quantum.

The appellant thereafter amended her particulars of claim increasing the quantum of her claim to R531,225, which amount exceeded the jurisdiction of the regional court. The appellant, thereafter, applied the apportionment to her claim which placed the quantum within the jurisdiction of the regional magistrates’ court at R398,418.

Jurisdictional overlaps in labour matters

Samiksha Singh and Katlego Letlonkane  4 Feb 2016

Usurped the function of the court

The respondent raised a special plea to the amended quantum, stating that the claim exceeded the monetary jurisdiction of the court; thus, seeking a dismissal of the claim. The magistrate agreed resulting in a dismissal of the claim based on a lack of jurisdiction.

The matter went on appeal to the High Court which dismissed the appeal on the basis that the appellant had usurped the function of the court in applying the apportionment of the claim. The court held that the apportionment ought to have been applied only once a determination had been made on the quantum of the damages.

Miscarriage of justice

The matter then went on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). The court reiterated the time at which a court is assumed to have jurisdiction, is at the time when the action commences, meaning that "once a court is seized with jurisdiction, it retains that jurisdiction until the matter has been concluded". The SCA held that jurisdiction is determined with reference to what is claimed on the papers filed at court.

The starting point is the pleadings and jurisdiction are always determined with reference to the pleadings. This means that the matter was referred to the regional court to determine the damages. The test is the amount claimed. Accordingly, the amount of R398,418.77 fell within the ambit of the regional court’s jurisdiction. The court was of the view that the fact that the magistrates court was a creature of statute, does not mean that one has to "give those powers such a restrictive interpretation as to practically, in many cases lead to a miscarriage of justice".

Jurisdiction determined by value at the time the action commences

It is arguable whether the court is correct in holding that the appellant had not usurped the court’s function by applying the apportionment to the amended amount claimed of R531,225.02. This function ought to have been reserved for the courts to exercise. The court makes an important remark which is that jurisdiction is determined with reference to the value of the claim at the time the action is commenced. What is important to note however is that the apportionment applied in this instance, was made an order of court previously.

The SCA has set out to develop the law. The fact that the magistrates court is a creature of statute should not disenfranchise people from access to justice or lead to a miscarriage of justice. The practical effect and application of this development in our law will be interesting to observe in the future.