Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
Kyriacos Theofanous v. Artemis Georghiou (1969) JSC 639 Generato dall'IA

Court dismisses appeal where jurisdiction objection was raised only on appeal, not in pleadings or trial.

Numero d'incarto Kyriacos Theofanous v. Artemis Georghiou (1969) JSC 639
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Cipro (CY)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against a District Court judgment regarding a contract dispute. The appellant argued the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, but this objection was never raised in the pleadings or argued before the trial judge. The court held that because the issue was not raised earlier, the appellant waived the right to contest jurisdiction, and the facts supported the trial judge's findings.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Courts of Justice Law 1960, s. 2; s. 21(1): A party may raise a jurisdictional objection at any stage if facts are before the court, but failure to raise it in pleadings or at trial constitutes a waiver of the objection.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
territorial jurisdiction waiver of objection cause of action contract dispute proper stage objection rateizzazione del debito domicilio di pagamento capacità di obbligarsi in via cambiaria

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Courts of Justice Law 1960, s. 2
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.
Courts of Justice Law 1960, s. 21(1)
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.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
Norwich Corporation v. Norwich Electric Tramways Co. Ltd. (1906) 2 K.B. 119
Westminster Bank Ltd v. Edwards (1942) A.C. 529
Generato dall'IA
CY-AAD-meros_1-1969-rep-1969_1_0203
Court dismisses appeal where defendant raised jurisdiction for the first time on appeal, failing to argue it at trial.
Αρ. Αγωγής: 5860/16
District Court dismisses motion for stay of execution due to significant delay and lack of evidence of inability to pay.
CY-JSC-1975-1975_1693
Cypriot Supreme Court dismisses appeal on contract claim jurisdiction, holding cause of action arose in Nicosia District.
Αρ. Αγωγής: 4641/16
Provisional injunction against bank loan enforcement denied due to lack of irreparable harm and balance of convenience favoring the bank.
CY-AAD-meros_1-V17-rep-V17_1_0041
Court allows appeal dismissing order for execution of already paid judgment debt under 1938 Rules.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

[*639] 1969 April 8

(VASSILIADES, P., JOSEPHIDES, STAVSINTDES, JJ.)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Kyriacos Theofanous,

Appellant-Defendant.

v.

Artemis Georghiou,

Respondent-Plaintiff.

(Civil Appeal No. 4725).

Jurisdiction - Cause of action - Contract - The Courts of Justice Law 1960 (Law 14 of 1960) sections 2 and 21(1) - Proper stage at which an objection as to jurisdiction may be taken - Territorial Jurisdiction - Neither raised in pleadings nor argued before trial Court - First taken as a ground of appeal.

Contract - No place of payment specified therein either expressly or by implication - General rule applicable with regard to payment

Territorial Jurisdiction - See under 51 “Jurisdiction”.

A. Georghiades, for the Appellant.

J. Mavronicolas, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

VASSILIADES, P.: We find it unnecessary to call upon counsel for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Josephides.

JOSSPHIDES. J.: In this appeal there were two main [*639] 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 course 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 defendants (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 [*639] 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.