The jurisdiction of the magistrates’ court

Legal Position
Trust Maanda

THE magistrates’ court is created by statute, the Magistrates’ Court Act.
It is the Act that defines the limit to that court’s jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is generally the power vested in a court of law to adjudicate upon, determine and dispose of a matter.
In order for a court to make an effective and binding decision on a case, it must have jurisdiction on the subject matter (the power to hear the type of case) and jurisdiction on the personal matter (the power over the parties to the case).
It is the High Court that has inherent jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to regulate its own processes and to hear any matter that falls within its purview, even in the absence of explicit statutory authority.
This power is essential for maintaining the court’s ability to administer justice effectively and to avoid any gaps in the legal framework.
Inherent jurisdiction is fundamental to the functioning of the High Court of Zimbabwe.
In Stander v Marais 2015 (3) SA 424(WCC), the court cited Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition, wherein jurisdiction is defined as follows:
“A term of comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action. It is the power of the court to decide a matter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court with control over the subject matter and the parties. Jurisdiction defines the powers of courts to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions, and declare judgement. The legal right by which judges exercise their authority. It exists when court has cognisance of class of cases involved, proper parties are present, and point to be decided is within powers of court.”
The magistrates’ court, being a creature of statute, can only function within the confines and parameters set by the statute that creates it. It cannot exercise any powers not given to it by the statute.
One of those powers is the limitation on its monetary jurisdiction.
Monetary jurisdiction refers to the maximum amount of money or value of a thing that can be claimed by a litigant before the magistrates’ court.
If the money or the value of the thing sued for exceeds a certain stipulated limit, the claim must be filed with the High Court.
If the claim exceeds the limit of the magistrates’ court, that court will have no jurisdiction.
Monetary limits are subject to change as they can be increased by a statutory instrument.
Monetary jurisdiction also applies to the value of a deceased estate administered before a court. If the value of the estate exceeds a certain monetary limit in value, the magistrates’ court will have no jurisdiction.
In Mandava v Chasekwa HH 42-08 MAKARAU JP (as she then was) and HLATSHWAYO J stated as follows in relation to the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ court in estate administration:
“The magistrates’ court is a creature of statute with set jurisdictional limits in civil matters. Assuming that a choice of law had been properly done and that choice was general law that a valid cause of action had been pleaded… the value of the estate that the trial court set to distribute far exceeded its monetary jurisdiction…”
Any judgment given in excess of the jurisdiction of a court which is not one of inherent jurisdiction is a nullity. Where the magistrate entertains a matter which is beyond his or her jurisdiction, the proceedings are a complete nullity.
However, in terms of Section 11 (1) (b) (vii) of the Magistrates’ Court Act [Chapter 7:10], if the defendant consents to jurisdiction, in writing, a plaintiff can file a suit in the magistrates’ court even though the amount claimed exceeds the monetary limit.
This means that where the magistrates’ court has no monetary jurisdiction to deal with a matter, jurisdiction may be conferred upon such court if the defendant consents in writing.
In practice, parties include a clause on consent to jurisdiction in the agreements so that if a dispute will arise on the agreement, the parties will approach the magistrates’ court, notwithstanding that the monetary claim is beyond the jurisdictional limit of the magistrates’ court.
The court shall have jurisdiction over any person who resides, carries on business or is employed within the province any person, whether or not he resides, carries on business or is employed within the province, if the cause of action arose wholly within the province.
In other words, if the facts giving rise to the claim took place in the province, the magistrates’ court in the province can exercise jurisdiction over the matter even if the defendant does not reside in the province.
The Act has other causes of action it excluded from the jurisdiction of the magistrate court. Consent to jurisdiction in such cases will not apply to confer jurisdiction.

TRUST MAANDA is a legal practitioner and a partner at Maunga Maanda And Associates. He writes in his personal capacity. He can be contacted on +263772432646