The money limit is the first question any claimant should ask, because a District Court order for more than the Court can award is made without jurisdiction.
The figures in the Act
A Court has jurisdiction in all personal actions at law or in equity where the amount of the claim or the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed (a) where the Court consists of one or more Principal Magistrates: K10,000.00; and (b) where the Court consists of one or more Magistrates: K8,000.00.
These figures were set by the District Courts (Amendment) Act 2000. The Magistrates’ Manual and the National Court’s own description of its civil work both refer to K10,000 as the District Court’s ceiling. Which figure applies depends on the grade of the magistrate sitting; see what is a Principal Magistrate.
The District Courts (Amendment) Act 2009 replaces the figures with K50,000 for a Court constituted by a District Court Judge (the renamed Principal Magistrate) and K15,000 otherwise. The Act was certified on 21 February 2012 and comes into operation on a notice by the Head of State in the National Gazette. The consolidation on which this series is based records that it had not commenced. Whether it has since commenced is a question to put to the registry before relying on either set of figures; if it has, the higher limits apply and the rest of this article should be read with them.
What is measured
The limit applies to the amount of the claim or the amount or value of the subject matter. For a debt or damages claim it is the sum claimed. For a claim about goods it is their value. Interest and costs are not part of the claim for this purpose; costs are awarded separately under section 260 within the Regulation scale. Section 21(3) provides that the limit does not apply where another law allows money to be recovered before a District Court irrespective of amount, so a statute that says a sum is recoverable summarily in a District Court is not capped by section 21(1).
A claim above the limit
(1) A complainant shall not divide a cause of action for the purpose of making two or more complaints, but a complainant having a cause of action for more than the amount for which a complaint may be made may (a) abandon the excess by so stating in his particulars of demand; and (b) recover to an amount not exceeding the amount that the Court has jurisdiction to award.
(2) The order of the Court on the complaint is conclusive evidence of abandonment of the excess and is in full discharge of all demands in respect of the cause of action.
| Option | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Sue in the National Court for the whole | Unlimited jurisdiction, but pleadings, higher fees and delay |
| Sue in the District Court for the capped amount, abandoning the excess | Fast and cheap; the excess is gone forever under s 38(2) |
| Split the claim into two complaints | Forbidden by s 38(1); the second complaint will be dismissed |
| Sue in the District Court for the full amount and hope | The Manual says this is permissible, but any order is limited to the cap; the excess is lost anyway |
The Manual’s point is that for a K14,000 claim the practical choice is often the District Court for K10,000, because the K4,000 foregone is less than the cost of a National Court action. That is a judgment for the claimant, made with eyes open.
A set-off above the limit
If a set-off exceeds the amount in respect of which the Court has jurisdiction, and the Court is satisfied that the set-off is claimed bona fide and the defendant does not abandon the excess, no order shall be made on the complaint.
This is the defendant’s answer to a small claim from a person who owes him more. A genuine set-off above the cap stops the District Court proceeding altogether, and the whole dispute must go to the National Court. See set-off.
If an order exceeds the limit
An order for more than the Court’s limit is made in excess of jurisdiction. The Manual gives it as an example of a magistrate acting outside the Act, with the potential liability that Part XII contemplates. The order is liable to be quashed on appeal, and the National Court may under section 230(1)(c) substitute the order that ought to have been made. A defendant should take the point at the hearing, because an amendment increasing a claim above the limit is one the Court cannot allow.
Other money figures in the Act
The Act contains a number of fixed sums that are unrelated to the jurisdiction limit and equally dated: K200 for exempt tools and clothing under section 174(2), K50 for the means test on a debtor leaving for Australia under section 193, K200 and K100 for contempt fines, and the K50 and K200 steps in the default imprisonment scale in section 201. None of these is altered by the 2009 Act. The fee schedules in the Regulation are dealt with in fees and lawyer costs.
The District Courts Act is not on PacLII; it is available on vLex. Figures quoted are from the consolidation to No 8 of 2000.
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the District Courts Act (Chapter 40) and check for later amendments. The Act is not on PacLII; the figures and time limits quoted in this series come from the consolidation to No 8 of 2000, and the District Courts (Amendment) Act 2009 changes some of them once it is brought into operation. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.