Papua New Guinea has a tiered court system, and the tiers have different powers. Getting the choice wrong has consequences, but they differ depending on the direction of the error.
Where jurisdiction comes from
155(1) — the National Judicial System consists of the Supreme Court, the National Court, and such other courts as are established under section 172.
166(1) — subject to this Constitution, the National Court is a court of unlimited jurisdiction.
155(3)(a) — the National Court has an inherent power to review any exercise of judicial authority.
| Matter | Court |
|---|---|
| Civil claim within the District Court money limit | District Court |
| Civil claim beyond that limit; claims against the State | National Court |
| Summary offences; committals | District Court |
| Trials on indictment | National Court |
| Judicial review; enforcement of Basic Rights | National Court |
| Divorce, nullity, adoption | National Court only |
| Child maintenance, custody, child protection | Family Court, sitting as a District Court |
| Adultery or enticement compensation | District Court — the Act defines “Court” that way |
| Customary land disputes | Mediation, then the Local Land Court |
| Interpretation of the Constitution | Supreme Court — s 18(1), to the exclusion of other courts |
A small claim in the National Court
Because the National Court has unlimited jurisdiction, it has power to hear a claim that could have been brought in the District Court. The proceeding is not a nullity.
What you risk is costs. A plaintiff who runs a modest claim in the National Court, incurring National Court costs, may find the Court declines to allow costs on that scale — or awards costs on the lower scale that would have applied below.
Order 22 governs costs, and the Court’s discretion is wide. Compare Order 4 Rule 17, which makes the same point about prolix documents: costs occasioned by excess are borne by the party using them.
A large claim in the District Court
The District Court is a creature of statute, established under Constitution section 172 and constituted under the District Courts Act (Chapter 40). Its civil jurisdiction is limited by that Act.
A claim beyond the limit is beyond its power. An order made without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside — and the National Court’s section 155(3)(a) power to review any exercise of judicial authority is the route.
The District Courts Act (Chapter 40) is not available on PacLII at the time of writing. Monetary limits are set by that Act and revised from time to time — check the current figure at the court registry before filing.
Abandoning part of a claim to bring it within a lower court’s limit may leave you unable to recover the balance later. If the claim is genuinely worth more than the District Court can award, it belongs in the National Court.
What can be done
1. Nothing needs doing. If the National Court has jurisdiction — and it usually does — the proceeding continues. The issue is costs, not competence.
2. Wrong originating process, right court. Order 4 Rule 35 allows the Court to order the proceeding to continue on pleadings, and it then proceeds as if commenced by writ.
3. Appeal or review. Where a lower court acted beyond jurisdiction, the routes are appeal under Order 18 or judicial review under Order 16 and Constitution s 155(3) and (4).
4. Start again in the right court. Straightforward — but check the limitation period first. A fresh proceeding is commenced on the new filing date, and the Frauds and Limitations Act 1988 may by then bar it.
One error that cannot be cured by any court
18(1) — the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, to the exclusion of other courts, on any question relating to the interpretation or application of a Constitutional Law.
18(2) — any other court, where such a question arises, shall refer the matter to the Supreme Court unless the question is trivial, vexatious or irrelevant.
So the National Court enforces the Constitution — under sections 22 and 57 — but it does not decide what a Constitutional Law means. That question must be referred.
If you are genuinely unsure which court or which procedure is right, Order 1 Rule 12 allows an application for directions, and proceedings commenced in accordance with those directions shall be well commenced. On the courts generally, see Go to Court.
Can a case be transferred?
No rule of the National Court Rules 1983 simply moves a proceeding from one court to another. What exists is a group of powers achieving similar results:
- Order 4 Rule 35 — a proceeding begun by originating summons may be ordered to continue on pleadings, and then proceeds as if commenced by writ.
- Order 4 Rule 31 — directions convenient for the just, quick and cheap disposal of the proceedings, including any order the Court could make on motion.
- Constitution s 155(4) — such other orders as are necessary to do justice in the circumstances of a particular case.
- Order 1 Rule 12 — directions where the procedure is not prescribed or is in doubt.
Where a matter is properly before another body — customary land before the Local Land Court, a dispute the parties agreed to arbitrate, a leadership matter before a tribunal — the National Court proceeding may be stayed rather than dismissed. That preserves the plaintiff’s position on limitation while the correct forum deals with the substance.
So ask for a stay in the alternative whenever you apply to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. See challenging jurisdiction.
Sources
- Constitution — ss 18, 22, 57, 155, 166, 172
- National Court Rules 1983 — O 1 r 12; O 4 rr 17, 35; O 16; O 18; O 22
- District Courts Act (Chapter 40) — not available on PacLII
- Frauds and Limitations Act 1988
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the National Court Rules 1983 and check for later amendments. 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.