|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(V9) 1 CLR 1
1909 April 29
1
[TYSER, C.J. AND BERTRAM, J.]
CHRISTO MOUZOURI
v.
KATERINA KISSONERGHI.
CONFLICT OF LAWS-JURISDICTION-CONTRACT MADE ABROAD BY CYPRIOTS DOMICILED ABROAD-COURTS OF JUSTICE ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1882, ART 29-RULES OF COURT, 1882, ORDER II RULE 2.
The courts of Cyprus have jurisdiction to entertain an action brought by a Cypriot Ottoman subject, domiciled in another part of the Ottoman Dominions against another Cypriot Ottoman subject, similarly domiciled, but temporarily resident within the jurisdiction, with respect to a contract which was made in the country of their domicile, and the performance of which was contemplated in that country.
This was an appeal from the District Court of Papho.
Plaintiff and Defendant were alike two Ottoman subjects, born and at one time resident in Cyprus, who had transferred their domicile to Egypt. It was alleged by the Plaintiff that some two and a half years before the date of the action the Defendant borrowed from him the sum of £40, and gave him a promissory note for the amount.
Subsequently both parties visited Cyprus and the Plaintiff issued a writ against the Defendant in the Papho District Court.
The Papho District Court tried the case and gave judgment for the Plaintiff.
The Defendant appealed.
Bucknill, K. A., and Artemes for the Appellant.
Theodotou for the Respondent.
The Court dismissed the appeal.
Judgment: THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Both parties to this action are Ottoman subjects and were at the time of the action was brought resident in Papho. Therefore the Papho District Court has jurisdiction to try the action unless there was something in the nature of the action to deprive them of the jurisdiction (Cyprus Courts of Justice Order, 1882, Sec. 29. Rules of Court, 1886, Order II rule 2).
This was an action for debt and it was found that the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff. It does not matter where the debt was incurred; the Plaintiff may claim the money from the Defendant wherever he finds him. It is a personal action in which the Plaintiff demands only what is due to him under the Defendant's obligation to pay his debt (Story, Conflict of Laws, 530). Such actions are transitory (Story, 538) that is to say, they can be brought in any Court having jurisdiction over the Defendant. The Papho Court had. jurisdiction over the Defendant because he was an Ottoman subject resident in Papho District. Consequently this action could be brought in the Papho District Court.
BERTRAM, J: In his case two Ottoman subjects, born in Cyprus, transfer their domicile to another part of he Sultan's dominions and there enter into a contract Afterwards both being temporarily in Cyprus, one seeks to enforce it against the other in the Cyprus Courts.
Without laying any stress upon the point that Egypt and Cyprus are both within the Ottoman dominions; I see nothing in these facts to oust the jurisdiction of the Cyprus Courts.
All Governments claim to exercise jurisdiction in suits between their subjects, whether the dispute arises within or without the territorial sovereignty, unless it relates to immoveable property situated abroad. The parties to this case being Ottoman subjects, born in Cyprus may be considered in the position of subjects of the Cyprus Government and as such specially justiciable by its tribunals.
If however we are to determine the case by the principles in force in England (where it is said that the Courts are "more open admit actions founded upon foreign transactions than those of any other European Country "Phillips v Eyre (1870) L.R., 6, Q.B.; 1), the rule observed in the English Courts goes very far beyond the present case. It has there been laid down that "though every fact arose abroad, and the dispute was between foreigners, yet the Courts would entertain "and determine the cause, if in its nature transitory, and if the process "of the Court had been brought to bear against the Defendant by service of a writ of him Where present in England". Jackson v. Spitall (1870) E.R. S.C.P., 542. See Dicey, Conflict of Laws, pp. 233 seqq.
I agree that the appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.