Monday, November 1, 2010

OUSTING THE JURISDICTION OF COURT.

It is a trite principal of law that the jurisdiction of court can not be ousted whether in a common agreement or in contract.Going by the above statement one will then ask why the law still allows;Agreement to maintenance and arbitrational clause.
In agreement to maintenance,a man may agree to pay the wife some money in a sepration agreement, in return the wife will agree not to sue in court for it.But by statute,the wife can ,if the the agreement was in writing ,sue the husband for the promised allowance ,inspite of the fact that her promise not to sue.
The second  one is the arbitration clause othewise called the gentleman agreement.Under this, parties tends by agreement to resort to abitration first before going to court.

The court has generally frowned at these ousting and has gone ahead to take some important decetions on some of  the matters.
In Hyman v Heyman,it was held that  wife can sue the husband inspite of the fact that her own promise not to apply to the court.
In arbitration,even though the court does not  see it generally as ousting its jurisdiction,but as the reason for the underlying nature of the parties traction transactions,it does frown at it when the intetion is to oust its jurisdictions.

I will strongly argue that going by some of the above started fact,since the court can do away with some of the rules and laws that oust its jurisdiction,why the do parties to contract and litigations still add some of these clauses.Be that as it may,i suggest that a law should be put in place to aviod parties from going into such agreement and thereby reducing the waste of time in adjudications of matters in court..

1 comment:

  1. Udo, your post is very interesting and nice content too.

    ReplyDelete