Subject-matter Jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance in the Jordanian Judicial System

Abstract

It is established that the jurisdictional rules are binding legal rules. The parties to whom provisions of these rules apply are required to comply with them, since the binding nature of rules of subject-matter jurisdiction oblige the parties to the proceedings, whether plaintiff or defendant, to adhere to them. Further, the public prosecutor’s office and courts are required to comply with these rules. If a court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over a case or a complaint filed before it, then it should declare lack of jurisdiction. It is established that rules of subject-matter jurisdiction are part of the public order. This is since the legislator determines such jurisdiction for a public interest, i.e. the justice. Hence, violating the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction results in absolute invalidity.
 This study aims to identify the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court of first instance without dealing with the territorial jurisdiction. This is in view of the problems that the subject-matter jurisdiction raises, especially with the large number of amendments made to the legislations that define this jurisdiction without the knowledge of the relevant parties, which raises a kind of confusion and ambiguity. The nature of subject-matter jurisdiction is defined in the introductory topic of this study. The subject-matter jurisdiction of the court of first instance over civil matters and criminal matters is defined in three topics. The study ends with the most important findings and recommendations, including, but not limited to, the special courts are cancelled and their jurisdiction is transferred to the courts of first instance.