Principle of Jurisdiction in Nepal (2026): Court Authority Guide

Jurisdiction is the first question in any litigation in Nepal — before the merits, before the evidence, before the pleadings. It is the legal authority of a court or tribunal to hear and decide a particular dispute. A judgment delivered without jurisdiction is not merely wrong; it is void. The losing party can ignore it, the winning party cannot enforce it, and the matter can be reopened on writ even years later. For that reason every counsel filing a fresh case in Nepal starts with three diagnostic questions: which court has territorial authority over the cause of action, which court is empowered by subject-matter to decide this type of dispute, and which level in the hierarchy is the correct first port of call. See Alpine's civil-law practice area for related matters.

This 2026 (2083 BS) practitioner's guide sets out the principle of jurisdiction in Nepal under the National Civil Procedure Code 2074 (2017) read with the Administration of Justice Act 2073 (2016) and the Constitution of Nepal 2072. It covers the three primary categories — territorial, subject-matter and hierarchical jurisdiction — and the four functional types — original, appellate, writ and advisory. It maps the powers of the District Courts, the seven High Courts and the Supreme Court of Nepal, walks through the specialised tribunals constituted under Article 152 of the Constitution, addresses cross-border and Non-Resident Nepali (NRN) jurisdictional questions, and explains the legal consequences of acting without jurisdiction and the procedural routes to challenge a jurisdictional defect.

Alpine Law Associates — Nepal Bar Council-registered litigation team handling jurisdictional analysis, forum challenges, writ petitions and cross-jurisdictional disputes before the District Courts, the seven High Courts and the Supreme Court of Nepal.

Speak with our lawyers today →

What is jurisdiction under Nepali law?

Jurisdiction is the legal authority of a court, tribunal or quasi-judicial body to hear and decide a particular matter. It is conferred by the Constitution of Nepal 2072, by the Administration of Justice Act 2073, by the National Civil Procedure Code 2074, by the Criminal Procedure Code 2074, and by the various statutes that establish specialised tribunals (Revenue, Labour, Foreign Employment, Debt Recovery and others). No court or tribunal has jurisdiction beyond what these instruments confer on it — and no court or tribunal can lawfully decide a matter outside its conferred authority, even with the parties' consent.

This last point matters in commercial litigation. Parties to a contract sometimes agree to litigate in a particular court that does not have jurisdiction over their dispute. Under the Nepali principle of jurisdiction, that agreement cannot create jurisdiction where none exists. The court will reject the case at the threshold; the parties' best protection is to pick a court that actually has authority and to record that agreement as a forum-selection clause to forestall later disputes about venue.

What are the three primary categories of jurisdiction?

Every case is filtered through three primary categories of jurisdiction. A court must satisfy all three before it can hear the matter.

• Territorial (geographic) jurisdiction. The court must be the court of the place where the cause of action arose, or where the defendant resides or carries on business, or where the immovable property is situated (for property disputes), or where the contract was to be performed (for contract disputes). The National Civil Procedure Code 2074 sets out these rules in detail and the District Court of the relevant district is the default venue.
• Subject-matter jurisdiction. The court must be empowered to decide the type of dispute. Civil disputes go to the District Court (civil bench); criminal matters go to the District Court (criminal bench); revenue disputes go to the Revenue Tribunal; labour disputes go to the Labour Court; foreign-employment grievances go to the Foreign Employment Tribunal; debt recovery beyond a threshold goes to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Filing a labour dispute at the District Court is a subject-matter defect; the case will be transferred or dismissed.
• Hierarchical (pecuniary) jurisdiction. The court must be at the correct level for the value of the dispute or the gravity of the offence. Most civil cases begin at the District Court regardless of value, but certain high-value or specified-type cases have a different first port of call. Criminal cases are allocated between the District Court, the High Court (specified offences) and the Supreme Court (in extraordinary writ jurisdiction) according to the gravity prescribed by the statutes creating the offences.

A defect in any one of the three categories is fatal. A defendant served in a District Court that lacks territorial authority can challenge the suit; a plaintiff who has filed a revenue dispute in a District Court will have the case rejected for want of subject-matter jurisdiction; a litigant who tries to skip the District Court and file directly in the High Court (outside its narrow original jurisdiction) will be sent back down. Forum diagnosis is therefore the first task counsel undertakes before drafting the plaint.

What are the four functional types of jurisdiction?

Beyond the three primary categories, jurisdiction comes in four functional types — each corresponding to a different kind of judicial function:

• Original jurisdiction. The power to hear a case at first instance. The District Court has original jurisdiction over most civil and criminal cases; the High Court has original writ jurisdiction under Article 144 plus specified original criminal cases; the Supreme Court has extraordinary original writ jurisdiction under Article 133.
• Appellate jurisdiction. The power to review a decision of a lower court or tribunal. The High Court hears appeals from District Court judgments; the Supreme Court hears appeals from High Court judgments and from certain tribunals; some tribunals have their own internal appellate structure.
• Writ jurisdiction. The power to issue constitutional writs — certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus, quo warranto. The Supreme Court has extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 133; the High Courts have writ jurisdiction within their territorial province under Article 144. The writ jurisdiction is a constitutional grant, not a statutory grant, and it cannot be ousted by ordinary legislation.
• Advisory jurisdiction. The power to give advisory opinions to the President under Article 137 of the Constitution on questions of law of public importance. Only the Supreme Court has advisory jurisdiction, and it is exercised through a constitutional bench.

District Court jurisdiction — the foundation of the system

The District Court is the foundation of the Nepali judicial system. There are 77 District Courts, one per district. Under the Administration of Justice Act 2073, the District Court has original jurisdiction over essentially all civil and criminal cases that are not specifically allocated to another forum by statute. Civil cases include contract disputes, property disputes, family matters (marriage, divorce, child custody, succession), tort claims, partition, easement, declaration of rights and most other private-law disputes. Criminal cases include offences under the Criminal Code 2074 and the various sectoral criminal statutes, save for offences specifically reserved to higher courts or to special courts.

Within the District Court, cases are allocated to the appropriate bench by internal court roster — civil bench, criminal bench, family bench, juvenile bench and so on. The bench allocation does not change the court's jurisdiction; it is an internal court-management matter. A judgment delivered by the District Court is appealable to the High Court of the province; from the High Court, a further appeal lies to the Supreme Court in specified categories of case. For a full map of the appellate path, see our companion guide on the hierarchy of courts in Nepal.

High Court jurisdiction — appeals plus original writ

The Constitution of Nepal 2072 establishes a High Court in each of the seven provinces (replacing the former Appellate Courts). Each High Court has a Chief Judge and judges as appointed under the Constitution and the Administration of Justice Act 2073. The High Court has three principal heads of jurisdiction:

• Appellate. Appeals from District Court judgments in the province. Most appeals lie as of right; some require leave under the relevant procedural statute.
• Original writ. Under Article 144 of the Constitution, the High Court has original jurisdiction to issue the constitutional writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto — within its province. This is the most-used original jurisdiction of the High Court and the forum to which most administrative-law challenges are first directed.
• Original criminal. Specified categories of serious offence are tried at first instance in the High Court rather than the District Court, with onward appeal to the Supreme Court.

Choice between the High Court and the Supreme Court for a writ matter is governed by the importance and reach of the issue. Writs concerning provincial decisions and matters of largely province-level effect go to the High Court; writs raising constitutional questions of national importance can go directly to the Supreme Court under Article 133.

Supreme Court jurisdiction — the apex court

The Supreme Court of Nepal sits in Kathmandu and is the apex court of the country. Its jurisdiction is the broadest of any forum and operates under four heads:

• Final appellate. The Supreme Court hears final appeals from High Court judgments in specified categories — generally cases involving substantial questions of law, large pecuniary amounts, or fundamental rights. Not every High Court judgment is appealable; some are final at the High Court level.
• Extraordinary writ. Under Article 133 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has extraordinary jurisdiction to issue constitutional writs for the protection of fundamental rights and the enforcement of legal duties. This is the apex public-law jurisdiction and the route by which constitutional questions reach the apex bench.
• Advisory. Under Article 137, the President may refer questions of law of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion. The opinion is delivered through a constitutional bench and, although technically advisory, carries great institutional weight.
• Constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution. Its constitutional bench hears federal-system disputes, fundamental-rights challenges, election disputes of national reach and similar matters.

Specialised tribunals under Article 152 of the Constitution

Article 152 of the Constitution of Nepal 2072 authorises the establishment of specialised courts, judicial bodies and tribunals to handle particular categories of dispute. Each is constituted under its own enabling statute and has subject-matter jurisdiction over the disputes the statute allocates to it. The principal tribunals include:

• Administrative Court — service disputes of civil servants, including disciplinary action, dismissal and pension matters.
• Revenue Tribunal — tax and customs disputes between taxpayers and the Inland Revenue Department or the Department of Customs.
• Labour Court — employment disputes including termination, wage claims, collective bargaining and unfair labour practice.
• Foreign Employment Tribunal — disputes arising under the Foreign Employment Act between migrant workers, recruiting agencies and employers.
• Debt Recovery Tribunal — recovery of loans by banks and financial institutions above the statutory threshold.
• Special Court — corruption and economic offences under the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority Act and related statutes.

These tribunals have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction within their statutory remit. A debt-recovery claim above the threshold cannot be filed at the District Court; a tax assessment dispute cannot be filed at the District Court. Onward appeal from most tribunals lies to the High Court or directly to the Supreme Court depending on the enabling statute.

Cross-border and Non-Resident Nepali jurisdictional issues

Cross-border disputes raise a separate set of jurisdictional questions. A Nepali court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreigner or over a contract performed abroad where the cause of action has a sufficient connection with Nepal — for example, the contract was made in Nepal, the property is in Nepal, the loss was suffered in Nepal, or the defendant has assets in Nepal. The National Civil Procedure Code 2074 and the rules of private international law applied by the Supreme Court govern these questions case by case.

For Non-Resident Nepalis (NRNs), the position is more straightforward where the dispute concerns Nepal-situated property or a contract performed in Nepal — the Nepali courts have jurisdiction. Where the dispute is entirely overseas (an inheritance dispute over property abroad, for example), the Nepali courts will generally decline jurisdiction and direct the parties to the foreign forum. Enforcement of foreign judgments in Nepal is a separate question governed by reciprocity and by the Civil Code 2074.

Want of jurisdiction — consequences and remedies

A decision taken without jurisdiction is void ab initio. Three legal consequences follow:

• No res judicata. A void judgment does not bar the same parties from re-litigating the matter in a court that has jurisdiction. The doctrine of res judicata only attaches to judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction.
• No enforcement. A void judgment cannot be enforced. The winning party cannot levy execution and the losing party can resist execution by raising want of jurisdiction as a defence at any stage.
• Open to writ challenge. The affected party can challenge the void decision by writ of certiorari before the High Court (Article 144) or, in cases of national importance, the Supreme Court (Article 133). The writ does not need to be filed within the normal appellate window for the kind of decision concerned.

The standard procedural route to raise a jurisdictional defect is by preliminary objection at the first hearing — the defendant files an application objecting to jurisdiction before filing a written statement on the merits. The court must decide the jurisdictional question before proceeding. Where the court overrules the objection and proceeds, the defendant can either contest the merits while preserving the jurisdictional point for appeal, or file a writ for prohibition in the High Court to stop the proceedings.

Inherent jurisdiction and procedural waiver

Inherent jurisdiction is the power of a court to do what is necessary to give effect to its substantive jurisdiction — issue process, manage proceedings, correct its own clerical errors, prevent abuse of process. Nepali courts exercise inherent jurisdiction in line with the National Civil Procedure Code 2074. It is not a source of new substantive jurisdiction; a court that lacks substantive jurisdiction over the dispute cannot acquire it by exercising inherent powers.

Procedural waiver of jurisdictional objection is recognised only in narrow circumstances. Where the defect is purely territorial and the defendant has appeared and contested the merits without raising objection, the court may treat the territorial point as waived. Subject-matter and hierarchical defects, however, cannot be waived — they go to the court's authority to act at all, and a void judgment remains void no matter how the parties conducted themselves.

How can Alpine Law Associates help with jurisdictional issues?

Alpine Law Associates handles jurisdictional issues at every stage of a Nepali dispute. Before litigation, we conduct forum-selection analysis to identify the correct court or tribunal, advise on drafting forum-selection and dispute-resolution clauses in commercial contracts, and structure cross-border transactions to clarify the jurisdictional path in the event of dispute. During litigation, we file and defend preliminary jurisdictional objections, run challenges to wrong-forum proceedings, and represent clients in the parallel writ proceedings that frequently arise when a court overrules a jurisdictional objection. After judgment, we advise on enforcement, on writ challenges to void decisions, and on the cross-jurisdictional enforcement of foreign judgments in Nepal.

As a full-service law firm in Nepal, we co-ordinate jurisdictional work with related natural-justice challenges and appellate strategy in a single counsel relationship. Where the dispute is high-stakes or time-sensitive — for example, an injunction sought in the wrong forum, or an enforcement action against assets in Nepal pursued on a foreign judgment — we mobilise quickly across the District Courts, the seven High Courts and the Supreme Court of Nepal to protect the client's position.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Last reviewed: April 2026