Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Labour Officer v Fiji Sugar Corporation Ltd [2005] FJHC 529; HBA0013.2004 (16 September 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBA0013 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

THE LABOUR OFFICER for and on
behalf of SEMI ROGICA
APPELLANT

AND:

FIJI SUGAR CORPORATION LTD
RESPONDENT

Ms S. Tabaiwalu for the Appellant
Mr S. Krishna for the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 18 July 2005
Dates of Submissions: 5 August, 19 August and 26 August 2005
Date of Judgment: 16 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF FINNIGAN J

This is an appeal against a decision of a Magistrate to strike out a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act Cap 94 for excess of jurisdiction. The claim is for $40,000.00. The Magistrate heard argument and ruled that the claim was in excess of jurisdiction.

The Labour officer appealed on the ground that the Magistrate had erred in law and the alternative aground that the decision was unreasonable.

The appeal was given a hearing by way of written submissions so that it could be disposed of promptly rather then given a hearing in 2007 or 2008. Both Counsel accepted the timetable. Submissions from Counsel for the Appellant were due at 4.00pm on 5 August 2005. At 9.00am on 22 August 2005 I received a written request from Counsel for the Respondent to proceed with the hearing and on the failure of the Appellant to file submissions to strike out the appeal. That seems a proper application.

Before considering that action I turned to the record to see what argument had been advanced before the Magistrate. Mr Krishna for the Defendant/Respondent had relied in the Magistrate’s Court on Section 16(1)(c ) (iii) of the Magistrates’ Courts’ Act as amended by Civil Degree in 1998 which limits the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to $15,000.00. He relied upon Section 20 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act Cap 94 which equates workmen’s compensation claims with civil actions in the Magistrates’ Courts’. He cited Govind Holdings Ltd –v- Kahah Nand Civil Appeal 0015 of 1998L which confirms the $15,000.00 jurisdiction and Ram Khilawan –v- Budh Ram [1967] 13 FLR....... for the proposition that the Court has no jurisdiction to amend a claim.

For the Applicant/Appellant in the Magistrate’s Court Ms A. Ali appeared. She relied on Section 7 of Cap 94 as amended on 11 November 1994. This section fixes the monetary jurisdiction of the Magistrate in claims under Cap 94 and she submitted to the Magistrate that the jurisdiction was $32,000.00 maximum $6,000.00 minimum. On that basis she submitted the matter could be heard that day. The Magistrate took time to consider these arguments and issued a written ruling on 18 August 2004 wherein he found he had no jurisdiction. He stated reasons which were based on the submissions which he had heard.

It should be noted (although nobody in this case to date seems to have noted it) that Section 7 (2) of Cap 94 provides as follows:

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), where an injury results in permanent total incapacity of such a nature that the injured workman must have the constant help of another person as certified by a Medical Practitioner, additional compensation shall be paid amounting 1 – ¼ of the amount which is otherwise payable under the section.”

Thus if the evidence were to establish total incapacity of that sort then the Magistrate would have jurisdiction upto $40,000.00. The evidence presumably would not establish that however because the particulars filed by the Labour officer specified that the incapacity although 100% and permanent is only partial. I note in passing that the particulars give no indication at all about what the incapacity may be or about how it occurred or about how it is related to the workmen’s employment. The answer filed by the Respondent made it clear that this lack of connection between any personal injury and the employment was to be its defence.

In this case the applicant is simply failed to justify why he proceeded in the Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate in my opinion had no alternative in the arguments before him to his findings that he had no jurisdiction. I have no alternative on the absence of argument before me to dismissing this appeal.

The workman had statutory rights. He may still be given a hearing. He should seek legal advice.

On this appeal costs are allowed to the Respondent which in the absence of argument I fix at $500.00.

D.D. Finnigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
16 September 2005.