IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2012
SCT Claim # 1598/11

Between :

Universal Network of Infotech
Appellant/ Original Respondent

And:

Nazreen Bibi
Claimant/ Respondent in Appeal

Before: R.M. Chaitanya. Lakshman
Resident Magistrate 

For the Appellant/ Original Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Rai (Director)
Claimant/ Respondent in Appeal: Mr V. Pillay

Ruling

1).	Introduction

The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee ordering the Appellant/Original Respondent to pay the Claimant a sum of $3000.00 within 30 days of the date of the SCT Order. The Appellant/Original Respondent filed a timely appeal. 

2).	The Claim

The claimant claimed unpaid wages for the period 2008 to 2010 and generally sought a sum of $5000.00 as full and final payment. 

3).	The Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant/ Original Respondent's grounds of appeal are that "the proceedings were conducted by the referee in manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the results of the proceedings".

4).	 The Law

Section 33 of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991 provides that:

"(1) Any party to proceedings before a Tribunal appeal against an order made by the Tribunal under section 15(6) or section 31(2) on the grounds that:

(a) the proceedings were conducted by the Referee in a manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings; or

(b) the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction."

The scope of appeals from SCT is extremely limited. The appeal only lies where it can be said that either the proceedings were conducted in a manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings or the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. There can be no appeal on merits: Sheet Metal and Plumbing (Fiji) Limited v. Deo – HBA 7 of 1999, In the said case Fatiaki J went on to consider the purpose of the Small Claims Tribunal, that is, to provide prompt, inexpensive and lay tribunals for the settling of small claims. His Lordship referred to Section 15(4) of the Decree which provides;

"The Tribunal shall determine the dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so . . . . . shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities."

5).	Observations

The primary concern of this Court is whether the appellant has met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) and (b) of the "Small Claims Tribunal" Decree.

The grounds of Appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above.

The Court has carefully examined the Small Claims Tribunal records. The records fails to show any evidence of:

a) Bias.
b) Likelihood of Bias.
c) Procedural Unfairness.
d) Breach of Audi alteram partem rule which is so fundamental to a conduct of fair hearing.

This Courts perusal of the records shows that both the parties were present and given opportunity to present evidences. 

6.) Conclusion

The appellant has not met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) & (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991.

The appeal is dismissed.

30 days to appeal.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
5/11/2012