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

Kumar v Carpentars Fiji Ltd [2012] FJMC 75; Civil appeal 50.2009 (15 February 2012)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LAUTOKA

Civil appeal No 50/09

BETWEEN

RAKESH KUMAR
Appellant

AND

CARPENTERS FIJI LIMITED
Respondent

RULING

1. This is an appeal against an order made by the Small Claim Tribunal on the 17th July 2009. The order of the Tribunal reads as follows;
   

" The Tribunal Ordered;

i. That the Respondent Rakesh Kumar to pay the claimant Carpenters Fiji Limited the agreed sum of $ 835.82 due under hire purchase account No 821380-32 by instalment of $ 10 per week commencing from 24/07/09 until the whole sum is paid in full.

ii. That the payments to be made to Carpenters Fiji Limited Lautoka.

iii. That in default of payment whole sum becomes due and payable immediately."

2. The Appellant filed the Notice of appeal on the 21st July 2009 against the said order and the grounds of appeal reads as follows;
   

" The radio set was not working was given for repair. I did my payment but the radio still gave me problem. I made complain to M/H. I am a poor man. The radio is still in M/H."

3. The Section 33(1) stipulates the grounds on which an appeal against a Small Claim Tribunal order can be made. Accordingly any party to proceedings before a Tribunal may appeal against an order by the tribunal on the grounds that;
   
   1. the proceedings were conducted by the referee in a manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of proceedings or
      
   2. the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.
      
4. It is clearly discernible that the Appellant has not mentioned any valid ground of appeal in his notice of appeal. He has only stated facts about the claim and why he opposes to pay the amount due to the claimant. The provisions of 33(1) are very clear that a person who intends to appeal against an order of the Tribunal has to establish one of the two grounds stipulated in the said Section.
   
5. Be that as it may, when this case came up in this Court both parties were requested to file written submissions regarding the appeal. Both parties filed written submissions and I will now proceed to consider them. The Appellant in his written submissions has set out details as to why he declines to pay the Respondent, the original claimant. Apart from opposing the original claim, the Appellant has not submitted to Court any facts pertaining to the manner in which the proceedings were conducted at the Tribunal. There is nothing placed before this Court by the Appellant to show that the Tribunal conducted the Proceedings in an unfair manner or it has exceeded the jurisdiction.
   
6. The Respondent has quite rightly pointed out that this Court has no jurisdiction to look into the merits of the claim at this stage. As per the judgement in Wati v Waqabaca Truck Hire and Machinery 2005 FJHC 101 it is very clear that an error of law is not a permitted ground of appeal nor is an appeal allowed on merits of the case.
   
7. In the circumstances I decide that the Appellant has failed to establish that the proceedings of the Tribunal were conducted in an unfair manner which prejudicially affected the results of the proceedings or that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly I dismiss the appeal without costs.
   

28 days to appeal.

Rangajeeva Wimalasena
Resident Magistrate
Lautoka

15.02.2012