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

Verma v Osaka Auto Spares (Fiji) Ltd [2014] FJMC 115; Civil Appeal 82.2013 (25 June 2014)

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

Civil Appeal No. 82 of 20139
SCT Claim # 2297/2008

Between :

Sanjay Singh Verma and Babita Kumar Verma
Appellant/Original Claimant

And :

Osaka Auto Spares (Fiji) Limited
Respondent in Appeal/Original Respondent

Appellant/ Original Claimant: In Person
Respondent in Appeal/ Original Respondent: in Person

Ruling

1). Introduction
This is an appeal by the Appellant/Original Claimant. In this action the Referee, ordered the claim by the Appellant/Original Claimant having not been proven be dismissed.

The parties agreed to have the matter dealt with at hearing by way of written submissions. Both parties have made written submissions. This Court has considered the submissions of both the parties.

2). The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/ the Original Claimants grounds of appeal can be summarized as follows: (a) that referee conducted the proceedings in an unfair manner, and (b) the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.

3. 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.

4). 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 1991. The grounds of appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above.

The main argument by the Appellants is that the 1st Appellant was not heard. The appellants state that the matter was concluded by the Referee without the 1st Appellant and while he was in prison. The appellant's contention is that at the hearing of a claim every party shall be entitled to attend and be heard.

From the records of the SCT this Court is not clear whether the hearing was concluded before the decision of the Tribunal was delivered. The absence of the 1st Appellant was due to no fault of his, as he was incarcerated at that time. The 1st Appellant had been appearing before the Referee all the time for the hearing of the matter. This Court further notes that the 2nd Appellant could have appeared before the Tribunal. She should have appeared, rather than write letters and provided assistance to the Tribunal as she was a party to the proceedings. She did not even follow up on the next date that was given by the Tribunal while the 1st Appellant was not present.

Having noted all the submissions and the records of the SCT this Court finds that the matter need to be re-heard before another Referee and this Court directs that both parties appear at the SCT on 27th June 2014 for the fixing of a new hearing date.

5.) Conclusion

For the reasons given herein this Court finds that the appellant has met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) & (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991.

Appeal succeeds. Matter to be re-heard before another Referee.
Parties to appear at The SCT on 27th June for the matter to be fixed for re-hearing.

Right to Appeal this Ruling to the High Court within 28 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
25th June 2014