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

Gumata v Ravuci [2016] FJMC 157; Civil Appeal 08.2015 (20 June 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT NAUSORI
IN THE CENTRAL DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No: 8 of 2015
SCT Claim # 497/15

Isireli Gumata
Appellant /Original Respondent
.v.

Jone Ravuci

Respondent/Original Claimant
Appearances and Representations
For Appellant: In Person
For Respondent : In Person

Judgment

1. Introduction

The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 7^th January 2015 where the Referee had ordered that the “Respondent is to pay a sum of ...$734.00 within 28 days of the date of this order”.

The matter was heard by way of written submissions. Both parties agreed to be heard by way of written submissions.

2. The Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant are basically issues relating to his dealing with the original claimant. No issue is raised of bias, jurisdiction or any breach of natural justice.

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) or (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree.

This Court has noted that the submissions by the Appellant. He does not raise any issue of bias on part of Referee, or that he acted outside his jurisdiction of whether there was breach of natural justice.

The Court notes that the Referee fairly dealt with the matter. The Referee heard both parties and then decided the matter. The claim was dealt with fairly and the Court finds that the decision that the Referee came up with is after a careful evaluation of all the materials and evidence presented to him.

5.) Conclusion

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

For the given reasons given above, the appeal fails. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
20th June 2016