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

Ram v Chand [2016] FJMC 170; Civil Appeal 28.2014 (14 July 2016)

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

Civil Appeal No: 28 of 2014
SCT Claim # 549/2015

Tulsi Ram
Appellant /Original Respondent
.v.

Rajesh Chand

Respondent/Original Claimant

Appearances and Representations
For Appellant: Mr K Singh
For Respondent : In Person

Judgment

1. Introduction

The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 31^st December 2015 where the Referee had ordered that the Respondent pay a sum of $100.00 per week commencing from January 8, 2016 until $4925.00 is paid in full.

Both parties agreed to hear the matter by way of written submissions.

2. The Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant grounds for appeal are as follows:

(a) the Referee erred when he decided appellant was at fault considering the fact the appellant was only charged for careless driving and not found guilty.

(b) the Referee exceeded his jurisdiction when he ordered to pay$100 per week from January 8^th 2016.

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.

The Court has noted the grounds of appeal as filed by the Appellant. From the Courts perusal of the records and noting the submissions of the parties the Court finds that the Referee noted all the evidence that was before him. The Referee properly evaluated the evidence before him. He heard the witnesses and the parties and made his decision after hearing them.

The Court notes that the Referee enquired on the status of the traffic matter. This Court finds that the Referee was under no obligation to wait for the traffic case, however it might have helped if the was disposed. A Party need not wait for other matters when one needs to pursue another. This Court is satisfied the Referee enquired appropriately and upon being satisfied, that the appellant was the driver and the respondent owner of the taxi the Referee proceeded with the matter at hand.

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.

The Referee acted within his jurisdiction.

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
14th July 2016