IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT SIGATOKA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 22 of 2025
BETWEEN:	SIGATOKA TOWN COUNCIL a body corporate duly established under the provisions of Local Government Act 1972 having its principal place of operations and registered office at Civic Building, Queens Road, Sigatoka, Fiji.
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
AND:	AFFIFUD DEAN, of Sunset Strip, Korotogo, Sigatoka, Fiji, Businessman trading in the name and style of CRAB SHACK having its place of operation at Sunset Strip, Korotogo, Sigatoka, Fiji.
 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

For the Applicant:		Mr. Madhavan 
For the Respondent:		Not present  
EXPARTE RULING ON JURISDICTION IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

Introduction 
1.	This is an exparte application by the Applicant for leave to issue contempt proceedings against the Respondent. 
2.	 The Court invited submissions from the Applicant on whether it has jurisdictions to do so in its civil jurisdiction. The Court also asked Counsel for the Applicant to look at the Magistrates Court’s powers outside of statute, that is, in common law, to assess and determine whether it could derive from it, powers to invoke jurisdiction.
The Submission
3.	The Applicant filed comprehensive submissions on the issue of jurisdiction. 
4.	The Court is grateful to Counsel for the Applicant’s efforts in directing the Court’s attention to matters pertinent to this issue. 
5.	Applicant addressed the Court on numerous persuasive authorities justifying why this Court has jurisdiction under the following:
a)	Section 6, 16 and 20 of the Magistrates Court Act;
b)	Order 3 Rule 8 of the Magistrates Court Rules;
c)	Order 52 of the High Court Rules;
d)	East West Taxis and tours v LTA, Land Transport Appeals Tribunal No. 134 of 2017;
e)	Morris v Crown Office [1970] 1 QB;
f)	Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] QB 73;
The Analysis
6.	The specific authority on this issue is Section 6 of the Magistrates Court Act, which states:
“The High Court shall have the same power to deal with cases of contempt of its authority as the High Court of Justice in England, and such power shall extend to the upholding of the authority of Magistrates Courts.”
7.	Initially, it appeared that there was no binding authorities on this issue thus why the Court has had to invite submissions. However, in the course of preparing this Ruling, there is an authority on this issue that binds this Court.
8.	In Brij Lal v Reginam Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1983, the Supreme Court as the High Court then was, touched on this issue. In the binding interpretation and reasoning of Justice Kermode, the Court held that under the Magistrates’ Courts Act, it is the High Court that has jurisdiction to deal with cases of contempt of court. The Magistrate has no power to punish for Contempt of Court under the said legislation. 
9.	The High Court referred specifically to the principal provision which the Applicant relies on here, that is, section 6 of the Magistrates Court Act when making this interpretation and decision. 
10.	In absence of any other binding authority to the contrary, it would be quite difficult to depart from this position given the doctrine of stare decisis. 
The Courts Finding
11.	The Court has no jurisdiction under the Magistrates Court Act to consider this application. 
12.	Application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
13.	So ordered. 

---------------------------
J. Daurewa
Resident Magistrate
13th November 2025