Randali v Alim [1996] FJHC 69; Hba0007j.96b (5 November 1996)

Fiji Islands - Randali v Alim - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

At Labasa

Appellate Jurisdiction

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 0007 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

ERONI RANADALI
Appellant

AND:

MOHAMMED ALIM
s/r> s/o Mohammed Hussain
Respondent

Appe in Person
Mr. A. Sen for Respondent

JUDGMENT

This isppeal against a judgment of the resident Magistrate, Labasa in which the appellant was orde ordered to pay the respondent the sum of $477.17.

The appellant who argued the appeal without the assistance of counsel also appeared in person in the Magistrate Court. His defence was described by the trial magistrate as 'very incoherent and uncomprehensible'. Having myself heard the appellant and read his written submission on appeal, I confess that I too have had some difficulty understanding the appellant.

Be that as it may the brief facts of the case are that the respondent who is a cane farmer and truck-owner claimed to be owed monies for carting cane from two cane farms in Waiqele to the Labasa F.S.C. Mill. These cane farms it is common ground were owned by the respondent and/or his father and were harvested by a harvesting gang No. 48 of which the appellant is the gang sirdar.

It is also common ground that F.S.C. pays harvesting expenses of $6.00 per ton of cane to gang sirdars who are then responsible for paying the cartage contractor hired to transport the cane harvested by the gang to the sugar mill.

The appellant for his part testified that the agreement reached between the harvesting gang No. 48 and the respondent's father was that the respondent was contracted to cart all the cane harvested by the gang but instead of doing so and in breach of their agreement, the respondent only carted the cane harvested from the respondent's father's farms.

It is unfore that no independent evidence from an F.S.C. field officer was led by either party arty at the trial to explain the system surrounding the payment of harvesting expenses by F.S.C. - its purpose? who is entitled to receive such payments? and the nature of MOGA agreements entered into by cane harvesting gangs? and its effects (if any) on cane cartage contracts?

In the result the learned trial magistrate was left with deciding the case on the competing evidence of the appellant and the respondent which he did on a 'quantum meriut' basis.

In other words whatever might be the 'problem' or isunderstanding' between the appellant, as gang sirg sirdar, and the respondent's father, the fact remains that cane harvested by gang No. 48 was in fact carted to the Labasa sugar mill in the respondent's truck and accordingly he should be paid for the services rendered.

The rationale behind the principle of 'quantum meruit' is described in Cheshir Fifoots 'Law of w of Contract' (9th edn.) at p.659 as follows:

"Whetr not the claim in quantum meruit is, in any particular casr case, alternative to an action for breach of contract, it is clear that it is itself independent of the original contract between the parties and is sustained, not because it represents an agreement reached between the parties, but because the law will compel the defendant not to disappoint the plaintiff of the 'fruit of his labour'."

Viewed in the above light there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the learned trial magistrate correctly assessed the evidence and the party's competing claims and arrived at a wholly reasonable decision.

The appeal is accordingly dsed as being without merit.

D.V. Fatiaki
JUDGE

At Labasa,

5th November, 1996.

Hba0007j.96b