Attorney-General of Fiji v Raniga [2005] FJHC 302; HBA0013.2002 (1 December 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBA0013 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FIJI
Government Buildings, Suva in the Republic of
Fiji Islands
FIRST APPELLANT

HARI PRASAD
(f/n Mahabir Prasad) c/- PWD
Pool, Lautoka in the Republic of Fiji Islands.
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

OHAVJI BHAI RANIGA
f/n Raniga & Associates
of Main Street, Nadi in the Republic of Fiji Islands.
RESPONDENT

Attorney General’s Office for the Appellants
Messrs Sherani & Co for the Respondent (City Agents S B Patel & Co)

Date of Hearing: 9 September 2005
Dates of Submissions: 30 September and 7 October 2005 (Received on 3 October and 6 October 2005)
Date of Judgment: December 2005

JUDGMENT OF FINNIGAN J

This is an appeal against a decision of a Magistrate delivered on 6 June 2002. It was a claim for the cost of motor vehicle repair after a vehicle collision. There was little or no dispute about the cost of the repair and that is not in dispute, except the amount claimed was reduced without objection during the hearing and the Magistrate overlooked that. To that extent this appeal must immediately succeed.

That was the first of two grounds in a notice of additional grounds of appeal. The second ground in that document is that the Magistrate erred in law by hearing the case because he had disqualified himself from hearing it on 14 March 2000. These two additional grounds have not been addressed by Counsel for the Respondent in submissions. I must rely on the record. The record supplied by the Magistrate’s Court which includes the hearing on 14 March 2000 shows on that date the Magistrate whose decision is under appeal was the Magistrate in Court and he adjourned the matter till 28 March 2000 “to fix a hearing date before Mr Prakash”. The record shows that on 28 March the Resident Magistrate J Prakash adjourned the matter by consent until 13 June 2000 “due to settlement talks”. Thereafter the case rolled on through another nine pointless adjournments in front of various Magistrates until it came on again before the original Magistrate for hearing on 30 April 2002. It had been set down for hearing that day. On that day the Plaintiff sought an adjournment, saying the Plaintiff was overseas for medical treatment. The defence claimed surprise. Instead of striking out the action which was richly deserved the Magistrate allowed an adjournment until 24 May 2002. He directed that the Plaintiff pay the First Defendant $200.00 before the next hearing date. No objection was taken to his hearing the matter. On 24 May, the hearing from which this appeal is brought, the $200.00 had not been paid but the hearing proceeded anyway. There was no objection to the hearing before this Magistrate. I reject that ground of appeal.

This matter came before me for hearing on 9 September 2005. The date had been agreed with and between Counsel. On the day Counsel for the Appellants advised that Counsel for the Respondent was at a trial in Suva and suggested written submissions. A timetable as above was agreed. I had expected that day (subject to the expected oral submissions) to dispose of this matter by oral judgment.

Having studied the careful submissions of Counsel for both parties I find my initial impression of this appeal confirmed. A simple cause of action took six years to come to a hearing. The hearing was brief and entirely factual. The Magistrate’s decision is based entirely on his assessment of the witnesses. It is entirely factual.

Because of the number of other cases awaiting ruling or judgment before the end of the year I shall issue this judgment in brief form. No disrespect is intended to the detailed submissions of both Counsel. For authority one needs refer only to one case of many on the point of my appellate function. Counsel for the Respondent cited passages from Evans –v- Bartlam [1937] AC 473, 480 (Lord Atkin), which I accept.

The thrust of the grounds for appeal is that the Magistrate went against the weight of the evidence. The Appellant has to cross a fairly high threshold. The evidence the Magistrate heard is written in the record. The decision is quite brief and the Magistrate stated “I find the Plaintiff’s version of the facts more probable than the Defendant’s. I do not believe the Defendant or his witness was telling the whole truth to the Court.......” He went on to look at some of the evidence and then said “I find the Plaintiff’s evidence more credible and accept it as the true version of the facts”.

That conclusion is well within the competence of the Magistrate and well within the range of reasonable conclusions that were open on the record of the evidence. The Magistrate was assessing not only the stories told by the witnesses but their demeanour while giving evidence. The substantial part of this appeal must be dismissed.

Conclusion:

I allow the appeal in part by amending the amount given in judgment from $3,949.85 to $3,459.70. Costs will remain as summarily assessed at $300.00.

Otherwise the appeal is dismissed. Costs are summarily assessed for the Respondent at $500.00.

The stay of execution of the judgment granted by the Magistrate on 4 September 2002 is now discharged.

D.D. Finnigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
December 2005