Ashok v B Mani Lal & Sons [2005] FJHC 591; HBA0005.2001 (4 August 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBA0005 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

ASHOK
APPELLANT

AND:

B. MANI LAL & SONS
RESPONDENT

Mr V. Mishra for the Appellant
Ms S. Sahu Khan for the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 4 August 2005
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2005

ORAL JUDGMENT OF FINNIGAN J

I heard this appeal today. After the submissions of Counsel for the Appellant I dismissed the appeal and did not call on Counsel for the Respondent. I stated my reasons at the time and intended to issue a transcript but the proceedings were not being recorded.

In stating my reasons I began by telling Counsel that, with what I hoped was courtesy, I wished to do what I could to discourage the filing of appeals such as this in the High Court at Lautoka.

In the Magistrates Court at Ba in 1999 a local tailor commenced an action against a local dentist for $450.00. The Plaintiff claimed he had made six safari suits for the Defendant at his request at $75.00 each, that he had delivered them and had not been paid. His pleaded claim was specific that he claimed for goods sold and delivered. The Defendant filed a statement of defence denying that any goods were sold and delivered and claiming further that he had ordered a tailor made suit from the Plaintiff which was not acceptable because of unsatisfactory workmanship. At a hearing in November 2000 the Magistrate heard the evidence of both parties and later that month delivered a written decision. In the decision he set out the evidence of the parties the submissions of Counsel and the reasons why he did not accept the evidence of the Defendant. He gave judgment for the Plaintiff for $450.00 plus costs.

The Defendant appealed. His appeal lay about in the Registry in the Court for over 3 years which is unfortunate. It was not the fault of the parties. There were five grounds of appeal.

I heard Counsel on his primary ground that the Plaintiff and the Magistrate had been wrong to classify tailor made suits as goods when they should have been services under Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act Cap 230. He submitted that had they had been goods then Section 6 of the Sale of Goods Act required a contemporaneous delivery of an invoice with the suits since they were sold on credit.

Counsel then referred to the subsidiary legislation under the Magistrates Court Act and submitted that the Plaintiff was required to be clear and that the Defendant was entitled to reasonably clear notice of the claim made against him. He went on to address the ground that under Order 6 Rule 2 of the Magistrates Court Legislation the Plaintiff had sued as a firm but should have sued in his own name.

This was a claim for $450.00 between two businessmen in a small town who gave their evidence before the local Magistrate and had their dispute decided promptly. It was decided on the actual facts of the matter. The Plaintiff stated in his pleading and in his evidence exactly what he said had happened and what remedy he wanted. The Defendant pleaded in reply and gave evidence and showed no confusion about the claim against him. The Magistrate’s Court is a peoples’ court and fine points of pleading which can be overlooked in the jurisdiction given to the Court so that justice may be addressed will not be decisive in such a case. Particularly in the present case the Court should take that view and it may rely upon the maxim “De minimis non curat lex”. I said that the Appellant should have taken his lawyer’s advice.

I dismissed the appeal and made no order for costs.

D.D. Finnigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
04 August 2005