Qoro v Industrial Commissioner of the Sugar Commission of Fiji [2011] FJHC 321; HBA8.2010L (3 June 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No: HBA 8 of 2010L

BETWEEN:

VILIAME RAKULI QORO
Appellant/Plaintiff

AND:

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER of the SUGAR COMMISSION OF FIJI
1st Respondent/1st Defendant

AND:

FIJI SUGAR CORPORATION

2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant

FINAL JUDGMENT

Judgment of: Inoke J.

Counsel Appearing: Mr Nacolawa (Appellant)

Mr S Krishna (1st Respondent)

Solicitors: Nacolawa (Appellants)

Krishna & Co (1st Respondent)

Dates of Hearing: 20 April 2011

Date of Judgment: 3 June 2011

INTRODUCTION

[1] This is an appeal from the Magistrates Court in Lautoka by the Plaintiff.

[2] The learned Magistrate ruled that the amount claimed by the Plaintiff for damages and unspecified interest exceeded the Magistrates Court's jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction.

B THE MAGISTRATES COURT DECISION

[3] The Plaintiff's claim was for loss of cane proceeds of $3,000 per year over 9 years. The offending part of the Statement of Claim is said to be the prayer for relief which was in these terms:

Wherefore the Plaintiff claims: -

(a) An order that the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant are equally liable for the loss sustained by the Plaintiff totalling $27,000.

(b) Interest at the rate of 10% from 01/01/1999 to the final determination of this action.

(c) Cost of this action

(d) Such further or other order or orders as seems just and proper and the total claim excluding cost is limited to the jurisdiction of this Court. [my emphasis]

[4] The Magistrate held that on a literal reading of paragraph (d) the limitation as emphasised did not limit the quantum of the claim to within jurisdiction. He read the limitation as applying only to "such further and other order or orders as seems just and proper" and not to the "compensation" claim.

COSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL

[5] I cannot agree with the Magistrate's interpretation of the pleading. It should be read as a whole and not just in that blinkered way. Clearly, had the highlighted phrase been put in a separate paragraph or on the next line there would be no argument about what the prayer meant. Secondly, the prayer limits the "total claim" to the jurisdiction. That is to say the $27,000 plus interest. The award of interest in this case is discretionary and the Magistrate may refuse it. If he allows it then the limitation would apply.

[6] Several cases have been cited in the lower Court and in this Court, including Ram Khelawan v Budh Ram [1996] 13 FLR 196 and Govind Holdings Limited v Kahlia Nand [2000] HBA 15 of 1998L, but I do not think they are helpful or persuasive because the claim here is expressly limited to the jurisdiction.

[7] I therefore allow the appeal, re-instate the Magistrates Court action and remit it back to the Magistrates Court at Lautoka for hearing.

COSTS

[8] The Magistrate was clearly wrong. The point was raised by the Respondents/Defendants. The appeal was through no fault of the Plaintiff so I award him the costs of his appeal which I summarily set at $800.

THE ORDERS

[9] The orders are as follows:

(a) The appeal is allowed.

(b) The Plaintiff's action in the Lautoka Magistrates Court is re-instated and remitted back to the Magistrates Court for hearing.

(c) The Respondents shall, jointly and severally, pay the Appellant's costs of this appeal of $800 within 21 days.

............................................................
Sosefo Inoke
Judge