Kumar v Chand [2011] FJHC 645; HBA012.2011 (22 September 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No HBA 12 of 2011

BETWEEN:

RAJNESH VIKASH KUMAR
Appellant

AND:

SALESH CHAND
Respondent

APPEARANCES
Rajnesh Vikash Kumar (IP) Drivers License # 661477
Salesh Chand (IP) Driver's License # 702054

COURT ORDERS:

Hearing commenced. Both parties before Court in person.
The Appellant admits that, he settled the matter before the Small Claims Tribunal and, that he filed Notice of Appeal against the order ensuing from the settlement to the Magistrates Court. The Appeal Report by the SCT to the MC too confirms that the matter was settled. The Appellant further admits in the submission and on being questioned by Court that he did not urge the grounds of appeal set out in Section 33(1) of the Small Claims Tribunal and that he did not argue them before the Learned Magistrate.

I find that the Appellant in the grounds of Appeal 1 to 6 set out in the grounds of Appeal to this Court too does not mention any bias or the ground set out in Section 33(1)(a) or (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree;

The Grounds of Appeal under 33(1)(a) & (b) are (of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree of 1991);

(a.) the proceedings was conducted by the Referee in a manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings.

(b.) The tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.

As admitted by the Appellant none of the above grounds of appeal or even the ground of bias was not argued before the Learned Magistrate or set out before this Court in the grounds of Appeal. Furthermore, in the Appellant having settled the matter before the Small Claims Tribunal, the ground of Appeal 1-6 set out before this Court to the merits of this case too are matters the Referee as well as the Learned Magistrate had not gone into and rightfully need not go into as the matter was settled between parties before the Small Claims Tribunal. Quite apart from whether the Appellant has a right of appeal to the High Court or not, taking the aforesaid into consideration and, the Appellant's inability to submit to Court any reason why this Court should in any way interfere with the order of the Learned Magistrate in dismissing his appeal, I find that the Learned Magistrate has rightfully dismissed the appeal before him on the 4/8/2011 due to not arguing or setting out any ground of Appeal under Section 33(1) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree, and as such, the appeal of the Appellant before this Court is dismissed. As both parties appeared in person, I make no order as to costs and both parties to bear their costs.

As such, Appeal dismissed, both parties to bear their costs.

Sgd.
Y.I.Fernando
JUDGE
22/09/2011