Mohamed v Ali [2012] FJHC 858; Civil Appeal 004.2011L (7 February 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT
LAUTOKA

CIVIL APPEAL NO: 004/2011L
CIVIL APPEAL MC NO: 31/2010
SCT CLAIM NO 201/2010: 201/2010

SHAMEEM MOHAMED

V

IMDAD ALI

Before: Priyantha Nawana J.
Appellant in person
Respondent in person

Date of Hearing: 18 November 2011

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant appeals the judgment dated 24 January 2011 of the learned Magistrate, Lautoka, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) dated 24 February 2010.
   
2. The respondent lodged a claim for a sum of $ 2405.65 against the appellant before the SCT on the basis that the appellant defaulted its repayment, which was obtained as a loan. The claim was supported by documentary evidence.
   
3. At the hearing before the learned Referee of the SCT, the respondent gave evidence and called another witness, being Saijad Ali, in support of his case.
   
4. The learned Referee afforded the opportunity for the appellant to cross-examine the respondent and his witness, which the appellant made use of. The appellant too gave evidence and faced the cross-examination of the respondent. As minuted in the record, the appellant did not have any witness/es to be called on his behalf; and, no application was, in any event, made to call any witnesses before the learned Referee.
   
5. The learned Referee, upon consideration of the evidence, allowed the claim of the respondent and ordered the appellant to pay the amount of $ 2405.65 in monthly installments of $ 200.00 with effect from 31 March 2010.
   
6. On appeal to the Magistrate's Court, both parties made written submissions and invited the learned Magistrate to decide the issue on such submissions.
   
7. Learned Magistrate, in a well-reasoned out judgment, concluded that the Tribunal had conducted the proceedings in a fair manner and that it did not exceed its jurisdiction so as to attract intervention of the Magistrate's Court in the exercise of its limited power of appeal in terms of Section 33 (1) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree of 1991 (the Decree). The learned Magistrate rightly rejected the purported ground of appeal based on merits alleging that the appellant was not liable to pay the loan.
   
8. I have considered this appeal in the exercise of powers under Sections 36 and 39 of the Magistrate's Court Act read with Rules 18 and 19 of the Order XXXVII of the Magistrate's Court Rules. I find no error on fact or on law in the proceedings had before the Magistrate's Court at appellate stage or before the SCT at the inquiry.
   
9. I accordingly dismiss the appeal of the appellant. The appellant shall pay a sum of $ 300, being costs of this appeal, to the respondent. The respondent is now entitled to get the order of the SCT enforced forthwith.
   

Priyantha Nāwāna
Judge
High Court

Lautoka
07 February 2012