Nand v Kumar [2012] FJMC 100; Nadi Civil Action 191.2011 (22 May 2012)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF FIJI
(WESTERN DIVISION) AT NADI
CIVIL JURISDICTION

NADI CIVIL ACTION NO. 191 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

SATYA NAND
PLAINTIFF

AND:

ATUL KUMAR
DEFENDANT

RULING

Background

1. THIS ruling relates to an objection raised by the Defendant against filing of the amended Statement of Claim by the Plaintiff.
   
2. On 1 April 2011the Plaintiff instituted this action in person seeking the following relief:-
   
   1. Loss in the vicinity of $11,000.00
   2. Damages
   100. Costs
   4. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable in the circumstances.
      
3. It is to be noted that the Plaintiff had not limited his claim to the jurisdiction of this Court.
   
4. On 15 June 2011 the Defendant through his Solicitors filed a Notice of Intention to Defend dated 9 June 2011.
   
5. In the meantime, the Plaintiff appointed a Solicitor and through his Solicitor on 11 October 2011 filed an Inter-Parte Motion seeking for an order that the Statement of Claim be amended as proposed upon the grounds set forth in the Affidavit in Support of Satya Nand, the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff made this application pursuant to Order XIV of the Magistrate's Court Rules and under the inherent jurisdiction of this court. Further, the Plaintiff in the Affidavit in Support states that he is a lay person and was unaware of the Courts jurisdiction and the Defendant will not be prejudiced by the Proposed Amended Statement of Claim.
   
6. In the proposed Statement of Claim the Plaintiff has limited his claim to the jurisdiction of this Court.
   
7. The Plaintiff's application to amend the Statement of Claim is opposed by the Defendant. The Defendant in the Affidavit in Opposition inter alia, states that the Plaintiff is not entitle at law to make the amendment that he is proposing to make.
   

THE LAW

8. In Ram Khelawan v Budh Ram (13 FLR) 196 at page 197 Hammett, J held that:

"Once a summons has been issued in a Magistrate Court of the first class in excess of jurisdiction which is given to that Court by the Legislature it appears to me that the only order that may be made when the matter is being dealt with by the Magistrate is for him to strike out the cause for want of jurisdiction. The Magistrate does not appear to have any powers either to amend the claim or to transfer the case. He can therefore only decline to entertain the suit on the ground that it is in respect of a matter that is beyond the jurisdiction which has been granted either to the Magistrate or the Court by the Legislature".

9. In Imam Din v Muna Lal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1966 Hammett, J explained the principles as follows:
   

"In the Magistrate's Court a litigant is not entitled to claim general damages to an unspecified amount. He must state the amount of his claim in order that it may be seen to be within the jurisdiction of the Court and in order that the appropriate court fee which is based on the amount of the claim can be assessed and paid"[Emphasis is added].

10. In Srijj v Native Land Trust board Civil Appeal 12/94 High Court Labsa Scott, J observed that:
    

"Alleged want of jurisdiction should always be voiced at the commencement of the proceedings and while a total want of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent of the parties (Jones v Owen (1849) 18 LJ QB8) a party who conducts himself as to waive his rights cannot rely on want of jurisdiction on appeal (Windsor v Danford [1848] EngR 625; (1848) 12 QB 603 and Prinsle v Holes (1925) 1 KB 573.

11. The relevant section that deals with the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court is section 16 (i) (b) (ii) (as amended) of the Magistrate's Court Act which states:
    

" in all other personal suits, whether arising from contract, or from tort, or from both, where the value of property or the debt, amount or damage claimed whether as a balance claimed or otherwise, is not more than fifty thousand dollars".

DETERMINATION

12. The Plaintiff in person filed Statement of Claim seeking the following relief:
    
    1. Loss in the vicinity of $11,000.00;
    2. Damages
    100. Costs
    4. Such other relief as the court deem just and equitable in the circumstances.
       
13. Apparently, the Plaintiff did not limit the claim to the jurisdiction of this court.
    
14. Now the Plaintiff appearing by his solicitors seeking to amend the original claim filed by him in person.
    
15. In the proposed Amended Statement of Claim the Plaintiff claims:-
    
    • (i) Judgment in the sum of $11,000.00
    • (ii) Damages for loss of Business $4,300.00
    • (iii) Special Damages
    • (iv) Costs on indemnity basis
    • (v) Interest at the rate of 10% from 4 May 2011
    • (vi) In any event the sum claimed is limited to $50,000.00 being the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
      
16. It is to be noted that in the proposed Amended Statement of Claim the Plaintiff has limited the claim to the jurisdiction of this court.
    
17. Mr. R. Singh orally argued that the original Statement of Claim was filed in person by the Plaintiff. In any event the court has inherent jurisdiction to allow the proposed Amended Statement of Claim as the Defendant will not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment. The Plaintiff should not be penalized for his mistake or ignorance as to the jurisdiction of the court.
    
18. On the other hand Mr. J. Sharma argued that the claim of the Plaintiff is out side the jurisdiction of this court as it was not limited to the jurisdiction of this court. He submitted that the court has no jurisdiction to allow amendment when the claim exceeds the jurisdiction of the court. The claim should be struck out for want of jurisdiction. He relied on the case authority of Govind Holdings Limited v Kalia Nand, HBA0015 of 1998L. He also sought costs in the sum of $3,000.00.
    
19. Magistrates Courts are established by statutory. The rules of the courts are mandatory and each party is bound to comply with. These rules apply whether a party appears with a counsel or in person.
    
20. The original Statement of Claim exceeds the jurisdiction of the court in that the Plaintiff has failed to limit the claim to the jurisdiction of the court.
    
21. As stated in the case of Imam Din v Muna Lal (supra) the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim general damages to an unspecified amount. He must state the amount of his claim in order that it may be seen to be within the jurisdiction of the Court.
    
22. In the original Statement of Claim the Plaintiff claims General Damages without limiting the claim to the jurisdiction of the court thus exceeding the jurisdiction of the court.
    
23. Once a summons has been issued in a Magistrate Court in excess of its jurisdiction the only order the court can make is to strike out the cause for want of jurisdiction as decided in the case of Ram Khelawan v Budh Ram (Supra).
    
24. I therefore considering the Affidavits filed and submissions advanced by both counsels and case authorities I proceed to refuse the application to file an Amended Statement of Claim and strike out and dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction with a cost of $250.00 which is summarily assessed.
    

M H Mohamed Ajmeer
Resident Magistrate

At Nadi
22nd day of May 2012
Mr. A. Singh for the Plaintiff
Mr. J. Sharma for the Defendant