IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2012
SCT Claim # 2839/11

Between :

Machandar Nath
Appellant/ Original Claimant

And :

Sesania Taukave
Respondent/ Respondent in Appeal

Before: R.M. Chaitanya. Lakshman
Resident Magistrate 

Appellant/ Original Claimant: Present
Respondent/ Respondent in Appeal: Present

Ruling

1).	Introduction
The Appellant/Original Claimant in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee after the Tribunal Ordered that the claim was not valid and had dismissed the claim. 

2).	The Claim
The Claimant had claimed from the Respondent wages for seven days in the sum of 1532.00. 

3).	The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/ Original Claimant's grounds of appeal is that "the referee did not hear [his] side of the story".

4).	 The Law
Section 33 of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991 provides that:

"(1) Any party to proceedings before a Tribunal appeal against an order made by the Tribunal under section 15(6) or section 31(2) on the grounds that:

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

(b) the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction."

The scope of appeals from SCT is extremely limited. The appeal only lies where it can be said that either the proceedings were conducted in a manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings or the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. There can be no appeal on merits: Sheet Metal and Plumbing (Fiji) Limited v. Deo – HBA 7 of 1999, In the said case Fatiaki J went on to consider the purpose of the Small Claims Tribunal, that is, to provide prompt, inexpensive and lay tribunals for the settling of small claims. His Lordship referred to Section 15(4) of the Decree which provides;

"The Tribunal shall determine the dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so . . . . . shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities."

5).	Observations

The primary concern of this Court is whether the appellant has met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) and (b) of the "Small Claims Tribunal" Decree.

The grounds of Appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above.

The Court has carefully examined the Small Claims Tribunal records. Firstly, this Court would like to express its concern on the manner in which the records were compiled. The documents in the record and in the file seem to be all over the place. The second page after the index is upside down. The page numbering is not clear as a few numbers appear in each page. It is expected by this Court that the records and files be properly kept and compiled. 

Having perused the records the Court notes that various notes were made by the Referee. From perusing the records the Court notes that the parties were present for the hearings, however it is not clear from the records in the file as to what the parties stated in the Tribunal or if they were given the opportunity to state their case in the Tribunal. The allegation by the Appellant is that his side of the story was not heard by the Referee. While the Court notes numerous documents were tendered the parties also needed to put their respective cases/position in relation to the issues at hand before the Referee. The records do not show what the parties said in the Tribunal as such this Court finds from the records that there has been a Breach of Audi alteram partem rule which is so fundamental to a conduct of a fair hearing. 
 
Furthermore it has been the practice that while compiling a report for this Court the Referee will state his position on the point on which the Appellant has appealed in the report to this Court the Referee states that he has "no comment". It would have assisted this Court if the Referee had made a comment on the issue. 

6.) Conclusion

The appellant has met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) & (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991. The appeal is allowed and the file remitted to the SCT to be heard by another Referee.

30 days to appeal.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
19/10/2012