Kumar v Siki [2013] FJMC 349; Civil Appeal 02.2013 (15 August 2013)

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

Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013
SCT Claim # 2859/12

Between:

Sunny Kumar
Appellant/Original Claimant

And:

Vani Siki and Ilaitia Rokovesu
Respondent in Appeal/Original Respondent

Appellant/ Original Respondent: In Person
Original Claimant/Respondent in Appeal: In Person.

Ruling

1). Introduction
This is an appeal by the Appellant/Original Claimant. In this action the Referee, ordered the Respondent in Appeal/Original Respondent pay the claimant/Appellant in appeal a sum of $110.00. The Respondent in Appeal/Original Respondent had claimed a total sum of $4350.00.

2). The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/ the Original Respondent's grounds of appeal are as follows: "that the tenant had an agreement to stay one year and the damage caused by them within 2 months can be repaired for the sum of $200 as quoted. And I have repaired this house at cost of $3450 by Majestic Construction. If all tenants continue to stay for 2 months and cause expensive damage and move out then I will be bankrupt. I therefore request that a fair judgment be given as I believe the Referee has erred in making the decision. "

The parties wanted to have the matter heard by way of written submissions and they were given time to file submissions and it has been considered.

3). 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.

4). 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 grounds so advanced by the appellant can be briefly summarised that the Referee was unfair in his decision.

The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and also carefully examined the Small Claims Tribunal records. This Court's perusal of the records shows that the Referee fairly considered the matter before him and reached a just decision on the information and the evidence before him.

5.) Conclusion
For the reasons given herein This Court finds that the appellant has not met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) & (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991.

The appeal is dismissed.

Right to Appeal this Ruling to the High Court within 28 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE

15th August 2013