Bale v Ranadi [2013] FJMC 367; Civil Appeal 42.2013 (25 September 2013)

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

Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2013
SCT Claim # 3016/12

Between :

Peni Bale
Appellant/Original Claimant

And:

Litiana Ranadi
Respondent in Appeal/Original Respondent

Appellant/ Original Respondent: In Person
Original Claimant/Respondent in Appeal: In Person (Not present)

Ruling

1). Introduction

This is an appeal by the Appellant/Original Claimant. In this action the Referee ruled that the Respondent pay a sum of $4984.00 within 30 days to the Claimant.

2). The Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant/ the Original Respondent's grounds of appeal are as follows: "... 7th February was my first re-hearing that I attended, case was adjourned to 7th March. I attend the 7th March but to my surprise that you and claimant changed the date without informing me at all prior to the case. This is unfair decision that the plane is delayed is beyond my control. "

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 and biased 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. The letter from the Police re-states the appellants version of events as related by him to the Police. It is not an investigation report and did not support his assumption of the fact that the vehicle was damaged while in the custody of the Respondent. Having noted all the evidence the Referee reached a decision that the vehicle was not damaged while in the custody of the Respondent.

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

25th September 2013