Chand v Motor PartsTraders Ltd [2013] FJMC 387; Civil Action 19 of 2013 (29 October 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
CENTRAL DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil Action No. 19 of 2013

Avinesh Chand
Plaintiff

v

Motorparts Traders Ltd
Respondent

For Plaintiff : Mr. Singh (Parshotam Lawyers)
For Respondent : Mr. S. Nandan (Reddy and Nandan)

Ruling

Introduction

In this matter the Respondent has filed a Notice of Motion seeking "(i) whether the Plaintiff can file a Statement of Claim after filing an endorsement of claim when endorsement of Claim was not limited to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. (ii) Whether the Plaintiff can claim for damages under the Commerce Commission Decree 2010. (iii) Whether paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Statement of Claim is pleaded properly that it does not provide particulars of the breach of the Consumer Credit Act." The motion was filed with an Affidavit in Support.

Parties were given time to file submissions on the application before this Court. Both sides have made written submissions and have been heard at the hearing of the motion.

Analysis

The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiff can file a Statement of Claim after filing an endorsement of claim when endorsement of claim was not limited to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. The Plaintiff's had filed a Writ of Summons and an Ex-parte notice of Motion and an Affidavit in Support. The ex-parte motion was heard and Interim Orders Granted. After being advised by the Parties of the notice of intention to defend this court on 28th March 2013 ordered the Plaintiff to file a Statement of Claim within 14 days and the Respondent to file a Statement of Defence, 14 days thereafter. The Plaintiff's on 11th April 2013 filed a Statement of Claim. To-date no Statement of Defence has been filed by the Respondents. The Magistrates Court Rules (Order XVI) provides for the Court to order parties to file necessary the pleadings in a matter.

The Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff's state the monetary limitation of the claim. It is limited to the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court notes that the Plaintiff has complied with the Court Orders and provided in the pleading the limitation of the claim and as such this Court is satisfied that the claim is within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Writ and the Statement of Claim are read together. The Statement of Claim forms part of the Writ of Summons and as such this Court takes that the claim is stated to be within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Having noted the issue of limitation of this Court's jurisdiction as to the claim and accepting that the Plaintiff has complied with the Rules and procedures laid down this Court does not see any reason or urgency for this Court to deal with the other two issues raised herein as those are matters which could be addressed by way of pleadings initially. In addition substantive legal arguments have not been advanced before this Court for a ruling on the issues. Both sides have mainly focused on the monetary limitation issues.

Orders

(a) Motion is dismissed.
(b) $500.00 Costs to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff within 14 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate

29th October 2013