Narayan v Nyert [2014] FJMC 112; Civil Appeal 91.2013 (17 June 2014)

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

Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2013
SCT Claim # 3581/2013

Between :

Ratnesh Narayan
Appellant (Magistrates Court)/ Respondent (Small Claims Tribunal)

And:

Antoine De Ramon Nyert
Respondent (Magistrates Court)/
Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

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

Ruling

1). Introduction

The Appellant/Original Respondent (Ratnesh Narayan) in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 18th October 2013 where he was ordered to pay the Respondent (Antoine Nyert) a sum of $400 within 30 days.

The parties chose to be heard by way of written submissions. They were given time to file the submissions. Only the appellant had filed his submissions.

2). The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/Original Respondent's grounds of appeal (as per the notice of appeal filed) are as follows "... the case was not fair..."

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.

This Court has noted that the appellant in this matter has submitted that the Referee was unfair. No evidence has been submitted to this Court of the unfairness in the determination of this matter in the SCT. The Referee who had the benefit of hearing both sides made his decision on the merits of the submission and the evidence before him. This Court will not go into the merits of the case. This Court does not find any unfair consideration or determination by the Referee.

5.) Conclusion

The appellant has not met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) & (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991.

For the given reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
17th June 2014