Hassan v Shammer [2014] FJMC 134; Civil Appeal 19.2014 (19 September 2014)

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

Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2014
SCT Claim # 519/2013

Between :

Abdul Hassan
Appellant (Magistrates Court)/ Respondent (Small Claims Tribunal)

And:

Abdul Shameer
Respondent (Magistrates Court)/

Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

Appellant/ Original Respondent: Mr T Sharma
Respondent in Appeal/ Original Claimant: In Person

Judgment

1). Introduction

The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 6th February 2014 where the Referee ordered the Respondent liable to settle the claim. The Respondent was ordered to pay a sum of $200 per month commencing from February 28th 2014 until the sum of $3300.00 was fully paid.

The parties chose to be heard by way of written submissions. They were given time to file the submissions. Both the Parties filed submissions which have been considered.

2). The Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant/Original Respondents ground of appeal can be summarized as that the Referee ordered the payment without listening to the Appellants statement.

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 the ground of appeal submitted by appellant. The allegation is that the referee did not hear the appellant. This Court has noted the submission of the parties and the records of the SCT. From the perusal of the records of the SCT this Court finds that the Referee was fair and just in the conduct of the proceedings. He gave parties the opportunity to present their case. The parties called witnesses and we asked to cross-examine the witnesses. The parties were heard. The Referee considered all matters that were before him before reaching a decision.
For the above-mentioned reasons the appeal is dismissed.

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
16th September 2014