Jamshir v Williams & Goslings Ltd [2014] FJMC 152; Civil Appeal 46.2014 (5 November 2014)

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

Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2014
SCT Claim # 1091/2014

Between:

Mohammed Jamshir
Appellant (Magistrates Court)/ Respondent (Small Claims Tribunal)

And:

Williams & Goslings Ltd
Respondent (Magistrates Court)/
Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

Appellant/ Original Respondent: In person
Respondent in Appeal/ Original Claimant: Mr Kunal Chauhan (for W & G)

Judgment

1). Introduction
The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 9th June 2014 where the Referee had ordered that the Respondent settle the claim. The Respondent was ordered to pay a sum of $100 per month until the sum of $559.00 was paid in full.

The parties chose to be heard by way of written submissions. They were given time to file the submissions. Only the appellant has filed submission which has been considered by this Court.

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 as he was 5 minutes late. Other arguments were not considered and that the appellant seeks that the respondent in appeal provides further particulars and clarifications to him.

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) or (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree. The grounds of Appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above.

This Court has noted the grounds of appeal submitted by appellant. The issue raised by the appellant is that the referee did not hear the appellant before giving his decision. This Court has noted the submission of the appellant 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 both the parties the opportunity to present their case. The matter was re-heard following an application by the appellant after he, the appellant overlooked the date at the initial hearing of the matter. The Referee considered all matters that were before him before reaching a decision.

The Referee also sought and was provided clarification on the sum claimed. The Referee also found that the sum claimed by the Claimant which was $559.00 was separate from the other sum $209.26, which had been settled. The $559.00 was monies owed under the staff saving scheme. The appellant was given ample opportunity to raise questions and seek further information at the hearing at the Small Claims Tribunal. The appellant was present at the hearing of the matter. He cannot now raise new issues. This Court cannot work outside the ambit of Section 33 (1) (a) or (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree and look at the merits of the case.

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

5th November 2014