Ali v Krishna [2014] FJMC 158; Appeal 40.2014 (26 November 2014)

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

Appeal No. 40 of 2014
SCT Claim # 936/2014

Between:

Shahanawaz Ali
Appellant (Magistrates Court)/
Respondent (Small Claims Tribunal)

And:

Gopal Krishna
Respondent (Magistrates Court)/
Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

Appellant/ Original Respondent: In Person
Respondent in Appeal/ Original Claimant: In Person

Ruling

1). Introduction
The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 27th June 2014 where the Referee ordered that the Respondent pay the Claimant a sum of $50.00 per week from 4th July 2014 until $1365.00 is paid in full.

The parties chose to be heard by way of written submissions. They were given time to file the submissions. The parties relied on whatever they had submitted in Court.

2). The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/Original Respondents ground of appeal can be briefly summarized as that the Referee did not allow him to call his witnesses and that the Referee was unfair.

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 ground of appeal submitted by appellant. From the records and the file of the SCT this Court finds that the Referee correctly dealt with the matter before him. The Referee relied on the evidence given by the parties and those called. The Referee found that the agreement between the parties was legal and valid and as a result the Appellant was bound by it.

This Referee gave both parties the opportunity to present their version and call witnesses. Following this the Referee found for the claimant.

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

26th November 2014