Saheem v Warehouse Stationery Fiji [2014] FJMC 70; Civil Appeal 03.2014 (4 April 2014)

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

Civil Appeal No. 3of 2014
SCT Claim # 2673/2013

Between:

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

And:

Warehouse Stationery Fiji
Respondent (Magistrates Court)/
Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

Appellant/ Original Respondent: Mr. Kunal Singh (KS Law)
Respondent/ Original Claimant: In Person.

Ruling

1). Introduction
The Appellant/Original Respondent (Narend Prasad) in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 16th December 2013 that "The respondent pay the claimant the sum of $100 per month till the sum of $2800 is 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 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 ".. my evidence and other proof were not given any consideration before the order was issued and to my finding is that the Referee is related to the claimant...".

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 carefully examined the Small Claims Tribunal records, the documents tendered in the Small Claims Tribunal and grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant. From its perusal of the records this Court finds that the Referee fairly dealt with the claim. Both parties were given opportunity to present their cases and they were also heard. The Referee had initially struck out the claim by the claimant for non-appearance. He was fair in his ruling at that time. Later when the matter was re-heard The Referee gave the appellant opportunity to present his case and call witnesses.

The Referee considered the written agreement, the quotes and the evidence of the parties. He considered all that was before him and according to this Court fairly and objectively dealt with the matter before him. No evidence is given in this Court that the Referee is related to the Claimant. In any event the Referee is conversant with his role and duties. He is well trained and has been in the judicial system long enough to identify and decide when a conflict arises. He would have recused himself had there been a conflict of interest.

This Court notes from the submissions by the appellant he has difficulty paying the claimed sum. He should negotiate with the Claimant on the payments he needs to make.

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

4th April 2014