Kumari v Prasad [2015] FJMC 24; Civil Appeal 26.2014 (18 February 2015)

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

Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2014
SCT Claim # 661/2014

Between:

Aruna Kumari and Kamal Prasad
Appellant (Magistrates Court)/ Respondent (Small Claims Tribunal)

And:

Jane Rita Prasad
Respondent (Magistrates Court)/
Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

Appellant/ Original Respondent: In Person
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 13th October 2014 where the Referee had ordered that the Respondent pay a sum of $200.00 per month commencing from October 31st 2014 until the total sum!1384.94 is paid in full.

The parties chose to be heard by way of written submissions. They sought the Court rely on the submissions filed.

2). The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/Original Respondents ground of appeal can be summarized as that the Referee was unfair. Appellants also alleged that the Referee did not listen to the Respondents in the SCT. This Court has noted the grounds set out in the notice of appeal.

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 was unfair and did not listen to them. The Court from the records before it finds that the claimants were given an opportunity to call witnesses. They called witnesses and this is recorded in the records of the Referee. The Records do not show any statement or evidence of the Respondents or their witnesses. The records do not reveal that the Respondents were given a chance to present their side to the Referee. The records do not reveal what was stated by the Respondents/and or their witnesses. If they did not state anything it must also be stated in the records. This Court therefore finds that the Respondents were not heard and given an opportunity to present their version of events to the Referee.

For the above-mentioned reasons the appeal succeeds.

5.) Conclusion
The appellant has 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 succeeds. The matter is remitted to the SCT to be heard by another Referee. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE

18th February 2015