Prasad v Wati [2016] FJMC 134; SCT Appeal 08.2015 (5 January 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT NAUSORI
IN THE CENTRAL DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

SCT Appeal No: 8 of 2015
SCT Claim # 147/15

Yogesh Prasad
Appellant /Original Respondent
.v.

Ramila Wati

Respondent/ Original Claimant

Appearances and Representations
For Appellant: In Person
For Respondent : In Person

Judgment

1. Introduction

The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 16^th April 2015 where the Referee had ordered that the Respondent pay a sum of $100 per month commencing from April 30^th 2015 until total sum of $4850 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 grounds of appeal can be briefly summarized as that the claimant gave wrong information to the Tribunal and wasted the Tribunals time.

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 Appellant has not met the threshold set in Section 33 (1) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree. The Court has noted that the Referee considered all the materials before he made a decision. The Referee was within his jurisdiction and he fairly dealt with the matter.

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 reasons given above, the appeal is dismissd. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
5^th January 2016