Land Transport Authority v Nisha [2016] FJMC 137; Civil Action 10.2015 (26 January 2016)

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

Civil Action No: 10 of 2015
SCT Claim # 191/15

Land Transport Authority
Appellant /Original Respondent
.v.

Harun Nisha

Respondent in Appeal/ Original Claimant

Appearances and Representations
For Appellant: Mr G Stephens
Respondent : In Person

Judgment

1. Introduction

The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 1^st June 2015 where the Referee had ordered that the Respondent liable to settle the claim of a sum of $426.00 within 21 days from the date of the Order.

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 is as follows:

“ 1. That the Referee conducted the proceedings in a manner which was biased and procedurally unfair to the appellant.

2. That the Referee was biased when he took into account irrelevant factors during the course of the hearing and failed to provide an opportunity to the appellant to respond to the said factors.”

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 main issue raised by the appellant is that the referee was unfair and biased. The Court from the records before it finds that the Appellant was given an opportunity to be heard and all he submitted was considered.

The Courts perusal of the records shows that the Referee conducted the proceedings fairly. No bias was shown towards the claimant. The Referee relied on the documents that were submitted by the claimant. He found that the documents and claim submitted by the Claimant was authentic and the sums claimed were reasonable.

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 fails. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
26^th January 2016