Sami v Vinod Patel & Co Ltd [2016] FJMC 140; Civil Case 04.2015 (31 March 2016)

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

Civil Appeal No: 4 of 2015
SCT Claim # 785/14

Narayan C Sami
Appellant /Original Claimant
.v.

Vinod Patel & Co Ltd

Respondent

Appearances and Representations:
For Appellant: In Person.
For Respondent No Appearances

Judgment

1. Introduction

The Appellant/Original Claimant in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 29^th December 2014 where the Referee ruled following determination of the Claim that the “...claim holds no merit and is therefore, dismissed.”.

The Court noted that both parties were served. The Respondent did not appear in Court. The Court gave parties time to file simultaneous submissions. The appellant agreed to file submissions and be heard in that manner. The Appellant has filed his submissions which this Court has considered.

2. The Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant/Original Respondents ground of appeal can be briefly summarized as that the referee was biased. The major reason for the dismissal was that receipts were not tendered. The Appellant contends that the receipts were tendered.

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.

This Court has noted that the ground of appeal submitted by appellant. The main issue raised by the appellant is that the Referee was biased. The Court from the records before it finds that the Appellant was given an opportunity by the Referee to be heard and all that he submitted was considered.

The Appellant’s submission that the Referee was biased has no basis. The Referee fairly dealt with the matter. The Referee took into consideration the fact that the Appellant did not submit the receipts to show that he had bought the items that he was claiming for from Vinod Patel. The Referee was not shown any receipts. According to the Referee no receipts were submitted with the claim or at the hearing to substantiate the claim. The Referee properly and fairly dealt with the matter. The claim was found to lack merit. The Referee held so correctly having evaluated all factors.

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
31^st March 2016