Sami v Vinod Patel & Co Ltd - Judgment [2016] FJMC 152; Civil Appeal 04.2015 (8 June 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 Plaintiff: In Person
For Respondent : No apperances

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 had ordered that the “...claim holds no merit and is therefore dismissed.”.

The matter was heard by way of written submissions. The Court noted that the Respondent has been duly served notice of the appeal but they have failed to appear in Court.

2. The Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant/Original Claimants ground of appeal can be briefly summarized as that the Referee was biased.

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 grounds 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 gave consideration to the fact that the hammer was purchased in March 2011 and a complaint lodged with a screw driver which was purchased on 2^nd October 2014. The Referee further noted that when the complaint was lodged with the Respondents the Appellant did not present the receipts to them.

The Court notes that the Referee fairly dealt with the matter. The Referee heard both parties and then decided the matter. The claim was dealt with fairly and the Court finds that the decision that the Referee came up with is after a careful evaluation of all the materials and evidence presented to him.

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
8^th June 2016