IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT NAUSORI
IN THE CENTRAL DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No: 8 of 2015
						   SCT Claim # 497/15

Isireli Gumata
								Appellant /Original Respondent
.v.

Jone Ravuci
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 7th January 2015 where the Referee had ordered that the “Respondent is to pay a sum of …$734.00 within 28 days of the date of this order”.

The matter was heard by way of written submissions. Both parties agreed to be heard by way of written submissions.

2).	The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant are basically issues relating to his dealing with the original claimant. No issue is raised of bias, jurisdiction or any breach of natural justice. 

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 submissions by the Appellant. He does not raise any issue of bias on part of Referee, or that he acted outside his jurisdiction of whether there was breach of natural justice.
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
20th June 2016