Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Magistrates Court of Fiji

Chetty v Narayan [2013] FJMC 124; Civil Appeal 72.2012 (4 March 2013)

FIJI ISLANDS

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2012
SCT Claim # 398/11

Between :

Dorsamy Chetty
Appellant/ Original Respondent

And :

Ukesh Narayan
Original Claimant/ Respondent in Appeal

Before: R.M. Chaitanya. Lakshman
Resident Magistrate

For the Appellant/ Original Claimant: In Person
Respondent/ Respondent in Appeal: In Person.

Ruling

1). Introduction

The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee who ordered that the Respondent pay $200 monthly starting from May 2012 until the sum of $2000 as claimed is paid in full. The Referee further ordered that in the event of default the Respondent will be compelled to pay the full sum to avoid delays.

2). The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/ Original Respondent's grounds of appeal is as follows: "I would like my monthly payment to go down because I cannot pay the amount court is asking. I have a family and I am renting. "

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) and (b) of the "Small Claims Tribunal" Decree. The grounds of Appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above.

The Court has carefully examined the Small Claims Tribunal records. This Courts perusal of the records shows that the Referee has fairly determined the claim. The Grounds raised in appeal by the Appellant is outside the ambit of the SCT Decree and therefore the Appellant does not succeed with his appeal.

5.) Conclusion

The appellant has not met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) & (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991.

The appeal is dismissed.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
4th March 2013