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

Toge v Karan [2013] FJMC 180; Civil Appeal 57.2012 (2 May 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2012
SCT Claim # 2205/12

Between :

Jone Veresa Toge
Appellant/ Original Respondent

And :

Shiu Karan
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 Claimant in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee who ordered that "The respondent having admitted liability for the debt is to settle the claim as follows:

1. Respondent to pay the Claimant the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per month till the sum of Two Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Four Dollars ($2464.00) is paid in full.
2. First Payment be on 1st September 2012.
3. Money be paid at the Small Claims Tribunal Office in Navua.
4. In event of default in monthly installments this order will be enforced to compel the Respondent to pay the money in default".
   

2). The Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant/ Original Claimant's grounds of appeal is as follows: "1. False Invoice # 008833 which dated that parts been purchased on the date before the accident. Purchase date 21-05-12 accident occurred on 25-05-12. So the rest are not correct. For it can be parts for other vehicles.

2. why that he backdated his claim on the day after the accident 26-05-12 when we have settle the case on both 30th-05-12 for us both to repair the vehicle as attached.

3. by inspection of the vehicle we note that the cost of damage will be $800.00 and not the claim amount for EG. Receipt #0998 and Receipt # 63537 which he brought 2 months when supposed to be 1 month.

4 we have already paid the mechanic, Mr Sheik of Farm Road, 9 miles Nasinu the sum of $800.00 on 30th-05-12 and we have lodged a report that he never shows up to repair the vehicle LT2351."

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 does not meet the threshold and the Records reveal that the Referee considered all the matters that were before him and that the Appellant admitted liability and agreed to pay the sum claimed in the SCT.

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

2nd May 2013