IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF FIJI
AT TAVUA

CIVIL APPEAL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 75/11 - SCT 0002/11

BETWEEN:

MUNSAMI REDDY
CLAIMANT/APPELLANT

AND:

ATTENDRA PRASAD
RESPONDENT

RULING

1.	This is an application to appeal the decision of the learned referee of the Small Claims Tribunal made on 23rd November 2011.

2.	The appellant had filed certain grounds of appeal which I set out briefly as:

i.)	That he has a farm no. 2994 at Tagitagi Tavua and on the day in question his sugar cane farm caught fire and he saw the School Head Master (Attendra Prasad – Respondent) of Tagitagi Sangam School, 3 other masters and a few other students putting using water to put off fire on his sugarcane farm. He enquired with the students and he was told that they were burning rubbish in their school compound when the sugarcane farm caught fire.

ii)	He called the Fire Brigade to come and put out the fire but they informed him that they don't put out fire on sugarcane farms but on houses only.

iii)	That he had 1 acre of ratoon and 2 acre of sugarcane and for that he had to bring cane cutters and cut the cane and also had to bring lorry to carry sugar cane which cost him a lot of expenses.

iv)	He reported to police and they couldn't do anything. He went to FSC and they came on 23/9/11 and inspected the expenses cost and burnt sugarcane and gave him a quotation of $321.24.

v)	He can testify under oath that his farm caught fire as a result of burning rubbish from school compound.

vi)	The referee didn't consider his consider and dismissed his claim.
 
3.	Section 33(1) of the SCT Decree stipulates the grounds on which an appeal against a Small Claim Tribunal order can be made. Accordingly any party to proceedings before a Tribunal may appeal against an order by the tribunal on the grounds that;

i.)	the proceedings were conducted by the referee in a manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of proceedings; or

ii.)	the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction

4.	It appears that the Appellant has based his appeal on the first limb of Section 33(1). In addition it further appears that the appellant's main ground of appeal being that the Small Claims Tribunal failed to consider his evidence.

5.	Further section 35(1) of the SCT Decree stipulates that: On the hearing of the appeal a Judge or Resident Magistrate may:

(a) quash the order of the Tribunal and order a rehearing of the claim in the Tribunal on such terms as he thinks fit;

(b) if the appeal is heard by a Resident Magistrate quash the order and invoke his authority under section 4 to exercise the jurisdiction of a Tribunal;

(c) quash the order and transfer the proceedings to a Magistrates' Court for hearing; or

(d) dismiss the appeal.

6.	I've carefully considered submissions filed from both parties. As I have noted earlier, both parties have submitted on the facts regarding the initial claim.

7.	It was clearly stated in the case of Wati v Waqabaca Truck Hire and Machinery 2005 FJHC 101 that an error of law is not a permitted ground of appeal nor is an appeal allowed on the merits of the case.

8.	The appellant must establish to the court any irregularity or unfairness in the manner or way in which proceedings were conducted at the Tribunal.

9.	When considering the court record, I note that the appellant had given evidence and put before the Tribunal the relevant material he was relying on. The Tribunal has considered those facts and including the respondent's side of the story made a ruling based on all material facts put before it.

10.	As this Court sees it, the appellant has failed to establish that proceedings were conducted in the SCT in a way that was unfair and prejudicial and it affected the outcome of the proceedings.

11.	In the circumstances the Court will not interfere with the SCT findings and order. I dismiss the appeal application and order costs of $100.00 to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 28 days.

12.	28 days to appeal. 

Samuela Qica
Resident Magistrate

15th January 2013