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

Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2013
SCT Claim # 105/2013

Between:

Peni Seru
Appellant (Magistrates Court)/ Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

And:

Sakura Motor Traders
Respondent (Magistrates Court)/
Respondent (Small Claims Tribunal)

Appellant/ Original Respondent: In Person
Respondent/ Original Claimant: In Person.

Ruling

1). Introduction
The Appellant/Original Claimant (Peni Seru) in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 8th August 2013 that the "first referee gave two judgment.. And the second Referee dismissed the case… need fair trial." 

The parties sought that the matter be heard by way of written submission. 

2). The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/Original Claimant's grounds of appeal (as per the notice of appeal filed) are as follows "the decision made by the referee was unfair …" 

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. This Court has carefully examined the Small Claims Tribunal records, the documents tendered in the Small Claims Tribunal and the submissions made by the parties. 

5.) Conclusion

The appellant has raised a very pertinent issue that the Tribunal made numerous different orders. This Court has noted that three orders were made by the same Referee initially. This First Referee did not properly deal with the claim. He did not consider all matters that were before him when he made each order. The Fourth Order, which is the subject of this appeal, dismissing the Claim, was before a different Referee. In fact the second Referee properly dealt with the claim. The Second Referee, Mr Sahai heard both the parties (hearing took place before him), considered the documents before him and then made a decision. The proceeding before Mr Sahai was properly and fairly conducted. He considered all the matters that were put to him in reaching a decision. 

For the given reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days. 

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
 
3rd March 2014