IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Action No. 2 of 2015
SCT Claim No. 843 of 2014

BETWEEN:

SAM KARAN
APPELLANT

AND:

AMRIT LAL
RESPONDENT

Appellant: In Person
Respondent: In Person

Judgment: 2 September 2015

JUDGMENT

1.	The Appellant is appealing the decision of the Small Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) made on 17 December 2014. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 22 December 2014, and was on time. Apparently, the appeal was against an order made by the Tribunal under section 15(6) of the Small Claim Tribunal Decree 1991 (SCT Decree), though this was not specified in the Notice of Appeal.

2.	According to section 33(1) of the SCT Decree, the order of the Tribunal can only be appealed on two grounds;

"(a) the proceeding were conducted by the Referee in a manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affect the result of the proceeding; or

(b) the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction." 

3.	The Appellant grounds of appeal as stated in the Notice of Appeal is that:-
I am not satisfied by the decision and order made by the Referee because he did not take in consideration the facts and the evidence into account.

4.	The Appellant filed further grounds of appeal on 21 April 2015, listing 15 paragraphs. In assessing those paragraphs, only two paragraphs were relating to the Tribunal proceeding. They are paragraphs 12 and 13 which state:-

12. That the appellant says that the tribunal ordered $40 to be paid commencing 16 January 2015 until the claim is cleared.

13. That the appellant says that he disagrees and that he will appeal this matter in the Magistrate's Court for the matter to be reviewed by looking at the evidence in the statement of claim."

5.	The Respondent filed his response to the Grounds of Appeal on 11 June 2015.

6.	The case proceeded for hearing on 8 July 2015.

7.	At the hearing, the Applicant submit that he does not like the order for the Respondent to pay $40.00 per month and the Respondent should pay $100.00 per month. In response the Respondent submit that he is willing to pay $40.00 per month as ordered by the Tribunal.

8.	The order of the Tribunal was in favour of the Appellant who was the claimant at the Tribunal. The Appellant was not happy with the amount of payment ordered by the Tribunal for the Respondent to pay $40.00 every month.

9.	The Appellant at the Tribunal was claiming for his share to the farm proceeds totalling $579.09. The claim is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

10.	In considering the grounds of appeal advanced by the Appellant, none of the grounds fall within the ambit of section 33(1)(a) and (b) of the SCT Decree. It is clear from the grounds of appeal that the Appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the Tribunal and disagree with the order of payment of $40.00 per month. The Appellant want an order of payment for $100.00 per month.

11.	The reason for the Appellant not satisfied with the decision of the Tribunal was because the Referee did not take into consideration the facts and evidence into account. This goes into the merit of the case and is not a ground of appeal under section 33 of the SCT Decree. In the case of Aaryan Enterprise v Mehak Unique Fashion [2011] FJHC 720, the court state;

"....under the grounds of appeal relied upon, the Respondent was required to identify some unfairness in the manner (form) of the hearing before the Tribunal and not simply the result. Put bluntly, there is no right of appeal on the merits even when there may be clear error of law in the Tribunal's decision.

12.	The grounds of appeal advanced by the Appellant does not fall under the ambit of section 33(1)(a) and (b) of the SCT Decree, therefore, there is no grounds of appeal to be considered in this appeal. The grounds of appeal filed by the Applicant is wholly dismissed.

13.	In my judgment, I make the following orders;

a.	The Appellant appeal is dismissed.

b.	The Appellant to pay cost of $200.00 to the Respondent.

Cama M. Tuberi
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE