IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT NAUSORI
IN THE CENTRAL DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION
SCT Appeal No: 20 of 2015
						   SCT Claim # 406/15

Rajnesh Narayan
								
Appellant /Original Respondent
.v.

Ranjini Devi Chand
									  
Respondent/ Original Claimant

Appearances and Representations
For Appellant:   In Person
For Respondent   :    In Person 

Judgment

1).	Introduction
The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 28th September 2015 where the Referee had ordered that the Original Respondents pay a sum of $200 per month commencing from October 31st 2015 until total sum of $5000.00 is paid in full.

The parties chose to be heard by way of written submissions. They sought the Court rely on the submissions filed.

2).	The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/Original Respondents grounds of appeal can be briefly summarized as that:
(a)	the Claim was over 6 years old and that the SCT had no jurisdiction to deal with it.
(b)	No chance given to appellant to seek legal advice.
(c)	Not given fair chance to challenge the claim.
(d)	No written judgment given.

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) or (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree. The grounds of Appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above. 
This Court has noted the grounds of appeal submitted by appellant. The Court has noted from the records that the Appellant and the Respondent were husband and wife. In 2007 and 2008 when they were living together some money was paid to the husband by the lady. This is taken to be a contractual dispute. The dates that the monies were given are as follows:
7th June 2007 - $1000
22nd April 2008 - $4000
The claim was lodged by the Respondent on 1st September 2015. This is over 7 years from the time the monies were given to the Appellant in April 2008. The explanation by the Respondent was that she asked for the money many times but was not given any by the Appellant. The Appellant argues that Respondent had not pursued the claim in any Court within 6 years. The law in relation to this issue is the Limitation Act. Section 4 (1) limits that any action shall not be brought after expiry of 6 years period for any contractual dispute. In this case the matter was brought into the SCT after over 7 years.  This matter could not be brought to the Court. Section 9 (c) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree states that the SCT has no jurisdiction over a matter which could not be brought in the Magistrate’s Court. This claim was over the 7 years period and is statute barred. The rationale for this is that a person waives the right to pursue a claim by not bringing action in Court within 6 years.
On this ground alone the appellant succeeds with his appeal. 
The other grounds of appeal are not made out as the Court finds that the Appellant had ample opportunity to seek legal advice and he was fairly dealt with in the SCT.. 
 
5.)    Conclusion
The appellant has met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) & (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991.For the reasons given above, the appeal succeeds. The Orders of the Small Claims Tribunal are set aside. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days. 

Chaitanya Lakshman 
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
8th June 2016