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

Sahim v Verma [2016] FJMC 190; SCT Appeal 04.2016 (1 September 2016)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT NAUSORI
IN THE CENTRAL DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

SCT Appeal No: 4 of 2016
SCT Claim # 450/15

Mohammed Sahim
Appellant /Original Respondent
.v.

Sanjay Singh Verma

Respondent in Appeal/ Claimant

Appearances and Representations
For Appellant: Mr Sitiveni Raikanikoda
For Respondent : In Person

Judgment

1. Introduction

The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 7^th December 2015 where the Referee had ordered that the Original Respondent pay a sum of $5000 to the Claimant within 28 days of the date of the Order.

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 ground of appeal does not outline any unfairness by the Referee, procedural irregularity or excess of jurisdiction. It refereed to another SCT Claim and that the agreement was drafted by a Solicitor who witnessed both the signatures and sought a re-hearing.

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 that the Referee considered all the materials and information before he made a decision. He listened to both parties and the witnesses who were present before he made his decision. The Referee was within his jurisdiction and he fairly dealt with the matter. No unfairness is alleged on the part of the Referee or that he exceeded his jurisdiction. The Appellant has not met the threshold set in Section 33 (1) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree.

5.) Conclusion

The appellant has not 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 is dismissed. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
1^st September 2016