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

Kumar v Radrodro [2016] FJMC 194; SCT Appeal 14.2015 (13 September 2016)

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

SCT Appeal No: 14 of 2015
SCT Claim # 267/15

JAMES KUMAR
Appellant /Original Respondent
.v.

JOSATEKI RADRODRO

Respondent in Appeal/ Original Claimant

Appearances and Representations
For Appellant: KS Law
For Respondent : Legal Aid

Judgment

1. Introduction

The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 23^rd July 2015 where the Referee had ordered that the Original Respondent pay a sum of $1242.40 to the Claimant within 45 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 amended grounds of appeal were filed and mainly allege unfairness. The Court has noted the amended grounds of appeal as filed by the appellant.

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 amended grounds of appeal advanced by the Appellant have been noted by this Court.

In this matter the Appellant had called two witnesses they told the Tribunal that the cows that were damaging the crop belonged to someone else apart from the Appellant. One witness even told the Tribunal that some cows belonged to the other witness. The witnesses were not discredited. The Claimant had no questions for the witnesses. The Claimant did not call any witnesses despite being given the chance to get them. According to the Referee he believed the Claimant because he told the Referee he was telling the truth. It seems to this Court that in the assessment of the Referee he believed the Claimant. He did not believe the Appellant and his witnesses. The evidence before the Referee was that the caws in the farm of the Claimant belonged to someone else apart from that of the Appellant. The Referee did not state why he did not believe the Appellant and the witnesses. Apart from the notation that the cows of the appellant were next door to the claimant and those that were being stated on the farm damaging the crops were about 1 km away the Referee did not make any assessment on the witnesses evidence and its credibility.

The evidence of the witnesses for the Appellant was overwhelming to tip the scales in his favour. The Referee did not objectively assess the evidence. He also did not assess the evidence and weigh the credibility of witnesses. The decision of the Referee was unfair and not based on the evidence on the whole. The evidence that was before the Referee clearly showed that the cows were someone else’s and not the Appellants.

This Court has noted the grounds of appeal submitted by Appellant. The Appellant has met the threshold set in Section 33 (1) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree. The decision of the referee is set aside.

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. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days.

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
13^th September 2016