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

Bahadur v Chand [2025] FJMC 64; Civil Action 01 of 2024 (27 September 2025)

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT SIGATOKA

CIVIL DIVISION

Civil Action No. 01 of 2024

BETWEEN: GRACY BAHADUR of Olosara, Sigatoka trading as Bahadur’s Money Lending.

APPLICANT

AND: SURESH CHAND also known as VICKY CHAND of Kulukulu, Sigatoka.

RESPONDENT

For the Applicant: Mr. Madhavan of J. K Singh Lawyers

For the Respondent: Not present

RULING ON MOTION

Introduction

1. The Court delivered a Consent Order to the parties on 5^th April 2024 (Sealed on 17^th April 2024) that the judgment be in favour of the Applicant in the sum of $9,000 and, amongst other orders, the dates on which payments are to be made.
   
2. The Applicant now comes to Court by way of Ex Parte Motion and Affidavit filed on 8^th August 2024 stating that the Respondent has not complied with the said orders.
   
3. The Applicant states that the Respondent is therefore in contempt of court and committal proceedings be issued against him pursuant to Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 26 Rule 8 of the Magistrates Court Rules of the Magistrates Court Act.
   

The Analysis

4. In Ram Khelawan v. Budh Ram 13. FLR 196 at page 197, paragraphs F and H:
   

“A Magistrate Court is a creature of statue and the Magistrate and the Court can only exercise the jurisdiction which is given them by the statute....”

Therefore, this Court can only hear and determine the powers given to it in statute.

5. Order 20 Rule 5 of the Magistrates Court Rules of the Magistrates Court Act states that:
   

In the event of the defendant neither finding security nor offering a sufficient deposit, he may be committed to custody until the decision of the suit, or, if judgment be given against the defendant, until the execution of the decree, if the court shall so order:

Provided that the court may, at any time, upon reasonable cause being shown and upon such terms as to the security or otherwise as may seem just, release the defendant.

(emphasis added)

6. While the Judgment in this matter was given against the Defendant, it needs to be shown first that the Defendant was either not able to find security or was not able to offer a sufficient deposit. Such is the legal requirement to access this order.
7. With respect, I do not find any evidence in the said affidavit to show or support this requirement.
   

The Courts Finding

8. The prayers sought for in the Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit filed on 8^th August 2024 is refused and the said motion hereby dismissed.
   
9. Costs in the cause.
   

---------------------------

J Daurewa

Resident Magistrate

27^th September 2024