TJM SDN BHD V Muhamad Zamree Bin Sulaiman & Ors
TJM SDN BHD V Muhamad Zamree Bin Sulaiman & Ors
TJM SDN BHD V Muhamad Zamree Bin Sulaiman & Ors
Isu untuk diputuskan oleh mahkamah adalah sama ada SP pemohon adalah A
dihalang oleh statut dibawah s 2(a) AKPPBA.
Notes
For cases on application for striking out, see 2(5) Mallal’s Digest (5th Ed, 2017
Reissue) paras 9281–9311.
TJM Sdn Bhd v Muhamad Zamree bin Sulaiman & Ors
[2019] 12 MLJ (Mohd Radzi JC) 617
A Cases referred to
AIC Dotcom Sdn Bhd (suing in a representative capacity for MTEX Corp Sdn
Bhd) v MTEX Corp Sdn Bhd [2003] 4 MLJ 324, HC (refd)
Abdul Hamid bin Hj Rahmat & Anor v Development & Commercial Bank Bhd
& Anor [1993] 1 MLJ 306, HC (refd)
B
Alias bin Ismail v Hairuddin bin Mohamad & Anor [1997] 3 MLJ 724; [1997]
4 CLJ 669, CA (refd)
Alliance Investment Bank Sdn Bhd v Good Quantum Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors [2010]
MLJU 1679, HC (refd)
C Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd
[1993] 3 MLJ 36; [1993] 4 CLJ 7, SC (refd)
Boey Oi Leng (t/a Indah Reka Construction & Trading) v Trans Resources
Corporation Sdn Bhd [2001] MLJU 566; [2001] 4 AMR 4807, HC (refd)
Cepatwawasan Group Bhd & Anor v Tengku Dato’ Kamal Ibni Sultan Sir Abu
D Bakar & 17 Ors [2008] 2 MLJ 915, HC (refd)
Credit Corporation (M) Bhd v Fong Tak Sin [1991] 1 MLJ 409; [1991] 1 CLJ
69, SC (refd)
Datuk Ooi Han Eng & Anor v Soh Huang Siah (carrying on business through an
organisation known as Alaric’ s Productions Co) [2010] 5 MLJ 665, CA (refd)
E Duta Arif Sdn Bhd & Ors v Chartered Development Corp & Ors [2008] 6 MLJ
139, HC (refd)
EON Bank Berhad v Cepad Group Sdn Bhd & Ors [2006] 4 MLJ 362, HC
(refd)
Enersafe Sdn Bhd (formerly known as General Tractors Services Sdn Bhd) v
F Megarina Sdn Bhd [2006] 4 MLJ 271; [2006] 2 CLJ 1021, CA (refd)
Farlim Properties Sdn Bhd v Goh Keat Poh & Ors [2002] 6 MLJ 171, HC (refd)
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd v Siah Teong Teck & Anor (Part 1) [2007] 7 MLJ 153, HC
(refd)
Harapan Permai Sdn Bhd v Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd [2011] 2 MLJ 192,
G CA (refd)
Hi-Summit Construction Sdn Bhd v Konsortium Lapangan Terjaya Sdn Bhd &
Ors [2015] 2 MLJ 247, CA (refd)
Hup Lee Coachbuilders Holdings Sdn Bhd v Cycle & Carriage Bintang Bhd
[2013] 1 MLJ 406, CA (refd)
H Indah Desa Saujana Corp Sdn Bhd & Ors v James Foong Cheng Yuen, Judge, High
Court Malaya & Anor [2008] 2 MLJ 11, CA (refd)
Jamir Hassan v Kang Min [1992] 2 MLJ 46, HC (refd)
Lim Eng Heng v Lim Sam Keow & Others [2003] MLJU 47, HC (refd)
Meeriam Rosaline a/p Edward Paul & Ors v William Singam a/l Raja Singam
I (suing as Public Officer of Pertubuhan Persaudaraan Kristian Thaveethin
Kudaram, Ipoh, Perak) [2010] 4 MLJ 541, CA (refd)
Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v Faridah bte Dato Talib [1992] 2 MLJ
793, SC (refd)
Nescajaya Sdn Bhd v Suairah bt Parigula & Ors [2011] 9 MLJ 774, HC (refd)
618 Malayan Law Journal [2019] 12 MLJ
Ng Yik Seng & Anor v Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 83, FC A
(refd)
Noor Jahan bte Abdul Wahab v Md Yusoff bin Amanshah & Anor [1994] 1 MLJ
156, HC (refd)
Public Finance Bhd v S Ramasamy [1990] 2 CLJ 431 (refd)
Sarjit Singh Khaira v Government of the State of Sarawak & Anor [1990] 2 MLJ B
251; [1990] 2 CLJ 95; [1990] 3 CLJ Rep 59, HC (refd)
See Thong & Anor v Saw Beng Chong [2013] 3 MLJ 235, CA (folld)
Selvaraju a/l Ponniah v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia & Anor
[2007] 7 MLJ 1, FC (refd)
C
Serac Asia Sdn Bhd v Sepakat Insurance Brokers Sdn Bhd [2013] 5 MLJ 1;
[2013] 6 CLJ 673, FC (refd)
Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v Badan Perhubungan UMNO Negeri
Pahang Darul Makmur (via his secretary Dato’ Ahmad Tajudin bin Sulaiman)
[2010] 8 MLJ 57, HC (refd) D
Sim Kiang Chiok v Southeast Asia Special Asset Management Bhd [2016] 1 MLJ
57, CA (refd)
Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu v Ganesan a/l Retanam [2011] 6 MLJ 70, CA
(refd)
Tasja Sdn Bhd v Golden Approach Sdn Bhd [2011] MLJU 67; [2011] 3 CLJ E
751, FC (refd)
Wesma Rubber Products v CIMB Bank Berhad [2014] 1 LNS 479 (refd)
Yeng Hing Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Liow Su Fah [1979] 2 MLJ 240, FC (refd)
Zaina Abidin bin Hamid @ S Maniam & Ors v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors
[2009] 6 MLJ 863, CA (refd) F
Legislation referred to
Companies Act 1965 (repealed by the Companies Act 2016)
Customs Act 1967 ss 66(2), 102, 114, 126, 128, 128(3)
Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 s 2(a) G
Rules of Court 2012 O 18 r 19, 19(1), (1)(b), (1)(d), O 92 r 4
Mohd Hamizi bin Mohd Yusof (Raziyan Rahim & Assoc) for the applicant.
Fatin Hanum bt Abdul Hadi (Senior Federal Counsel, Perak State Legal Advisor’s
Office) for the respondents. H
THE APPLICATION
I
[1] The application in encl 6 was filed by the respondents pursuant to O 18
r 19(1)(b) and (1)(d), and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (‘the ROC’),
seeking this court, inter alia, to strike out the applicant’s originating summons
(‘OS’) dated 2 January 2018.
TJM Sdn Bhd v Muhamad Zamree bin Sulaiman & Ors
[2019] 12 MLJ (Mohd Radzi JC) 619
A [2] The respondents’ main argument supporting their application is that the
applicant cannot proceed with its OS as it is time-barred pursuant to s 2(a) of
the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 (‘the PAPA’).
BACKGROUND
[5] The respondents’ current application before this court was premised on
the following four grounds:
620 Malayan Law Journal [2019] 12 MLJ
(a) the applicant’s claim is statute barred under s 2(a) of the PAPA; A
(b) the applicant’s claim falls under the first limb of s 2(a) of the PAPA;
(c) the period of limitation under s 2(a) of the PAPA is absolute and
mandatory; and
B
(d) the applicant’s claim is obviously unsustainable.
[6] At the outset, it is the finding of this court that the four grounds C
enumerated in the respondents’ application above are, in actual fact, rested in
only in one main issue that forms the substantive ground of the respondent’s
application to be considered by the court — was the applicant’s OS statute
barred under s 2(a) of the PAPA? If the answer is in the affirmative, this court
will then moved to favourably consider and allow the respondents’ application D
in finding the OS to be unsustainable and must be struck out pursuant to O 18
r 19(1)(b) and (1)(d) of the ROC. If the answer to that question is in the
negative, the reverse must be ordered by this court.
OUT OF TIME? E
[7] Before I deal with the substantive issue, it is prudent that at this juncture
I deal with the third ground canvassed by the respondents in supporting their
application, that the period of limitation under s 2(a) of the PAPA is
mandatory. F
[9] That the time period mentioned in s 2(a) of the PAPA is absolute and I
shall be complied with mandatorily is never disputed. This was not even
disputed by the applicant in its affidavit or in the written or oral submissions of
the counsel for the applicant. The elucidation of this position was also correctly
pointed out by the counsel for the respondents in the authorities cited in
TJM Sdn Bhd v Muhamad Zamree bin Sulaiman & Ors
[2019] 12 MLJ (Mohd Radzi JC) 621
A learned counsel’s written submissions, namely Tasja Sdn Bhd v Golden Approach
Sdn Bhd [2011] MLJU 67; [2011] 3 CLJ 751; Selvaraju a/l Ponniah v
Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia & Anor [2007] 7 MLJ 1; Alias bin
Ismail v Hairuddin bin Mohamad & Anor [1997] 3 MLJ 724; [1997] 4 CLJ
669, Credit Corporation (M) Bhd v Fong Tak Sin [1991] 1 MLJ 409; [1991] 1
B CLJ 69. But this court agrees with the respondents’ counsel’s arguments up to
this point only.
[10] The absoluteness and mandatoriness of that s 2(a) of the PAPA is one
thing. To prove that the applicant had legally breached that absolute and
C mandatory requirement is another thing altogether. I shall now turn to this
very issue.
[11] The respondents argued that the cause of action alleged by the applicant
arose on 8 January 2014, the date when the first respondent issued to the
D applicant the notice of seizure pursuant to s 114 of the Customs Act 1967.
[12] Applying s 2(a) of the PAPA, the respondents argued that the
applicant’s OS shall be filed within 36 months from 8 January 2014, the last
date being 7 January 2017. The applicant filed the OS on 2 January 2018. If
E
the date 8 January 2014 is taken as the date when the 36 months provided
under s 2(a) of the PAPA begins to run, then this court calculated the delay as
11 months 25 days (8 January 2017–2 January 2018). The respondents,
however, calculated the delay as 47 months and 25 days, computing it from
8 January 2014–2 January 2018.
F
G [14] The applicant argued that it had diligently fulfilled its part by
communicating in writing with the respondents on numerous occasions,
particularly vide its letters dated 14 April 2014; 20 May 2016; 25 May 2016;
1 September 2016; 10 October 2017 but without any reply from the
respondents.
H
[15] It is the applicant’s contention that the 36-month period for the
applicant to file its action against the respondents shall be calculated
commencing from the date when the applicant made its final attempt with the
respondents, namely its letter dated 10 October 2017, and not the date of the
I notice of seizure. Thus, the 36 months would lapse on 9 October 2020. And as
its OS filed on 2 January 2018, it was way within the time permitted under
s 2(a) of the PAPA.
[16] I must briefly state the contents of those letters sent by the applicant to
622 Malayan Law Journal [2019] 12 MLJ
the respondents. But before I do that, I must highlight the contents of the two A
notice of seizure and notice of forfeiture.
[20] However, the counsel for the respondents did not answer this court’s
question during the hearing of encl 6 as to why was the notice of seizure dated
3 April 2014 although the seizure of the car was carried out on 8 January 2014.
The learned counsel also did not furnish this court with any explanation as to I
why was the notice of forfeiture left undated. This court cannot fathom as to
how could the appellant be expected to respond within one month from the
date of the seizure (8 January 2014) when the notice of that seizure was only
issued almost three months after the seizure.
TJM Sdn Bhd v Muhamad Zamree bin Sulaiman & Ors
[2019] 12 MLJ (Mohd Radzi JC) 623
A [21] This court is fully appraised of the fact that it would and could only deal
with these issues substantively during the actual trial of the applicant’s OS,
should the respondents’ application to strike out the OS be dismissed.
[23] Nonetheless, this court is entitled to look at the history of the case to
determine if there is an action (see Jamir Hassan v Kang Min [1992] 2 MLJ 46)
D and to determine whether it can clearly be seen that the claim or answer is on
the face of it is ‘obviously unsustainable’ (see Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v
United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36; and Hi-Summit
Construction Sdn Bhd v Konsortium Lapangan Terjaya Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] 2
MLJ 247).
E
[24] I had perused the communications from the applicant to the
respondents, the synopsis of which are as follows:
(a) letter dated 14 April 2014: this letter was sent by the applicant to the first
F respondent informing that the applicant had only realised that the said
car was seized by the first respondent upon making stock checks and
upon receiving the notice of seizure in April, about three months after the
seizure took place. The applicant demanded for the car to be returned to
it as the rightful owner;
G (b) letter dated 20 May 2016: this was the applicant’s letter addressed to the
Royal Malaysian Customs’ Headquarters in Putrajaya referring to a letter
from the customs dated 12 May 2016. Through this letter, the applicant
requested that it be allowed exemption from payment of duties as it
cannot sell the said car. The aspplicant further informed that it is willing
H to pay the compound of RM5,000;
(c) letter dated 25 May 2016: this was the applicant’s letter addressed to one
Mr Idros Mokhtar, a Customs Officer at the Customs Enforcement
Branch, Teluk Intan, Perak, who issued the ‘Notis Tuntutan Duti Cukai
I Serta Tawaran Kompaun’ dated 12 May 2016. By this letter, the applicant
requested for a postponement of 60 days to pay the compound as it had
applied for exemption from the payment of duties;
(d) letter dated 1 September 2016: this was the applicant’s letter addressed to
the Royal Malaysian Customs’ Headquarters, reiterating its letter of
624 Malayan Law Journal [2019] 12 MLJ
[27] It is settled law that recourse to this summary process can only be G
adopted when it can clearly be seen that the claim is on the face of it obviously
unsustainable. The summary power should be exercised in plain and obvious
cases only and where the claim on the face of it is obviously bound to fail
(Enersafe Sdn Bhd (formerly known as General Tractors Services Sdn Bhd) v
Megarina Sdn Bhd [2006] 4 MLJ 271; [2006] 2 CLJ 1021). This proposition H
is clearly explained in the Federal Court’s case of Serac Asia Sdn Bhd v Sepakat
Insurance Brokers Sdn Bhd [2013] 5 MLJ 1 at p 18; [2013] 6 CLJ 673 as
follows:
… We also make this observation on the application of the court’s summary power I
to strike out a pleading under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 (successor to the
RHC 1980). Although the power to strike out is a wide discretion, it should be
exercised with care and only when the threshold requirement of ‘an obvious and
unsustainable case’, can a pleading be struck out.
TJM Sdn Bhd v Muhamad Zamree bin Sulaiman & Ors
[2019] 12 MLJ (Mohd Radzi JC) 625
A [28] In essence, this court will only dismiss and strike out an action pursuant
to O 18 r 19:
(a) in plain and obvious cases;
(b) where there is no reasonable cause of action;
B
(c) to avoid unnecessary trial which had no prospect of success;
(d) where the action is obviously unsustainable; or
(e) where the pleadings are entirely hopeless, baseless or without foundation
C in law or in equity.
(see Duta Arif Sdn Bhd & Ors v Chartered Development Corp & Ors [2008] 6
MLJ 139; Alliance Investment Bank Sdn Bhd v Good Quantum Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors
[2010] MLJU 1679; Nescajaya Sdn Bhd v Suairah bt Parigula & Ors [2011] 9
D MLJ 774; Cepatwawasan Group Bhd & Anor v Tengku Dato’ Kamal Ibni Sultan
Sir Abu Bakar & 17 Ors [2008] 2 MLJ 915; Harapan Permai Sdn Bhd v Sabah
Forest Industries Sdn Bhd [2011] 2 MLJ 192; Wesma Rubber Products v CIMB
Bank Berhad [2014] 1 LNS 479).
(c) wrong party is sued: Yeng Hing Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Liow Su Fah [1979] A
2 MLJ 240;
(d) illegality: Lim Eng Heng v Lim Sam Keow & Others [2003] MLJU 47;
(e) unfounded claims: EON Bank Berhad v Cepad Group Sdn Bhd & Ors
[2006] 4 MLJ 362; or B
(f) claim is statute-barred : Sim Kiang Chiok v Southeast Asia Special Asset
Management Bhd [2016] 1 MLJ 57.
[31] Applying the principle enumerated above, this court does not find that C
the applicant’s OS to fall under any of the illustrations enumerated above for it
to be scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. The respondents’ claim under O 18
r 19(1)(b), therefore, failed.
[32] The Court of Appeal in Harapan Permai held that where the process of
court had not been used in a bona fide manner, it tantamount to an abuse of the
process of the court.
E
[33] Some illustrations decided by the courts to fall within the meaning of
the phrase ‘abuse of the court process’ are:
(a) the plaintif failed to name the tortfeasors, and the second defendant was
wrongly named: Zaina Abidin bin Hamid @ S Maniam & Ors v Kerajaan
F
Malaysia & Ors [2009] 6 MLJ 863; Public Finance Bhd v S Ramasamy
[1990] 2 CLJ 431;
(b) parties have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Syariah
Court and seek to complain on the same matter in the High Court:
Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v Faridah bte Dato Talib [1992] 2 G
MLJ 793;
(c) an action to recover a debt is taken simultaneously with a foreclosure
action in respect of the same debt : Ng Yik Seng & Anor v Perwira Habib
Bank Malaysia Bhd [1980] 2 MLJ 83; and
H
(d) re-agitating the same matter that had been finally adjudicated by the
Federal Court and the Court of Appeal: Farlim Properties Sdn Bhd v Goh
Keat Poh & Ors [2002] 6 MLJ 171.
[34] Having perused the affidavits and the OS, and going by the numerous I
illustrations and examples laid down by the authorities cited earlier on what
constitute an abuse of the court process, this court failed to find the existence
of an iota of abuse of the process of the court in the applicant’s action. Thus, the
respondent’s reliance under this paragraph must also fail.
TJM Sdn Bhd v Muhamad Zamree bin Sulaiman & Ors
[2019] 12 MLJ (Mohd Radzi JC) 627
A [35] This court will always abide by the reminder of the Court of Appeal in
See Thong & Anor v Saw Beng Chong [2013] 3 MLJ 235 which was in the
following term:
the power to strike a case under the order without having to go for trial should be
exercised sparingly and only in a plain and obvious case. The procedure is of a
B summary nature. The party affected should not be deprived of his right to have his
case proceeded by a proper trial unless the claim is obviously unsustainable. The
Federal Court in the case of CC Ng & Brothers Sdn Bhd v Government of State of
Pahang [1985] 1 MLJ 347, had said that ‘the inherent power to dismiss an action
summarily without permitting the plaintiff to proceed to trial is a drastic power. It
C should be exercised with utmost caution. It is a power which ought to be very
sparingly exercised and only in very exceptional cases’.
CONCLUSION
[37] Instead, this court has found that the respondents’ claims under O 18
E r 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 to strike out the plaintiffs’ OS fail
to stand in law.