1. ) Tan Sri Dato' Sri Muhammad Shafee Bin MD Abdullah v 1. ) Saerah Binti Saad Lobb (WA-22NCvC-521-09/2023)

TAN SRI DATO’ SRI MUHAMMAD SHAFEE BIN MD ABDULLAH (NRIC No.: 520204-07-5389)

TANIA SCIVETTI (NRIC No.: 740414-83-5010)

LUNAR DOLLARS SDN BHD (COMP. No.: 201001005264 (889879-P) ...PLAINTIFFS

SAERAH BINTI SAAD LOBB (NRIC No.: 760202-05-5352)

PENGARAH PEJABAT TANAH DAN GALIAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN

Enclosure 94: The 1st Defendant’s application to amend her Defence & Counterclaim [1] This Court notes that the trial for this case is fixed to commence on 5.1.2026 to 8.1.2026. This application is filed by the Defendant well before, and no application for adjournment is sought. As per Order 20 Rule 25/07/2025 12:40:25 WA-22NCvC-521-09/2023 Kand. 115 5(1) Rules of Court 2012 (RoC), this Court sets to consider the 1st Defendant’s application to amend her Defence and Counterclaim. The 1st Defendant’s pleaded defence to the Plaintiff’s claim is that there was no agreement concluded with the Plaintiffs for the sale of the 2 pieces of leasehold lands as apparent by the absence of an executed Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). [2] The counsel for the 1st Defendant submitted that the proposed Amended Defence and Counterclaim takes the same position. The initial Defence and Counterclaim filed on 2.11.2023 is proposed to be deleted and re-authored. It was clarified to this Court that the re-authored pleadings were for clarity, and no inconsistent position has been taken. It was submitted that no injustice would be caused to the Plaintiffs but on the other hand, the 1st Defendant would be prejudiced if deprived of the opportunity to set out better particulars in her pleadings. [3] The Plaintiffs strenuously objected to the amendments – the primary grouse premised on the contention that some judicial admissions are now deleted with the amendments to the Defence and Counterclaim. Premised on that, counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that this application was not done in good faith. The 1st Defendant was accused of suppressing a purported offer to purchase dated 16.8.2024, which she had also failed to disclose to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court during the hearings pertaining to the injunction order and the removal of private caveat. The Plaintiffs alleged the 1st Defendant had not provided any cogent reason for the delay to amend pleadings, counting the date from 16.8.2024 to the date of the filing of this application under Enclosure 94 on 2.5.2025. The Plaintiffs submitted that the nature of the Defence and Counterclaim would change as it would add a claim based on purported unlawful interference with the 1st Defendant’s proprietary interest. [4] This Court has in mind the principles of amendment of pleadings as upheld by the Federal Court in Yamaha Motor Co Ltd v Yamaha (M) Sdn Bhd [1983] 1 MLJ 213; [1982] 1 MLRA 417; [1983] CLJ 428 and Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Low Thiam Hoe and another appeal [2016] 1 MLJ 301; [2016] 3 MLRA 81; [2015] 8 CLJ 1:

Bona fide;

Whether prejudice is caused;

Whether the amendments change the character and nature of the suit. [5] A detailed examination of the initial Defence and Counterclaim filed by the 1st Defendant and the proposed Amended Defence and Amended Counterclaim, this Court makes the following orders:

The proposed amended paragraphs (1) to (30) are allowed. They do not change the nature of the 1st Defendant’s defence. There are no deleted or subtracted ‘judicial admissions’ as claimed by the Plaintiffs. All are incorporated in the amendments;

All proposed amended paragraphs in the Amended Counterclaim are hereby allowed except for the following:

The proposed amended paragraph 34(ii). This was not pleaded before and was not a claim to mount on;

(ii) The proposed paragraphs 39, 40, 41 and 42 for the same reasons above. To allow these additions would change the initial nature of the 1st Defendant’s claim;

(iii) Declarations prayed in paragraph 45(i) and (ii) – were not prayed for initially. This Court views them to be the natural consequent to the determination of the Plaintiffs’ claims. Findings will be made and there is no necessity for such declarations;

(iv) Prayers stipulated in paragraphs 45(iv)(a), (b), (c), (d) and

(e). These were not initially prayed for and change the nature and substratum of the 1st Defendant’s claim;

The proposed paragraph 45(v) to be replaced with the initial/original paragraph 64.5 of the 1st Defendant’s Counterclaim;

(vi) As for prayer stated in paragraph 45(vii), this Court will allow the 1st Defendant to seek for costs should the decision be favourable to her, but not on an indemnity basis. It was not pleaded initially. [6] The Amended Defence and Counterclaim is to be filed by end of today. The Plaintiffs and the 2nd Defendant are granted two weeks until 29.7.2025 to file their Reply. [7] In the circumstances, costs of RM3,000 is ordered to be paid by the 1st Defendant. DATED 15 JULY 2025 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Plaintiffs: Teh Eng Lay, Thong Chan Yen together with Yap Wen Han T/n HL Lee & Co. For the 1st Defendants: Mervyn Lai Wei Shiung and Wong Ying Ying together with Faith Chow Mun T/n Tommy Thomas For the 2nd Defendants: Muhd Izzhar Aiman bin Hamdan and Norazlin Mohamad Yusoff Attorney General Chamber