Alm Trading Sdn Bhd v Cs Nam Sdn Bhd (WA-12BNCC-15-06/2025)

Referring to the parties as they were in the Sessions Court, the Plaintiff had sued the Defendant for the price of goods sold and delivered. The Defendant appealed to this Court against the Judgment dated 16-6-2025 made by the Sessions Court after a full trial of the case in the court below (“Judgment”).

Judgment had been entered for the sum RM375,126.97 with interest and costs. The Defendant’s counterclaim was also dismissed with costs. On 18-12-2025, this Court dismissed the appeal with costs. The Appellant/Defendant has now appealed to the Court of Appeal. Pleaded case

The Plaintiff had a longstanding relationship with the Defendant as a supplier of engine oil/lubricants to the Defendant. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant’s account for the supply of goods was delinquent with outstanding invoices dated between 26-12-2014 and 16-4-2018.

The Plaintiff pleaded that meetings were held between 2016 and 2019 with representatives of the Defendant regarding the Defendant’s outstanding debt, and that there were 11 part payments of RM600.00 each made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff between January and March 2020.

Admitting only that it made the 11 payments of RM600.00 each to the Plaintiff in 2020, the Defendant denied receiving any goods, invoices, delivery notes, statements of accounts or notices of demand from the Plaintiff and its solicitors.

The Defendant also denied any meetings with the Plaintiff’s representatives or signing the letters that acknowledged the debt claimed to be owing, and on a point of law, pleaded that 13 invoices dated between 26-12-2014 and 31-3-2015 were already time-barred. Analysis and findings

The Plaintiff’s witnesses were the lorry driver who made the many deliveries to the Defendant and identified the acknowledged delivery orders adduced in evidence, the Sales Manager who described his dealings with the Defendant as well as 2 directors and the former General Manager who testified to the Plaintiff’s debt collection efforts.

The testimony of the Plaintiff’s witnesses was corroborated by the contemporaneous documentary evidence. These documents comprised monthly statements of accounts, ledger listings, invoices, delivery notes, emails and text messages, letters, payment slips and receipts.

The documentary evidence was admitted into the body of evidence by agreement and observed to be entirely consistent with the Plaintiff’s case. In particular, the documents included 2 letters regarding proposals for the settlement of the Defendant’s outstanding trade account with the Plaintiff, signed and acknowledged by the Defendant’s representatives: a) Letter dated 10-1-2019 for the attention of En Mohd Nazrin bin A Noordin Mian; and b) Letter dated 3-12-2019 for the attention of En Mohd Azmi bin Abdul Hamid.

The Defendant’s bare denials could not be reconciled with the documentary evidence before the Court in the Record of Appeal, which also included pages of text messages between representatives of the Plaintiff and Defendant that revealed what appeared to be a continuing trade relationship in which the Defendant had exploited the Plaintiff’s credit terms and goodwill.

Having reviewed the Record of Appeal and written submissions filed, this Court found that the Defendant failed to identify any appealable error by the Sessions Court Judge. Indeed, this Court agreed with the Sessions Court Judge who found the Defendant’s case to be bereft of any arguable defence. As he had the audiovisual advantage in observing the demeanour of the witnesses at the trial, there were no valid grounds for this Court to interfere.

In respect of the time bar defence, this Court also agreed with the Sessions Court Judge that the Plaintiff had a complete answer based on section 26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953: “Where any right of action has accrued to recover any debt … and the person liable or accountable therefor acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect thereof, the right shall be deemed to have accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or the last payment...”

The Defendant’s claim that the regular RM600.00 payments were made towards current purchases was unsubstantiated, but was instead credibly contradicted by the receipts issued by the Plaintiff that showed the monies being applied towards the earliest unpaid invoices in the outstanding account.

Considering the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the sums owed in 2019 and the part payments made in 2020, the Plaintiff’s suit in January 2023 was filed well within the statutory limitation period.

As for the Defendant’s counterclaim for RM300,000.00 as special damages and general damages, it was premised on the plea that the Plaintiff allegedly owed it hoisting equipment worth RM300,000.00 for achieving over RM3 million in sales of the Plaintiff’s products.

In reviewing the Record of Appeal, however, this Court could find no evidence of the term of contract allegedly breached by the Plaintiff as pleaded in the Defendant’s counterclaim. The letter of offer signed by the parties in 2013 contained no such term providing for the provision of hoisting equipment to the Defendant for meeting sales targets.

In any case, there was also only a bare assertion unsupported by any documentary evidence that the Defendant had achieved RM3 million sales of the Plaintiff’s goods. As observed by the Sessions Court Judge, the Defendant’s counterclaim stood in stark contrast to its denial that it had ordered goods forming the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim.

For the above reasons, this Court found no appealable error by the learned Sessions Court Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs of RM10,000.00. Bertarikh: 31 Disember 2025 ELAINE YAP CHIN GAIK PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Peguam