On whom burden of proof lies The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side" [30] Seksyen 103 Akta Keterangan 1950 (Akta 56) menyatakan "103. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particulars person." [31] Seksyen 104 Akta Keterangan 1950 (Akta 56) menyatakan: "104. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact, is on the person who wishes to give the evidence." [32] Dalam kes Johara bt. Abdul Kadir Marican v Lawrence Lam Kwok Fon & Anor (1981) 1 MLJ 139, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan: "It was all a matter of proof and that until and unless the Plaintiff has discharged the onus on her to prove her case on a balance of probabalities, the burden did not shift to the Defendant and no matter if the Defendant's case was completely unbelievable, the claim against him must in this circumstances be dismissed. We respect, we agree with this judicial approach. [33] Dalam kes Ambank (M) Bhd v. Masri Abdul Rahman [2010] 1 LNS 1115, diputuskan: "It is trite that the party who desires the court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability bears the burden of proof (s. 101(1) Evidence Act 1950). The burden of proof is on that party is twofold: (i) the burden of establishing a case; and (ii) the burden of introducing evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party throughout the trial. The evidential burden of proof is only shifted to the other party once that party has discharged its burden of proof. If that party fails to discharge the original burden of proof, then the other party need not adduce any evidence, in this respect it is the plaintiff who must establish their case. If they fail to do so, it will not do for the plaintiff to say that the defendant has not established their defence..." ANALISA DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [34] Mahkamah akan mengulas kesemua isu secara bersekali. Kontrak dimasuki antara Plaintiff & Defendan melalui "Letter of Award (LOA) bertarikh 2.5.2016. (m/s 94, Ikatan B) [35] "LOA" dikeluarkan oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif. la menyatakan: "2 nd May 2016 Honghua L.F Builders Enterprise 2 nd Floor, Lot 3284, Block 10, KCLD, Jalan Tun Ahmad Zaidi Andruce, 93150 Kuching, Sarawak. Attn : Mr. Then Fook Kiong Dear Sir, RE: Proposed 74 units Shophouse (Phase 2) on Lot 271, Block 43, Muara Tuang Land District, Samarahan Division Kuching. -Letter Of Award - Phase 2 I have the pleasure of advising you that your revised tender sum dated 15 April 2016 for the construction of 2 Blocks (13 units each) of shophouse building Lot 49 to 61 and Lot 62 to 74 accepted by WWH Global (M) Sdn Bhd. Phase 02 Lot 49 to 61 (13 units) - RM3800,000.00 Lot 62-to 74 (13 units) - RM3800,000.00 RM7,600,000.00 Retention shall be 5% of the contract sum Defect Liability Period (DLP) shall be 12 months upon Certificate of Practical Competition (CPC). We look forward to working with you on this project. Please submit the work programme to us for approval and the contract duration is (24) Twenty Four months to complete this contract. Thank you, Yours faithfully, WWH GLOBAL (M) SDN BHD ...tandatangan... WOO WOEI HAUR Managing Director We/I, the undersigned hereby acknowledge receipt of this letter ...tandatangan... Chop & sign by Honghua L.F Builders Enterprise Date: 4/5/16 (m/s 94 Ikatan B)” [36] Mahkamah ingin melihat berapakah sebenarnya nilai jumlah kontrak & apakah skop kerja kontrak dalam kes ini? [37] Berdasarkan LOA, jumlah kontrak yang dinyatakan ialah RM7,600,000.00. [38] Dalam kes ini tiada pecahan harga kontrak dilampirkan bersama LOA. [39] Berdasarkan LOA ini, Mahkamah mendapati ia adalah kontrak untuk kerja dengan harga pukal/sekaligus('lump sum'). [40] Skop kerjanya ialah membina 74 unit rumah kedai, Fasa 2, di Lot 271, Blok 43, Muara Tuang Land District, Samarahan Division, Kuching. [41] Tiada juga pecahan skop kerja, spesifikasi & pecahan harga dalam kontrak ini. [42] Bukti bahawa ini ialah kontrak berharga pukal dikuatkan lagi dengan penjelasan melalui siri-siri emel Defendan kepada Plaintiff. [44] Emel bertarikh 2.5.2016 daripada Defendan kepada Plaintiff menyatakan : "Subject: 9 miles - RH Park - Lot 49-61-Structural Drawing 1/4 Dear Mr. Then, Please see the attached structural drawings (1/4) for your quotation purposes. Your quotation shall be ALL INCLUSIVE including but not limit to labour + material + excavation + backfilling + machineries + any other cost to build the structural works etc. Please provide schedule of rates (labour+material) of 1) rebar work/ton 2) formwork/m2 3) concreting work /m3 Thank you, Regards 0125076999 (m/s 3,Ikatan B) [45] Sekali lagi, emel bertarikh 2.5.2016 berkaitan Lot 49-61. Lukisan struktur 2/4 juga menyatakan hal sama. (m/s 24, ikatan B dirujuk) [46] Emel bertarikh 2.5.2016 daripada Defendan kepada Plaintif menyatakan : "Subject: 9 Miles-RH Park-Lot 49-61 - Structural Drawing 2/4 Dear Mr Then, Please see the attached structural drawings (2/4) for your quotation purposes. Your quotation shall be ALL INCLUSIVE, including but not limit to labour + material + excavation + backfilling + machineries + any other cost to build the structural works etc. Please provide schedule of rates (labour+material) of 1) rebar work/ton 2) formwork/m2 3) concreting work/m3 Thank you Regards 0125076999 (m/s 24, Ikatan B dirujuk) [47] Defendan mengulangi hal sama pada emel bertarikh 2.5.2016 berhubung lukisan struktur % di Lot 49-61. (m/s 46, Ikatan B dirujuk) [48] Emel bertarikh 2.5.2016 daripada Defendan kepada Plaintiff menyatakan : "Subject: 9 Miles-RH Park-Lot 49-61 - Structural Drawing /4 Dear Mr. Then, Please see the attached structural drawings (3/4) for your quotation purposes. Your quotation shall be ALL INCLUSIVE including but not limit to labour + material + excavation + backfilling + machineries + any other cost to build the structural works etc. Please provide schedule of rates (labour+material) of 1) rebar work/ton 2) formwork/m2 3) concreting work/m3 Thank you Regards Woo WH 0125076999 (m/s 46, Ikatan B dirujuk) [49] Perkara yang sama diulangi oleh Defendan kepada Plaintiff untuk Lukisan Struktur 4/4 di Lot 49-61. (m/s 66, Ikatan B dirujuk) [50] Defendan menegaskan di emel bertarikh 2.5.2016 untuk Lukisan Struktur 4/4 yang berbunyi: "Subject: 9 Miles-RH Park-Lot 49-61 - Structural Drawing 4/4 Dear Mr Then, Please see the attached structural drawings (4/4) for your quotation purposes. Your quotation shall be ALL INCLUSIVE including but not limit to labour + material + excavation + backfilling + machineries + any other cost to build the structural works etc. Please provide schedule of rates (labour+material) of 1) rebar work/ton 2) formwork/m2 3) concreting work /m3 Thank you Regards 0125076999 $ ^{n} $ (m/s 66, Ikatan B dirujuk) [51] Ini bermaksud, Defendan menegaskan berulang kali kepada Plaintif bahawa harga kontrak semuanya termasuk harga kerja mengorek, menambak , peralatan dan jentera serta kos-kos lain untuk menyiapkan kerja-kerja struktur. Memandangkan ini adalah kontrak berharga pukal. [52] Mahkamah mendapati tiada sebarang bantahan dibangkitkan oleh Plaintif. [53] Malahan Plaintif bersetuju dan menerima syarat yang ditetapkan oleh Defendan dan menandatangani LOA. [54] Maka, pada hemat Mahkamah, berdasarkan Letter of Award, kontrak ini ialah sememangnya untuk kerja berharga pukal yang mana skop dinyatakan secara am bagi kerja-kerja membina 74 unit rumah kedai (Fasa 2) di Lot 271, Blok 43, Muara Tuang Land District, Samarahan Division, Kuching. [55] Ini dikuatkan lagi oleh emel-emel Defendan untuk menegaskan kontrak itu lalah berharga pukal / ("ALL INCLUSIVE'). TIADA KERJA-KERJA TAMBAHAN / PERUBAHAN [56] Maka, pada hemat Mahkamah, tiada juga penglibatan kerja-kerja tambahan / perubahan kerja sebab tugas Plaintiff alah sememangnya menyiapkan 74 unit rumah kedai yang mana ia termasuk kerja mengorek/excavation, menambak /backfilling, peralatan / jentera/machineries, apa-apa kos untuk menyiapkan kerja-kerja struktur/ any other cost to build the structure works. [57] Mahkamah juga berpandangan bahawa dakwaan Plaintif bahawa ada kerja tambahan membina kilang di Lot 271, Blok 43, Muara Tuang Land District at Penrissen Road, Kuching yang didakwa oleh Plaintif (m/s 12, lkatan B dirujuk) adalah sepatutnya bukan dikelaskan sebagai kerja variasi. [58] Bagi pendapat Mahkamah, jika ada kerja variasi, sepatutnya ia bersangkut dengan kerja-kerja 74 unit rumah kedai sahaja bukan membina kilang pula iaitu satu kerja pembinaan baru. Sepatutnya pembinaan kilang ditadbir di bawah kontrak baru yang berasingan. [59] Tetapi, malangnya sememangnya tiada penglibatan arahan perubahan kerja dalam kes ini. Harga kontrak adalah harga pukal yang telah dikuatkan lagi melalui emel-emel tadi. TIADA ARAHAN PERUBAHAN KERJA [60] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa tiada 'Arahan Perubahan Kerja' secara bertulis ditunjukkan. [61] Dakwaan bahawa ada Arahan Perubahan Kerja secara lisan tidak dibuktikan. [62] Paling kurang sepatutnya ada emel susulan dikemukakan oleh Plaintif kononnya ada arahan perubahan kerja secara lisan diberikan oleh Defendan. [63] Harus diingat apa yang dibentangkan oleh Plaintif, SP1 di PSP1 berkaitan arahan perubahan kerja di QA 6-18, PSP1 adalah tidak dibuktikan. SP1 mengaku bahawa tiada dokumen menunjukkan hal-hal perubahan kerja. Rujuk Nota Keterangan & Hujahan Peguam Defendan di L.47 m/s 11-12, 16-26, 28-30. TUNTUTAN MUKTAMAD/'FINAL CLAIM' PLAINTIF [64] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa tuntutan Plaintif di sini (m/s 12-50, Ikatan D dirujuk) tidak disokong oleh sebarang laporan. Tiada penilaian bersama di tapak bina jua. Tiada sebarang perakuan pembayaran diperakukan oleh Juru Ukur Bahan, Jurutera, mahupun Arkitek. Tiada sebarang foto & laporan siap kerja juga dikemukakan dan dilampirkan. [65] Tuntutan Plaintif semata-mata tidak membuktikan kesemua kerja kontrak telah disiapkan. [66] Tiada juga sebarang Perakuan Siap Kerja atau Certificate of Practical Completion dikemukakan. Tiada Sijil Siap Kerja. [66] Amalan ialah Sijil Tuntutan Bayaran akan diperakukan oleh pegawai bertauliah seperti Juru Ukur Bahan Berdaftar di dalam industri binaan Seperti dijelaskan oleh SD1, Defendan di m/s 172, Nota Keterangan (Jilid 2) sebagai: "Woo : Ok, saya boleh jelaskan apa ialah prosedur yang sepatutnya dalam industri kita dengan apa yang sudah dipraktis selama ini antara saya dengan Plaintif lah. Selalunya dalam industri kita pun sama, I mean, dalam industri construction pun sama. Selalunya kontraktor akan produce satu progress claim. Bila kita sudah pegang ini progress claim, kita akan make appointment satu date, kita akan sama-sama pergi ke itu tapak untuk check itu kerja, & lepas itu, dengan ada bukti-buktinya supporting kerja sudah siap, itu proof of work done, sudah ada, so kita akan conteng dekat ini progress claim. Lepas itu, itu maksud dia itu owner akan balik, dia akan menurut kepada apa yang sudah conteng daiam progress claim, baru keluar satu work done sheet. Work done sheet, lepas itu dia baru isu satu certificate. So, lepas itu, baru ada itu so-called valuation sheet yang sudah disign. Pada hal ini, pada muka surat 12, ini ialah claim. Claim maksud dia whatever kerja yang kontraktor rasa dia sudah buat, dia patut mahu claim, dia rasa dia mahu claim, ini ialah dia punya intention claiming. Tapi tidak, bukan ialah verified, valuation claim. Bukan, ini tidak. (m/s 172-173, Nota Keterangan (Jilid 2) ) [67] Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa mana mungkin sesuatu kerja hanya didakwa disiapkan oleh sebelah pihak sahaja tanpa pengukuran bersama di tapak dan tanpa diperakukan oleh pihak professional seperti Juru ukur Bahan, Jurutera dan Arkitek. [68] Perkataan "Received' di final claim' bukan bermaksud 'diperakukan / 'verified'. [69] la hanya bermaksud 'diterima' tidak membawa makna lebih dari itu. [70] Hal ini diakui oleh SP1 semasa pemeriksaan balas di m/s 191 Nota Keterangan (Rujuk hujahan Peguamcara Defendan di L47, m/s 9. [71] Kes Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Ch'ng Ghee Weng & Anor V Lee Khoon Eng T/A Prestige Construction [2018] 10 CLJ 189 dirujuk Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan : " [14) ... Any claim for a liquidated amount must be specifically proved. It cannot be proved by a simple mathematical calculation, deducting the amounts paid from the contract price and claiming the difference as the sum due. There must be evidence of work done and the value of such works. Since there was no proof, the claim was rightly dismissed by the learned judge". [72] Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Lay Hong Food Corporation Sdn Bhd V Tlong Nam Logistics Solutions Sdn Bhd [2017] 10 CLJ 680 memutuskan: " [51] This method of calculation by using a sheet of paper consisting of summaries of billings without more has been repeatedly rejected by our Courts. (see Sony Electronics (M) Sdn Bhd V Direct Interest Sdn Bhd [2007] 1 CLJ 611 ; [2007] 2 MLJ 229 ; Wasal Construction Sdn Bhd V Boh Huat Chan Timber Products Sdn Bhd [2013] 1 LNS 1269 ; [2014] 4 MLJ 294)... [54] Balance sheets or summary of billings do not by themselves prove the facts stated therein. It has to be proven like any other fact, be it affidavit or otherwise. The facts as stated in the summary of billings are mere statements and it cannot be taken as proving that the statements are correct. It has to be proved by calling the maker to explain the facts and the basis of the calculation of the amount which is being claimed. In our present case, no evidence of the basis of the summary of the billings was adduced". NAS-NAS KERJA-KERJA VARIASI/PERUBAHAN KERJA [73] Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes KY Engineering Sdn Bhd V Chuah Kim Chye [2023] CLJU 592 memutuskan: [16] With regard to the claim for variation work in a construction contract, we concur with the dicta of Zaleha Yusof J (later FCJ) who held as follows in Teknik Segala Sdn Bhd v. Salcon Engineering Bhd [2012] 9 MLJ 529: "[19] It is the plaintiff who alleged the variation of the contract, hence the burden is on the plaintiff to prove this fact. Refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Juahir bin Sadikon v. Perbadanan Ekonomi Kemajuan Negeri Johor ...W [33] In any event, it is the plaintiff who bears the legal burden of proving his value of work done is as per the sum claimed." [17] We further concur with the dicta of Mary Lim Thiam Suan J (now FCJ) who held as follows in Hasrat Idaman Sdn Bhd v. Mersing Construction Sdn Bhd [2015] 1 LNS 289; [2015] 11 MLJ 464: "[65] Therefore, to return to the question posed, where the claim is for both additional and original works as is the case here, it is important that the Plaintiff must be able to show that the additional works were ordered by the Defendant failing which there can be no valid claim. The Court does not find any evidence in any form whatsoever of the work for which the Plaintiff is claiming is indeed work which was ordered or instructed by the Defendant. The evidence presented is messy and thoroughly confused; inconsistent with itself and the oral evidence presented in Court. The Court accepts the Defendant's submissions in this regard." [74] Kes Ch'ng Go Ghee Wang dirujuk berkaitan pembuktian diperlukan untuk quantum meruit bagi kerja-kerja variasi. (Rujuk perenggan 22, m/s 27, L.47). [75] Mahkamah ini berpendapat, tiada kuantum meruit dapat digunapakai kerana kes kita berdasarkan kontrak semata-mata iaitu LOA dan emel emel Defendan yang menjelaskan LOA seperti dihuraikan tadi. [76] Tiada keperluan Mahkamah menggunapakai S.114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 (Akta 56) kerana sememangnya Arahan Perubahan kerja gagal dibuktikan oleh Plaintif Untuk memanggil atau tidak penyelia tapak tidak menjadi isu. KONONNYA ADA 13 KALI PEMBAYARAN DIBUAT OLEH DEFENDAN SELEPAS MENERIMA FINAL CLAIM BERTARIKH 21.1.2019. (M/S 12, IKATAN D & M/S 55, IKATAN D DIRUJUK) [77] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa tidak dibuktikan bayaran-bayaran ini dibuat untuk projek yang mana satu. [78] la bukan pengakuan baki tunggakan. KONONNYA ADA PENGAKUAN DEFENDAN BERHUTANG SEBANYAK RM358.131.73. [79] Peguamcara Plaintif berhujah bahawa Defendan telah mengurangkan nilai tuntutan Plaintif danipada RM444,632.69 kepada RM358,131.73 (m/s 57 & 59 Ikatan D dirujuk) menunjukkan pengakuan keberhutangan Defendan. Hujahan ini tidak diterima oleh Mahkamah. [80] Ini kerana dokumen di muka surat 59, Ikatan D tidak ditandatangani oleh kedua-dua pihak. Tiada juga pengesahan oleh orang yang bertauliah untuk memperakukan bayaran seperti Juru Ukur Bahan, Jurutera atau Arkitek. Ia bukan dokumen rasmi. [81] Ini kekal sebagai deraf semata-mata seperti dihujahkan oleh Peguam Defendan. Hujahan peguamcara Defendan diterima oleh Mahkamah. [82] Tiada juga sebarang penyata akaun dikemukakan oleh Plaintif untuk menunjukkan baki keberhutangan Defendan dalam kes ini. [83] Namun, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pembayaran telah dibuat oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif melangkaui harga kontrak laitu sebanyak RM7,973,874.54 (muka surat 57, ikatan D dirujuk). [84] Dokumen di muka surat 57, Ikatan D disediakan oleh Plaintif dan dikemukakan kepada SD1 pada 8.1.2023 (exhibit P-3). [85] Tertera column 'PAYMENT': RM7,973,874.54. [86] Maka Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa nilai kontrak telah dibayar keseluruhannya bagi kerja-kerja menurut LOA. Harga pukal di LOA/kontrak pun diulangi sebanyak RM7,600,000.00. NAS-KERJA-KERJA MESTI DIPERAKUKAN OLEH BADAN PROFESSIONAL [87] Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Syarikat Binaan Utara Jaya V Koperasi Serbaguna Sungai Gelugur Bhd [2009] 1 CLJ 786 memutuskan: "Here, everything depends on the certification by the engineer". [88] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Tuntutan Balas telah berjaya dibuktikan. [89] Pertamanya, bahan-bahan binaan yang dibelikan oleh Defendan bagi pihak Plaintif sebanyak RM156,987.75 telah diakui oleh Plaintif sendiri dalam muka surat 57, Ikatan D, iaitu pecahan jumlah tertunggak yang dihutang oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif di bawah kontrak yang diSEDIakan oleh Plaintif. [90] Tertera di muka surat 57, Ikatan D sebagai MATERIAL : RM156,987.75 : RM153,543.75 + 3,444.00 [91] Keduanya, kos-kos membaiki kecacatan yang dilakukan Defendan turut diakui oleh Plaintif di muka surat 57, Ikatan D. [92] Muka surat 57, Ikatan D menunjukkan : "DEFECT BACK CHARGE :1,528.00 DEFECT BACK CHARGE 5,390.00 iaitu kedua-duanya berjumlah RM6918.00. [93] Ini bermaksud masih ada amaun-amaun yang masih terhutang oleh Plaintif terhadap Defendan. NAS-NAS KONTRAK [94] Dalam, kes Lin Wen Chih dan Anor v Mycom Berhad [2015] 3 MLJ 691 Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan seperti yang berikut: [21] The principle, a person is bound by his contract regardless that he is ignorant of the language it is written in, is well established. The case of Subramanian v Retnam [1965] CLJU 169; [1965] 1 LNS 169 referred to Ismail Bin Savoosah and Ors v Hajee Ismail [1889] 4 Ky 453,458 where Wood A-G CJ said: - It was argued that the defendant being ignorant of the English language he is to be excused on that account from the performance of his contract, but it is to my mind clear that in the common principles which govern the law of contract, the person who contracts by a written document, whether or not he understands the language in which it is written, is bound, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, by the terms of that contract, as to which proposition no objection was authoritatively sustained..." [95] Dalam kes Yap Cheong Leong v Yunazry Damanhuri [2011] CLJU 619: [2011] 1 LNS 619, YA Hakim telah merujuk kepada kes Wan Salimah bt Wan Jaafar v Mahmood bin Omar (Anim bt Abdul Aziz. Intervener) [1998] 5 MLJ 163 yang mengatakan the principle that parties are bound by the terms of the contract that they sign was emphasized. Abdul Malik Ishak, J (as he then was) said: "It is trite law that when a party signs a contract knowing it to be a contract which governs the relations between them, then in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the party signing bound. "I quoted herein an oftenquoted case of Polygram Records Sdn Bhd v The Search & Anor [1994] 3 CLJ 806; [1994] 3MLJ 127 ("Polygram") which was decided by His Lordship Visu Sinnadurai J. In Polygram, His Lordship had held that a party who had executed a written contract is bound by the four corners of the written contract that he had signed unless if he could establish that the contract was tainted with fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence". KESIMPULAN [96] Kesimpulannya, perenggan 16, Penyata Tuntutan, muka surat 11- 12, Ikatan A di