/akn/my/judgment/sessions-court/2026/97378551-3dac-4a25-bbc9-3e9803dde024
Sessions Court of Malaysia7 May 2026WA-A51NCvC-104-09/2024
The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
Not yet cited by a later decision.
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“ental that it is the requirement of the best evidence rule that the maker of a document must be called to prove it. (Allied Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v. Yau Fiok Hua [1998] 2 CLJ 33). Further s. 73A of the Evidence Act states that in civil proceedings, the maker must be called as a witness in order to render it admissible in”
“e initiation of action could only do so under the principles established in the House of Lords' decision in Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1973] 2 All ER 943; [1974] AC 133. Up until then, the courts did not order discovery against a person who is not a party to any proceedings,”
“disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs." [10] Mahkamah dirujuk kepada kes Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Other Applications [2004] SGHC 155 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa: "The ultimate test is whether discovery is necessary for disposing fai”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Text
WA-A51NCvC-104-09/2024 Kand. 65 03/07/2026 16:28:23 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO: WA-A51NCVC-104-09/2024 ANTARA JAPANEX RENT-A-CAR SDN. BHD. ...PLAINTIF (NO. SYARIKAT: 201101018008 (946144-A)) DAN
section
1. PENGARAH PENGANGKUTAN JALAN, WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR
section
2. KETUA PENGARAH PENGANGKUTAN JALAN, MALAYSIA
section
3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
section
4. MK TAN AUTOHAUS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 201501000171(1125503-K))
section
5. NURFAREKH AIDID BIN ROSLI (NO. K/P: 960502-10-6437) ... DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN (NO. K/P:960502-10-6437) PENGHAKIMAN PENDAHULUAN [1] Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga memfailkan permohonan (Kandungan 39) di bawah Aturan 24 Kaedah 7A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 bagi mendapatkan perintah penzahiran dokumen terhadap pihak bukan parti, iaitu eAuto Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat: 200401038456 [676967-T]) ("eAuto"). [2] Dokumen-dokumen yang dipohon untuk dizahirkan adalah seperti berikut:-
section
2. 1. Kesemua dokumen berkaitan transaksi-transaksi tukar hak milik kenderaan buatan Toyota bermodel Vellfire dengan nombor pendaftaran Y128 （'kenderaan tersebut') sebagaimana yang direkodkan dalam sistem eAuto Sdn. Bhd;
section
2. 2. Kesemua dokumen yang dimuat naik oleh Used Car Dealer (UCD) bagi transaksi-transaksi tukar hak milik kenderaan tersebut dalam sistem eAuto Sdn. Bhd.;
section
2. 3. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) eAuto Sdn. Bhd. bagi Sistem Tukar Milik Sementara (STMS) dan eSerahan Tukar Milik (eSTM); dan
section
2. 4. Perjanjian Pembekalan Sistem Tukar Milik Sementara dan eSerahan Tukar Milik antara Kerajaan Malaysia dan eAuto Sdn. Bhd. bertarikh 13 Oktober 2023 ("Perjanjian GOM"). (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "dokumen-dokumen tersebut") [3] Mahkamah telah membenarkan permohonan dengan kos ditanggung masing-masingalam kausa. DOKUMEN YANG DIPERSETUJUI UNTUK PENZAHIRAN [4] Pihak eAuto telah menyatakan tiada bantahan dan bersedia untuk menzahirkan dokumen-dokumen berikut:-
section
4. 1. Kesemua dokumen berkaitan transaksi-transaksi tukar hak milik kenderaan buatan Toyota bermodel Vellfire dengan nombor pendaftaran Y128 ('kenderaan tersebut') sebagaimana yang direkodakan dalam sistem eAuto Sdn. Bhd;
section
4. 2. Kesemua dokumen yang dimuat naik oleh Used Car Dealer (UCD) bagi transaksi-transaksi tukar hak milik kenderaan tersebut dalam sistem eAuto Sdn. Bhd.; dan
section
4. 3. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) eAuto Sdn. Bhd. bagi Sistem Tukar Milik Sementara (STMS) dan eSerahan Tukar Milik (eSTM). [5] Memandangkan tiada lagi pertikaian mengenai penzahiran dokumen 4.1 hingga 4.3 di atas, Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga Mahkamah membenarkan penzahiran bagi dokumen-dokumen tersebut seperti yang dipohon. [6] Walau bagaimanapun, pihak eAuto membantah kepada permohonanan penzahiran Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga untuk Perjanjian GOM. PERUNTUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG MENGENAI PENZAHIRAN DOKUMEN DI BAWAH ATURAN 24 KAEDAH 7A KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH 2012 [7] Aturan 24 Kaedah 7A, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 memperuntukkan seperti berikut:- "Discovery against other person (O.24,r.7A) 7A.
subsection
(1) An application for an order for the discovery of documents before the commencement of proceedings shall be made by originating summons and the person against whom the order is sought shall be made defendant to the originating summons.
subsection
(2) An application after the commencement of proceedings for an order for the discovery of documents by a person who is not a party to the proceedings shall be made by a notice of application, which shall be served on that person personally and on every party to the proceedings.
subsection
(3) An originating summons under paragraph (1) or a notice of application under paragraph (2) shall be supported by an affidavit which shall—
a
(a) in the case of an originating summons under paragraph (1), state the grounds for the application, the material facts pertaining to the intended proceedings and whether the person against whom the order is sought is likely to be party to subsequent proceedings in Court; and
b
(b) in any case, specify or describe the documents in respect of which the order is sought and show, if practicable by reference to any pleading served or intended to be served in the proceedings, that the documents are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise out of the claim made or likely to be made in the proceedings or the identity of the likely parties to the proceedings, or both, and that the person against whom the order is sought is likely to have or have had them in his possession, custody or power.
subsection
(4) A copy of the supporting affidavit shall be served with the originating summons or the notice of application on every person on whom the originating summons or the notice of application is required to be served.
subsection
(5) An order for the discovery of documents before the commencement of proceedings or for the discovery of documents by a person who is not a party to the proceedings may be made by the Court for the purpose of or with a view to identifying possible parties to any proceedings in such circumstances where the Court thinks it just to make such an order, and on such terms as it thinks just.
subsection
(6) An order for the discovery of documents may—
a
(a) be made conditional on the applicant giving security for the costs of the person against whom it is made or on such other terms, if any, as the Court thinks just; and
b
(b) require the person against whom the order is made to make an affidavit stating whether the documents specified or described in the order are, or at any time have been, in his possession, custody or power and, if not then in his possession, custody or power, when he parted with them and what has become of them. [8] Prinsip undang-undang bagi permohonan penzahiran telah dijelaskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes Yekambaran s/o Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Berhad [1994] 2 CLJ 581 (Yekambaran): "The essential elements for an order for discovery are threefold; namely, first there must be a "document", secondly, the document must be "relevant" and thirdly, the document must be or have been in the "possession, custody or power" of the party against whom the order for discovery is sought. It is indisputable, that the items of which discovery is sought are documents and that they are in the possession, custody or power of the defendant and nothing more need be said about this. As to "relevance", our Rules of the High Court limit discovery to documents which are "relevant to" or "relate" to the factual issues in dispute". [9] Dokumen-dokumen yang dipohon untuk dizahirkan hendaklah dibuktikan bukan hanya atas dasar relevan tetapi perlu (necessary) di peringkat ini sebagaimana kehendak dalam peruntukan Aturan 24 Kaedah 8 KKM 2012 [TAB 4 IAD] seperti berikut: "On the hearing of an application for an order under rule 3, 7 or 7A, the Court, if satisfied that discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the cause or matter, may dismiss or adjourn the application and shall in any case refuse to make such an order if and so far, as it is of the opinion that discovery is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs." [10] Mahkamah dirujuk kepada kes Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Other Applications [2004] SGHC 155 di mana Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa: "The ultimate test is whether discovery is necessary for disposing fairly of the proceedings or for saving costs. An assertion that the documents are relevant will not be good enough. Equally, an assertion that the documents are necessary because they are relevant will not be enough." [11] Berdasarkan prinsip dalam kes-kes yang dirujuk di atas, adalah jelas bahawa penzahiran hanya akan dibenarkan sekiranya kesemua elemen-elemen seperti berikut dipenuhi:-
section
11. 1. Dokumen yang dipohon hendaklah relevan. "Relevancy" hendaklah ditentukan berdasarkan fakta yang dipertikaikan dan rujukan kepada pliding. Penegasan bahawa dokumen tersebut adalah relevan tidak mencukupi kerana ujian sebenar (the true test) adalah sama ada penzahiran dokumen tersebut adalah diperlukan untuk melupuskan prosiding ini secara adil dan menjimatkan kos. Plaintif perlu membuktikan bahawa sesuatu dokumen itu bukan sahaja relevan tetapi diperlukan di sesuatu peringkat tersebut.
section
11. 2. Dokumen yang dipohon hendaklah dikenal pasti secara spesifik untuk mengelakkan permohonan ini sebagai "fishing expedition". Apabila dokumen yang dipohon adalah secara am dan tidak dikenal pasti secara spesifik, ia amat sukar untuk membuktikan bahawa penzahiran tersebut adalah diperlukan untuk melupuskan prosiding secara adil dan menjimatkan kos.
section
11. 3 Dokumen yang dipohon berada dalam milikan atau jagaan pihak yang diminta. Sesuatu dokumen yang dipohon oleh Plaintif hendaklah wujud dan berada dalam milikan dan jagaan pihak yang lain. Adalah tidak wajar untuk Plaintif mendesak pihak yang lain untuk membekalkan dokumen yang tidak wujud / tiada dalam milikan atau jagaan pihak tersebut. [12] Prinsip-prinsip di bawah Aturan 24 Kaedah 7A ini telah diperjelaskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Infoline Sdn Bhd (sued as trustee of Tee Keong Family Trust) v Benjamin Lim Keong Hoe [2017] 6 MLJ 363, di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah menyatakan seperti berikut: [12] O 24 r 7A is a new provision inserted under the Rules of Court 2012. Under the old regime of the Rules of the High Court 1980, any person wishing to seek or obtain discovery or disclosure of documents prior to the initiation of action could only do so under the principles established in the House of Lords' decision in Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1973] 2 All ER 943; [1974] AC 133. Up until then, the courts did not order discovery against a person who is not a party to any proceedings, save at the trial and generally under pain of a subpoena duces tecum for the person in whose possession, custody or control the documents are with, to attend court as a witness and to produce such documents relevant to the proceedings. In Norwich Pharmacal Co emanated the principle that discovery may be ordered against defendants who are themselves not the wrongdoers but have somehow 'got mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrongdoing although through no fault of his own he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who had been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers'. And, even then, the action was instituted specifically to obtain discovery against the respondent there who were not themselves wrongdoers. [13] O 24 r 7A is new specific provision enabling discovery in two situations. In the first scenario, discovery is sought prior to the commencement of action whereas in the second, it is sought after commencement of proceedings but against a non-party. The application for pre-action discovery is by means of an originating summons whereas in the latter, it is by means of a notice of application. [14] In summary, O 24 r 7A(3) requires an applicant seeking discovery of documents before action to: (a)state the material facts pertaining to the intended proceedings;
b
(b)state whether the person against whom the order is sought is likely to be a party in the subsequent proceedings in the High Court;
c
(c)specify or describe the documents sought and show that the documents are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise out of the claim made or likely to be made; and
d
(d)identify the persons against whom the order is sought is likely to have or had the documents in his possession, custody or power. ... [40] In the exercise of discretion, the court has to bear in mind not only the mandatory requirements of r 7A, but also to have regard to the provisions of O 24 r 8. Order 24 r 8 states: 8 On the hearing of an application for an order under rule 3, 7 or 7A, the Court, if satisfied that discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the cause or matter, may dismiss or adjourn the application and shall in any case refuse to make [2017] 6 MLJ 363 at 380such an order if and so far as it is of the opinion that discovery is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. [41] This test of necessity for the fair disposal of the cause or matter or for the saving of costs pervades the operation of O 24, whether under the old or new procedural regime. Order 24 r 8 is an existing provision under the previous Rules of the High Court 1980, incorporated now under the new Rules of Court 2012 to include r 7A. The same requirements can also be found in O 24 r 13 on the production and inspection of documents. In Faber Merlin Malaysia Bhd v Ban Guan Sdn Bhd [1981] 1 MLJ 105, a decision under the old O 24 r 13, the Federal Court held that where these conditions are met, and where the documents are relevant, then the documents which are in the defendant's possession must be produced notwithstanding 'the tens of thousands' of them. [42] Therefore, in exercising discretion whether to grant discovery of specified or described documents in the possession, custody or power of the appellant, the respondent must satisfy the court that discovery of the same before filing of action against the appellant is indeed necessary, necessary at the particular stage of the application, and that is necessary because the order of discovery will allow for the fair disposal of the cause or matter or that it will lead to a saving of costs. The respondent must show that the discovery is necessarily required even before an action is initiated as it is precisely to enable the respondent to decide whether he can even commence action against the appellant in particular, to start with. And, if the information revealed from that discovery can determine or assist in reaching an answer to that predicament, then the order ought to be made. Such an approach is not only fair but sensible and practical as it can obviously avoid unnecessary litigation thus saving costs and preventing wastage of time and resources which is what pre-action discovery seeks to achieve. Where the court is of the opinion that the applicant is unable to satisfy these conditions, certainly the court must dismiss the application as is apparent from the terms of r 8." DAPATAN [13] Mahkamah mendapati pertikaian utama kini tertumpu kepada Perjanjian Pembekalan Sistem Tukar Milik Sementara dan eSerahan Tukar Milik antara Kerajaan Malaysia dan eAuto Sdn. Bhd. bertarikh 13 Oktober 2023 ("Perjanjian GOM"). [14] Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga dalam hujahannya menyatakan Perjanjian GOM adalah relevan dan diperlukan untuk membuktikan pembelaan Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga. Berdasarkan Pernyataan Pembelaan Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga Terpinda bertarikh 8 Januari 2025, Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga telah memplidkan, antara lain, bahawa:- i) Transaksi tukar milik kenderaan dengan nombor pendaftaran Y128 tersebut telah dilakukan melalui Sistem Tukar Milik Sementara ("STMS") dan eSerahan Tukar Milik ("eSTM) yang dikendalikan dan diselenggara oleh Syarikat eAuto Sdn. Bhd. (No. Pendaftaran: 200401038456 (676967-T) (selepas ini disebut sebagai "eAuto"); ii) Syarikat eAuto adalah syarikat yang telah dilantik oleh Kerajaan Malaysia untuk membangunkan, mengendalikan dan menyelenggara sistem STMS dan eSTM; iii) Selaras dengan perjanjian antara Kerajaan Malaysia dan Syarikat eAuto, Syarikat eAuto adalah bertanggungjawab keseluruhannya dalam memastikan 'Standard Operating Procedure' transaksi tukar milik sementara kenderaan dipatuhi dan kesemua dokumen yang perlu dimuatnaik oleh Used Car Dealer adalah lengkap dan teratur. Secara alternatifnya, Kerajaan Malaysia berhak untuk ditanggungrugi oleh Syarikat eAuto sekiranya didapati terdapat kecuaian atau ketinggalan. [15] Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga telah memplidkan bahawa Syarikat eAuto mempunyai tanggungjawab kontrak sepenuhnya ke atas sistem tersebut dan Kerajaan berhak untuk ditanggung rugi oleh Syarikat eAuto sekiranya terdapat kecuaian. [16] Perjanjian GOM adalah asas (foundation) kepada pembelaan ini.
section
16. 1. Perjanjian GOM ini menetapkan skop tugas dan liabiliti Syarikat eAuto yang berkaitan secara langsung dengan transaksi tukar milik kenderaan tersebut yang dicabar oleh Plaintif.
section
16. 2 Perjanjian GOM ini adalah perlu untuk membuktikan bahawa sememangnya terdapat hubung kait antara Kerajaan Malaysia dengan Syarikat eAuto, di samping menunjukkan bahawa transaksi pertukaran kereta yang menjadi subjek pertikaitan adalah dikendalikan oleh Syarikat eAuto. [17] Dokumen-dokumen yang dipohon telah dikenal pasti secara spesifik dan permohonan ini bukan "fishing expedition". Penzahiran ini bukan satu cubaan mencari bukti secara rawak. Dokumen yang dipohon adalah spesifik iaitu Perjanjian GOM bertarikh 13.10.2023 dan berkaitan secara langsung dengan Sistem Tukar Milik Sementara (STMS) dan eSerahan Tukar Milik (eSTM) yang menjadi subjek pertikaian dalam transaksi kenderaan Y128. [18] Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan bahawa, Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga telah memohon sesuatu dokumen yang spesifik di mana butiran-butiran dokumen tersebut adalah di dalam pengetahun Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga. Perjanjian GOM yang dipohon berada dalam milikan atau jagaan pihak eAuto 4.3.1. Afidavit Jawapan eAuto tidak menafikan bahawa eAuto adalah pihak kepada Perjanjian GOM tersebut, dan Afidavit Jawapan eAuto juga tidak menafikan mempunyai milikan serta jagaan ke atas Perjanjian GOM tersebut. [19] Mahkamah mendapati walaupun Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga memiliki salinan Perjanjian GOM tersebut, namun Klausa 29 Perjanjian GOM menghalang pendedahan kepada pihak ketiga tanpa persetujuan bertulis atau perintah undang-undang. Memandangkan pihak eAuto enggan memberikan persetujuan bertulis secara rasmi melalui suratmenyurat sebelum ini, perintah penzahiran di bawah Aturan 24 Kaedah 7A adalah satu-satunya jalan undangundang (sole legal recourse) bagi Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga untuk menggunakan bukti material ini secara sah dalam perbicaraan kes ini tanpa melanggar obligasi kerahsiaan kontrak. [20] Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga membuat permohonan di kandungan 39 bagi suatu Pengecualian Kerahsiaan di bawah Klausa 29.1(c) Perjanjian GOM . Pihak eAuto telah membantah penzahiran atas alasan klausa kerahsiaan dalam Perjanjian GOM. Walau bagaimanapun, klausa 29.1(c) Perjanjian GOM itu sendiri secara nyata membenarkan pendedahan maklumat sekiranya ia “diperlukan oleh undang-undang” (required by law). [21] Mahkamah bersetuju Perjanjian GOM ini boleh didedahkan mengikut keperluan undang-undang, dan bahawa perintah penzahiran oleh Mahkamah merupakan tuntutan undang-undang yang mengatasi obligasi kerahsiaan am, sekaligus melindungi kedua-dua pihak daripada sebarang dakwaan pelanggaran kontrak. [22] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa klausa kerahsiaan tidak memberikan suatu "absolute privilege" kepada mana-mana pihak untuk menahan penzahiran dokumen tersebut sekiranya dokumen berkenaan adalah relevan dan perlu bagi pelupusan kes secara adil. Lagipun Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga tidak mempunyai niat mala fide untuk mendedahkan maklumat kepada umum. Sebaliknya, sebarang kebimbangan yang dibangkitkan oleh Syarikat eAuto berhubung rahsia perdagangan atau integriti sistem boleh ditangani secara efektif melalui mekanisme perlindungan yang bersesuaian, antaranya melaluu Penzahiran terhad (limited disclosure) kepada peguam dan pihak-pihak dalam prosiding sahaja dan/atau penggelapan (redaction) ke atas bahagian maklumat teknikal yang sensitif tetapi tidak berkaitan dengan isu liabiliti. [23] Mahkamah membenarkan penzahiran dokumen yang dipohon, perintah tersebut adalah tertakluk kepada syarat-syarat perlindungan berikut: - penzahiran dihadkan kepada peguam-peguam yang mewakili pihak-pihak; dan/atau - penggelapan terhadap mana-mana maklumat sensitif yang tidak berkaitan dengan isu pertikaian dalam tindakan ini. [24] Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa menjadi kepentingan awam untuk memastikan proses pengadilan dilaksanakan secara telus, terutamanya melibatkan sistem pentadbiran Kerajaan yang melibatkan harta rakyat. Keterangan lisan daripada saksi Syarikat eAuto tidak boleh menggantikan terma bertulis Perjanjian GOM yang menetapkan skop tanggungjawab dan hak ganti rugi. Menurut prinsip Best Evidence Rule, dokumen asal/rasmi adalah bukti terbaik bagi melupuskan prosiding secara adil. [25] Mahkamah dirujuk kepada kes UEM Group Bhd v. Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2010] 9 CLJ 785, di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menyatakan seperti berikut: [36] It is fundamental that it is the requirement of the best evidence rule that the maker of a document must be called to prove it. (Allied Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v. Yau Fiok Hua [1998] 2 CLJ 33). Further s. 73A of the Evidence Act states that in civil proceedings, the maker must be called as a witness in order to render it admissible in evidence." KESIMPULAN [26] Mahkamah setelah meneliti Notis permohonan dan hujahan kedua pihak bersetuju untuk membenarkan permohonan Penzahiran dokumen. Mahkamah berpendapat penzahiran dokumen ini adalah relevan bagi memastikan Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga dapat membentangkan pembelaan mereka dan memastikan kes ini dilupuskan secara adil. Ketiadaan dokumen ini akan mengakibatkan prejudis kepada pembelaan Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga Bertarikh 3 July 2026 HJ EFFANDI NAZILA BIN HJ ABDULLAH Hakim Sesyen
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.