Lampiran
Lampiran 14 dibenarkan, Mahkamah ini telah merujuk kepada dokumen- 62 dokumen yang telah dinyatakan di atas. 63 64 [7] Sehingga keputusan penghakiman terus, Lampiran 14 diberikan tiada 65 pembelaan yang difailkan oleh pihak Defendan di mana impaknya, 66 Mahkamah ini tidak berpeluang untuk mengetahui apakah pembelaan pihak 67 Defendan dalam kes ini. 68 69 Page 4 of 10 [8] Lampiran 14 telah difailkan di bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah 1(1) Kaedah-Kaedah 70 Mahkamah 2012 yang mana memperuntukkan: 71 72 “Application by plaintiff for summary judgment (O. 14 r. 1) “ 73 74 (1) Where in an action to which this rule applies a statement of claim has 75 been served on a defendant and that defendant has entered an appearance 76 in the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that the defendant has no 77 defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particular part of such a 78 claim, or has no defence to such a claim or part thereof except as to the 79 amount of any damages claimed, apply to the Court for judgment against 80 that defendant… 81 82 [9] Aturan 14 Kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 menyatakan seperti 83 berikut: 84 85 “2. Manner in which application under rule 1 shall be made (O. 14 r. 2) 86 87 (1) An application under rule 1 must be supported by an affidavit in Form 13 88 verifying the facts on which the claim, or the part of a claim, to which the 89 application relates is based and stating that in the deponent's belief there is 90 no defence to that claim or part, as the case may be, or no defence except 91 as to the amount of damages claimed. 92 93 Page 5 of 10 (2) Unless the Court otherwise directs, an affidavit for the purposes of this 94 rule may contain statements of information or belief with the sources and 95 grounds thereof. 96 97 (3) The notice of application, a copy of the affidavit in support and of any 98 exhibits referred to therein must be served on the defendant within fourteen 99 days from the date of receipt of the sealed notice of application by the 100 applicant. 101 102 (4) Order 32, rule 13(2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to all affidavits in 103 respect of an application under this rule.” 104 105 [10] Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kes tersohor yang mana telah menggariskan 106 prinsip asas dalam penghakiman terus iaitu National Company For Foreign 107 Trade v. Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 CLJ 283, Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah 108 Persekutuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: 109 110 ‘...we think it is appropriate to remind ourselves once again that in every 111 application under Order 14 the first consideration are (a) whether the case 112 comes within the Order and (b) whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the 113 preliminary requirements for proceeding under Order 14. For the purposes of 114 an application under Order 14, the preliminary requirements: 115 116 (i) The Statement of Claim must have been served on the Defendant; 117 (ii) The Defendant must have entered an appearance; 118 Page 6 of 10 (iii) The Affidavit in Support of the application must comply with the 119 requirement of Rule 2 of the Order 14.’ 120 121 [11] Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa Plaintif telah mematuhi keperluan di 122 bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah 2 seperti di dalam kes National Company for 123 Foreign Trade. Oleh yang demikian, Plaintif telah mewujudkan kes prima 124 facie terhadap Defendan dan beban adalah terhadap Defendan melalui 125 keterangan afidavit untuk menimbulkan dan/atau membuktikan terdapat 126 isu-isu bona fide yang perlu dibicarakan. 127 128 [12] Dalam menentukan samada Defendan telah membangkitkan isu bona fide 129 yang perlu dibicarakan, Mahkamah Agung di dalam kes Bank Negara 130 Malaysia v. Mohd. Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 14 telah membentangkan 131 pendekatan yang harus diambil seperti berikut: - 132 133 “Under an O. 14 application, the duty of a judge does not end as soon as a 134 fact is asserted by one party, and denied or disputed by the other in an 135 affidavit. Where such assertion, denial or disputed is equivocal, or lacking 136 in precision or is inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or 137 other statements by the same deponent, or is inherently improbable in 138 itself, then the judge has a duty to reject such assertion or denial, thereby 139 rendering the issue not triable. In our opinion, unless this principle is 140 adhered to, a judge is in no position to exercise his discretion judicially in 141 an Order 14 application. Thus, apart from identifying the issues of fact or 142 Page 7 of 10 law, the Court must go one step further and determine whether they are 143 triable.” 144 145 [13] Mahkamah ini seterusnya merujuk kepada dapatan kes UNP Plywood Sdn 146 Bhd v. HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd [2010] 5 CLJ 177 dimana Yang Arif-Yang Arif 147 Mahkamah Rayuan Putrajaya menyatakan seperti berikut:- 148 149 “[35] Summary judgment procedure is a procedural device available for 150 prompt and expeditious disposition of an action by a plaintiff or a 151 counterclaim by a defendant, without a trial when there is no dispute as to 152 the fact and law. In Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v. Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 CLJ 153 609, Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he was then) observed as follows: 154 155 The effect of Order 14 is to shut the defendant from having his day in the 156 witness box. It is a very special jurisdiction and is only to be invoked in cases 157 where there is no bona fide triable issues. On occasion like this it is 158 necessary to recall to mind the words of Judges more learned than I upon 159 the subject at hand. 160 161 [36] As to what are capable of being triable issues, Mohamed Dzaiddin J (as 162 he then was) in Syarikat Kerjasama Serbaguna Tunas Muda Sungai Ara v. 163 Ghazali bin Ibrahim [1985] 1 LNS 33 observed as follows: 164 165 The issue here is whether or not there is a triable defence. This simply 166 means that it is for the defendant to show on merits, he has a good defence 167 Page 8 of 10 to the claim, or that a difficult point of law is involved, or the dispute is as 168 to the fact which is to be tried or any other circumstances showing 169 reasonable ground of a bona fide defence. 170 171 [14] Mahkamah ini berpandangan tiada isu-isu bona fide yang perlu dibicarakan 172 berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan Afidavit Jawapan yang telah difailkan. 173 Tiada Pembelaan difailkan dalam kes ini oleh Defendan. 174 175 [15] Mahkamah ini juga berpandangan bahawa untuk sesuatu kes itu dibicarakan, 176 Defendan perlu membuktikan kepada Mahkamah bahawa Defendan 177 mempunyai pembelaan yang bermerit dan perlu dibicarakan. Dalam kes ini, 178 tiada Pembelaan yang difailkan. Hanya terdapat satu afidavit jawapan sahaja 179 yang difailkan bagi Lampiran 14 ini oleh pihak Defendan yang mana tidak 180 dapat menimbulkan isu-isu untuk dibicarakan. 181 182 [16] Selanjutnya, berdasarkan peruntukkan dan kes-kes yang dirujuk di atas 183 adalah didapati bahawa Penghakiman Terus dibenarkan kepada Plaintif 184 apabila Defendan gagal membuktikan sebarang isu-isu yang perlu 185 dibicarakan. 186 187 [17] Dalam kes ini, Mahkamah ini berpandangan isu-isu yang dibangkitkan oleh 188 Defendan di dalam afidavit yang difailkan tidak menunjukkan sebarang isu 189 yang boleh dipertikaikan melainkan penafian kosong semata-mata dan 190 alasan-alasan yang digunakan oleh Defendan adalah tidak kukuh untuk 191 menunjukkan kes ini perlu dibicarakan. 192 Page 9 of 10 [18] Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa Plaintif telah memenuhi ketiga-tiga 193 keperluan yang telah digariskan di dalam kes National Company For Foreign 194 Trade v. Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 CLJ 283 dan Defendan di dalam kes ini 195 telah gagal memfailkan pembelaan walaupun tempoh yang munasabah telah 196 diberikan. Tiada pembelaan yang difailkan dalam kes ini. 197 198 [19] Selain itu, Mahkamah ini juga menyatakan bahawa isu-isu yang ditimbulkan 199 oleh Defendan adalah tidak bermerit selain gagal untuk menimbulkan isu-isu 200 yang perlu dibicarakan. 201 202 D. KESIMPULAN 203 204 [20] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan Lampiran 14, iaitu 205 Permohonan Plaintif di bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah 1(1) Kaedah-Kaedah 206 Mahkamah 2012, iaitu permohonan Penghakiman Terus terhadap Defendan 207 dengan kos sebanyak RM 2,000. 208 209 210 Bertarikh: 28 April 2024 211 212 (SITI NOR HASLIZA BINTI MD ALI) 213 Majistret 214 Mahkamah Majistret Alor Setar 215 Kedah 216 Page 10 of 10 Pihak-pihak: 217 218 Bagi pihak Plaintif : Tetuan Jin-Nge & Co 219 Bagi pihak Defendan : Tetuan Abdul Hadi Ahmad & Associates 220 221