Perbadanan Pengurusan Sri Kayangan v 1. ) Saiful Azli Bin Mokhtar (WA-A52NCvC-793-10/2023)

1.

SAIFUL AZLI BIN MOKHTAR [NO. K/P: 770106-08-6879] NORASIKIN BINTI OTHMAN [NO. K/P: 760910-14-6092] (Sebagai pemilik dan rakan kongsi yang berniaga Di bawah nama dan gaya Maju R Ten Enterprise [No. Pendaftaran: 002557975-T]) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN A.

Plaintif telah memulakan tindakan guaman ini ke atas Defendan-Defendan dengan memfailkan writ saman dan pernyataan tuntutan bertarikh 4.10.2023.

Defendan telah memasukkan kehadiran pada 19.10.2023 dan memfailkan pernyataan pembelaan beserta tuntutan balas terhadap Plaintif bertarikh 24.11.2023.

Beberapa pengurusan kes telah dijalankan dengan kehadiran pihak-pihak secara e-review. Pada 4.8.2025, melalui pengurusan kes secara e-review mahkamah ini telah memberikan arahan untuk pihak-pihak memfailkan pernyataan saksi pada atau sebelum 4.9.2025.

Kes ini telah ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan pada 24 sehingga 26 September

Pada hari perbicaraan yang ditetapkan pada 24.9.2025, sebelum perbicaraan dimulakan, peguamcara Plaintif telah membangkitkan bantahan awalan berkenaan ketidakpatuhan arahan pre-trial case management (PTCM) oleh Defendan-Defendan yang mana Defendan- 12/01/2026 12:04:41 WA-A52NCvC-793-10/2023 Kand. 53 Defendan telah gagal menyerahkan dan/atau memfailkan penyata saksi Defendan-Defendan pada atau sebelum 4.9.2025.

Peguamcara Plaintif juga menyatakan telah memberikan notis kepada peguamcara Defendan-Defendan atas ketidakpatuhan ini sebelum perbicaraan ini. Namun, tiada maklum balas diterima.

Selanjutnya hanya pada pagi perbicaraan pada 24.9.2025 peguamcara Defendan-Defendan mengemukakan salinan penyata saksi kepada peguamcara Plaintif.

Tindakan kelewatan serahan penyata saksi oleh peguamcara Defendan-Defendan ini telah memprejudiskan Plaintif dalam penyediaan perbicaraan tuntutan utama plaintif dan tuntutan balas oleh Defendan-Defendan terhadap Plaintif. Plaintif juga tidak diberi kesempatan dan masa yang mencukupi untuk menyemak kandungan penyata saksi dan membuat persediaan dengan saksi-saksinya.

Atas perkara ini, Plaintif memohon kepada mahkamah ini untuk menggunapakai A.34 K.2 (3) KKM 2012 bagi membatalkan pembelaan dan tuntutan balas Defendan serta membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif.

Plaintif merujuk kepada kes DIONG HIEW KING @ TIONG HIEW KING v. LAU SWEE NGUONG @ LAU SUI GUANG [2012] CLJU 1086, [2012] 1 LNS 1086, [2014] 8 MLJ 575 yang memutuskan seperti berikut: “Decision of the court in striking out the defendant's Defence On 10 August 2012, during the case management of the plaintiff's action, upon the failure of the defendant to comply with the direction of the court given on 21 June 2012 to file and exchange his witness statement with the witness statements of the plaintiff, the court struck out the defendant's Defence. The court entered judgment on the issue of liability in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. ….. Being dissatisfied with the said decision the defendant has filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal against the said decision. Below are the reasons why the court made the said decision. The court agreed with and accepted the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the failure of the defendant to comply with the direction of the court given on 21 June 2012 constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The reasons are, firstly, it had obstructed the smooth administration of justice by the court in respect of the plaintiff's action. Secondly, it has caused the bona fides of the defendant's Defence to the plaintiff's claim as set out in his Defence to be highly questionable. Thirdly, the court was of the impression that the defendant was not really sincere in defending the plaintiff's claim. The defendant could not show any reason for his non-compliance of the previous direction of the court to file and exchange his witness statement with the learned counsel for the plaintiff on or before 27 July 2012 let alone a good reason. ….. Order 34 of the RC 2012 contains elaborate provisions for pre-trial case management which are in essence similar to Order 34 of the RHC 1980. Rule 1(1) of the Order confers power and discretion on the court to make orders and give directions, at any time after the commencement of proceedings for their just, expeditious and economical disposal. Where any party fails to comply with any order made or direction given by the court under Rule 1(1) of the Order, then rule 1(3) of the Order empowers the court to, inter alia, strike out the defence or make such other order as it thinks fit. Rule 2 of the Order deals with pre-trial case management which is directed by the court. It encompasses a very wide range of matters which the court can consider including the appropriate orders and directions that should be made by the court to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the action or proceedings. In my view this provision applies to the instant case. Rule 2(3) of the Order confers discretion on the court to, inter alia, strike out the defence or enter judgment or make such order as it thinks fit. The rule reads as follows: "(3) The Court, having given directions under rule 2(2) or rule 3 may either on its own motion or upon the application of any party, if any party defaults in complying with any such directions, dismiss such action or proceedings or strike out the defence or counterclaim or enter judgment or make such order as it thinks fit."

Peguamcara Defendan dalam menjawab bantahan awalan ini menyatakan bahawa kelewatannya memfailkan penyata saksi ini kerana pada awalnya Defendan berniat untuk memanggil 3 orang saksi. Namun setelah meneliti semula Defendan-Defendan tidak perlu memanggil 3 saksi dan cukup hanya memanggil 1 saksi iaitu Defendan Pertama sahaja. Peguamcara Defendan-Defendan mengatakan kelewatan ini bukan disengajakan dan keputusan Defendan-Defendan untuk mengemukakan hanya dengan 1 saksi boleh menjimatkan masa pihak-pihak dalam perbicaraan ini dan Plaintif tidak diprejudiskan dalam tindakan ini.

Plaintif selanjutnya menghujahkan bahawa alasan peguamcara Defendan-Defendan berkenaan untuk memanggil 3 atau 1 saksi tidak munasabah. Defendan-Defendan tidak langsung mempunya courtesy untuk memohon lanjutan masa jika diperlukan dan berkomunikasi dengan pihak-pihak untuk tidak melengahkan prosiding ini. Defendan-Defendan gagal berbuat demikian. Apa yang berlaku peguamcara Defendan-Defendan hanya memberikan penyata saksi kepada pihak Plaintif pada pagi perbicaraan ini sahaja. Ini adalah jelas kegagalan peguamcara Defendan-Defendan untuk mematuhi arahan PTCM yang telah diberikan oleh mahkamah ini dan mewajarkan budi bicara mahkamah ini untuk menggunapakai peruntukan di bawah A.34 K.2(3) KKM 2012.

ATURAN 34 KAEDAH 2 (3) KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH 2012 Mahkamah ini merujuk A.34 K.2 (3) KKM 2012 yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “2. Pre-trial case management when directed by the Court (O. 34 r. 2)

The Court, having given directions under rule 2(2) or rule 3 may either on its own motion or upon the application of any party, if any party defaults in complying with any such directions, dismiss such action or proceedings or strike out the defence or counterclaim or enter judgment or make such order as it thinks fit.”

Mahkamah ini juga merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes DIONG HIEW KING @ TIONG HIEW KING v. LAU SWEE NGUONG @ LAU SUI GUANG [2012] CLJU 1086, [2012] 1 LNS 1086, [2014] 8 MLJ 575, memutuskan seperti berikut: “It is trite law that a counsel has three duties. The first duty which a counsel owes is to the court. I understand this duty to mean that a counsel must assist the court in the expeditious, just and economical administration of justice by the court which encompasses the compliance with all directions given by the court unless there is good reason shown. Rule 12 of the LP (P & E) Rules 1978 expressly provides that an advocate and solicitor shall not conduct a civil case or make a defence which is intended merely to delay proceedings or to harass or injure the opposite party or to work oppression or wrong. The second duty which a counsel owes is to his profession. It means that he must conduct himself in an appropriate manner when handling a case before the court so as to uphold the dignity and high standing of his profession. This is clearly provided in rule 31 of the LP (P & E) Rules

The third duty which a counsel owes is to his client. It means that a counsel must fearlessly uphold the interest of his client. In other words, he must present his client's case in the best possible light before the court with all due courtesy to the court. This is expressly provided in rule 16 of the LP (P & E) Rules 1978. In the instant case since the new counsel ie Mr. Micheal Chow has agreed to take over the brief from the previous counsel ie Mr. Ahmad Moodeen without the preparation and filing and exchange of the defendant's witness statement with that of the plaintiff by the previous counsel on record then he (Michael Chow) must make sure that he is able to comply with the court's directions and to carry them out before or on 27 July 2012. Otherwise he ought not to have agreed to take over the brief. In my view, Rule 6(a) of the LP (P & E) Rules 1978 is applicable here as well. I have construed it to mean that an advocate and solicitor shall not accept any brief unless he is able to comply with the directions given by the court in regard to the pre-trial case management of the case. In my view, the delay and failure on the part of the defendant to comply with the court's directions has prejudiced the plaintiff and this prejudice cannot be compensated by an order for costs. The plaintiff's learned counsel has duly complied with the court's directions and has prepared the witness statements of the plaintiff's 6 witnesses. She is ready to exchange it with the defendant's one witness statement. She is ready to proceed with the conduct of the plaintiff's case during the full trial. In view of the reasons as set out above, the court is of the view that the said decision is just and fair to both parties and was within the discretion of the court to make pursuant to Order 34 rule 2(3) of the RC 2012.”

Mahkamah ini mendapati berdasarkan rekod, peguamcara Defendan-Defendan sepatutnya memfailkan pernyataan saksi pada atau sebelum 4.9.2025. Namun, serahan penyata saksi kepada Plaintif hanya dibuat pada hari perbicaraan hari ini. Semakan mahkamah ini mendapati pemfailan penyata saksi Defendan didalam EFS juga baru dibuat awal pagi hari ini. Keadaan ini telah memprejudiskan Plaintif. Alasan yang diberikan oleh peguamcara Defendan-Defendan tidak munasabah kerana sejak dari awal Defendan-Defendan sepatutnya sudah bersedia dan merancang untuk menentukan bilangan saksi yang akan dipanggil semasa perbicaraan. Jika sekalipun jumlah bilangan saksi dikurangkan ianya tidak menghalang Defendan-Defendan untuk memfailkan penyata saksi sejak awal dan mematuhi arahan PTCM yang diberikan.

Selanjutnya mahkamah ini juga merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BHD v. BEST RE (L) LTD [2018] 2 CLJ 431, Khadijah Idris PK memutuskan yang berikut: “[45] The reasons given for not filing the witness statement on 4 April 2016 is simply unacceptable. The defendant's solicitor, although fully aware that they were in breach for not filing the witness statement on 4 April 2017 and served with an application by the plaintiff to have their defence strike out for such breach was content to only file an affidavit resisting the plaintiff's application without taking any step to rectify their breach, at least by filing an application, on urgency basis, to extend the time to file the witness statement. [46] The defendant's conduct under such a situation, and the previous failure to comply with the court directions, to my mind, display a nonchalant attitude of the defendant's solicitor towards the court directions. The court was prepared to allow the defendant space and opportunity when they failed to comply with the directions made on 2 March 2017 and 13 March 2017. Having given the opportunity to redeem itself, the defendant ought to be vigilant in the manner how they manage their case. However, this is not to be. Having considered the defendant's latest breach and their conduct in relation to complying with the direction to file the witness statement, I am constrained to construe such conduct as intentional and contumelious. Such conduct has cast serious doubt on the defendant's sincerity to discharge its duty to assist the court in the expeditious, just and economical disposal of the writ action. [47] At the risk of repetition, whether to invoke O. 34 r. 2(3) of the ROC 2012 is a question of facts. In the instant case, premised on the facts and reasons stated above it is my considered opinion that the defendant has deliberately disregarded the court directions contumeliously and intentionally. As such, I took the stand that it is appropriate for the court to invoke O. 34 r. 2(3) of the ROC 2012. Such order may be drastic but it is crucially necessary to ensure the underlying objective of a robust case management system which does not easily tolerate lax enforcement of case management directions (How Hock Sing v. Lee Say Peng & Ors [2015] 9 CLJ 368). I therefore allowed the plaintiff's application encl. 59 and ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff for the sum claimed as stated in the amended statement of claim with interest and costs.”

Tiada pada bila-bila masa peguamcara Defendan-Defendan memohon lanjutan masa bagi memfailkan penyata saksi. Kegagalan Peguamcara Defendan-Defendan mematuhi arahan PTCM yang telah diberikan adalah suatu penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah dan menyebabkan perjalanan prosiding tidak dapat diteruskan dan berjalan dengan lancar sebagaimana yang telah dijadualkan. Atas kegagalan Defendan mematuhi arahan PTCM yang telah diberikan, Mahkamah dengan ini menggunapakai A.34 K.2(3) KKM 2012 dan otoriti di atas adalah dirujuk dan diikuti dengan ini membatalkan pembelaan dan tuntutan balas Defendan dan membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif dengan kos RM5K. [SITI FATIMAH BINTI TALIB] HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESYEN SIVIL 11 KUALA LUMPUR Bertarikh pada: 9.1.2026