Rahmah Bee Binti O Katti Mohamad v Etika Majujaya Sdn Bhd (BA-12A-5-02/2023)

RAHMAH BEE BINTI O KATTI MOHAMAD (No. K/P: 681028-02-5864)

SALINA BINTI SHAHABUDIN (kedua-duaya dituntut sebagai rakan kongsi firma guaman Tetuan Rahmah Mohamad & Associates) …PERAYU-PERAYU DAN ETIKA MAJUJAYA SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1241490-T) …RESPONDEN [DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN WRIT NO: BA-B52-71-09/2019 ANTARA ETIKA MAJUJAYA SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1241490-T) …PLAINTIF

RAHMAH BEE BINTI O KATTI MOHAMAD (No. K/P: 681028-02-5864)

SALINA BINTI SHAHABUDIN (kedua-duaya dituntut sebagai rakan kongsi firma guaman Tetuan Rahmah Mohamad & Associates) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN] GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT [1] This was an appeal by the Appellants/Defendants against an interlocutory order of the Sessions Court that allowed the Respondent/Plaintiff’s application for discovery of documents. I dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000.00 and set out my reasons here. The parties are referred to as they are known in the Sessions Court. [2] The underlying suit by the Plaintiff is for the refund of a stakeholder sum of RM900,000.00 held by the Defendants as the vendor’s solicitors in a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) of a property. According to the Plaintiff, the sale was fraudulent. In the course of the conveyance, the Plaintiff discovered a Registrar’s Caveat registered by the vendor, Teoh Chin Eng, who claimed that he never signed the SPA. [3] The Defendants refused to return the stakeholder sum, claiming that the transaction is still afoot and that the claim for the refund of the stakeholder sum is pre-mature. The Defendants say nothing about their alleged client, despite the Plaintiff’s plea that the real Teoh Chin Eng had turned up at the purchaser’s solicitor’s office to prove his identity and title. [4] The Sessions Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application for discovery of documents that show the existence of the RM900,000.00 stakeholder sum in the client account of Messrs Rahmat Mohamad & Associates (“RMA’s Client Account”) or, as the case may be, documents that show when the sum was withdrawn from RMA’s Client Account and to whom it was paid (“Documents”). [5] The Defendants contend that the Documents are irrelevant because the whereabouts of the RM900,000.00 is not a pleaded issue and that its determination is irrelevant to the matter in issue between the parties, which is whether the sum ought to be released to the Plaintiff. [6] Based on the provisions of Order 24 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“RC”), the documents which a party may be ordered to discover include documents which could adversely affect his own case, adversely affect another party’s case or support another party’s case. Further Order 24 Rule 13 of the RC contains an overriding qualification that the Court must be of the opinion that an order for production is necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. [7] In answer to the Defendants’ contention that the Documents are irrelevant, Yekambaran s/o Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Bhd [1994] 2 CLJ 581, makes the following clear: “…the discovery obligation applies to documents “relating to matters in question in the action” [Rules of High Court, Order 24, r. 1(1)] or “relating to any matter in question in the cause or matter” [Order 24, r.3(1)]. In practice, relevance is primarily determined by reference to the pleadings but there need not be pleading for a matter to be said to be in issue.” [8] In this case, this Court considers the Documents to be relevant and necessary for disposing fairly of the matter and for saving costs seeing that it is intended to prove the continued existence of the subject matter of the claim. More than that, disclosure of the Documents is materially relevant to the credibility of the Defence. The Defendants’ silence on the whereabouts of the stakeholder sum in the pleaded Defence and refusal to produce the Documents in the circumstances of this case is deafening. [9] The orders of the Sessions Court were therefore affirmed, except that the Documents were ordered to be produced within seven (7) days from the date of my Order. I further cautioned counsel that there should be no further delays in the disposal of the substantive claim in the Sessions Court. Bertarikh : 23 Disember 2024 ELAINE YAP CHIN GAIK PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM Peguam Untuk Perayu-Perayu : Aqbal Shiffuddin b Adnan Sallehudin, Messrs Nazri Awang & Associates (Kota Bharu) Untuk Responden : Nalani a/p Murugiah, Messrs Thangaraj & Assoc.