Wong Mun Seng v Chen Kok Weng (BA-A74-136-08/2024)

Hanya pada April 2024, Defendan secara rasmi memaklumkan secara emel kepada Plaintif bahawa Plaintif telah disingkirkan sebagai penjamin. DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [10] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa ada pelanggaran kontrak oleh defendan di mana Perjanjian Jualan Saham ditandatangani pada 13 Julai 2023 namun penyingkiran nama plf sebagai pemegang saham hanya berlaku pada April 2024 dan tarikh Surat Jaminan Baharu ditandatangani dan disetemkan adalah pada 26 September 2024.

Tempoh masa hanya bermula selepas kelulusan SSM sepertimana dalam klausa 2.2 (c) Perjanjian Jualan Saham (SSA) yang jelas menyatakan tempoh 60 hari tersebut dari Tarikh perjanjian atau kelulusan SSM (yang mana terkemudian) sepertimana berikut:- Klausa 2.2 (c) Perjanjian Jualan Saham (SSA) menyatakan seperti berikut: “the Purchaser shall take all necessary steps to remove the Vendor as a guarantor for the Second Company and in this connection the Purchaser shall prepare, sign, execute, send and/or submit any correspondence, forms, applications and/or documents to all financiers under the Second Schedule within sixty (60) days from the date of this Agreement and upon the approval by Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (hereinafter referred to as “SSM”) to reflect the sale and transfer of the Sale Shares in respect of the Second Company (whichever is later) (“the Period”), failing which the Purchaser shall pay to the Vendor Ringgit Malaysia Ten Thousand (RM10,000.00) only per month as penalty (“Penalty”), subject to the failure for such removal is due to the negligence and/or fault and/or delay by the Purchaser within the time allotted;”

Justeru itu tempoh masa 60 hari bermula pada 21 Ogos 2023(tarikh kelulusan SSM) dan bukan 13 Julai 2023(Tarikh SSA ditandatangani) di mana tempoh masa 60 hari akan tamat pada 20 Oktober 2023.

Sungguhpun Defendan ada buat permohonan lanjutan masa sehingga Januari 2024 kepada Plaintif pada 6 Oktober 2023, sebelum tamat tempoh 20 Oktober 2023 tersebut namun tiada maklum balas dari Plaintif sama ada dibenarkan atau tidak. Tiada permohonan lanjutan masa lain dibuat Defendan selepas Oktober 2023.

Mahkamah merujuk prinsip dalam kes Cubic Electronics Sdn Bhd v Mars Telecommunications Sdn Bhd [2018] MLJU 1935 di mana kes tersebut menyatakan seperti berikut:- f. The initial onus lies on the party seeking to enforce a clause under section 75 of the Act to adduce evidence that firstly, there was a breach of contract and that secondly, the contract contains a clause specifying a sum to be paid upon breach. Once these two elements have been established, the innocent party is entitled to receive a sum not exceeding the amount stipulated in the contract irrespective of whether actual damage or loss is proven, subject always to the defaulting party proving the unreasonableness of the damages clause including the sum stated therein, if any. … [71] If there is a dispute as to what constitutes reasonable compensation, the burden of proof falls on the defaulting party to show that the damages clause is unreasonable or to demonstrate from available evidence and under such circumstances what comprises reasonable compensation caused by the breach of contract. Failing to discharge that burden, or in the absence of cogent evidence suggesting exorbitance or unconscionability of the agreed damages clause, the parties who have equality of opportunity for understanding and insisting upon their rights must be taken to have freely, deliberately and mutually consented to the contractual clause seeking to pre-allocate damages and hence the compensation stipulated in the contract ought to be upheld.

Tambahan lagi, fakta bahawa kedua-dua Plaintif dan Defendan adalah diwakili peguam sebelum SSA ditandatangani justeru Mahkamah merujuk kes Cubic yang menyatakan seperti berikut:- It bears repeating that the court should be slow to refuse to give effect to a damages clause for contracts which are the result of thorough negotiations made at arm’s length between parties who have been properly advised. The court ought to be alive to a defaulting promisor’s natural inclination to raise “unlikely illustrations” in argument to show substantial discrepancies between the sum due under the damages clause and the loss that might be sustained in the unlikely situations proposed by the promisor.

Mahkamah mendapati ada pelanggaran kontrak dibuat oleh Defendan terhadap Plf justeru peruntukan Seksyen 75 Akta Kontrak 1950 adalah terpakai dalam kes ini. Section 75 of the Contracts Act 1950 “When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for.”

Dalam kes ini, elemen bawah Seksyen 75 Akta Kontrak telah berjaya dibuktikan Plaintif iaitu pertamanya ada pelanggaran kontrak oleh Defendan di mana Defendan gagal berkomunikasi dengan Plaintif berkenaan permohonan lanjutan masa secara bertulis atas kelewatan penyingkiran nama Plaintif sebagai pemegang saham dan keduanya ada klausa caj penalti (Klausa 2.2(e)) dalam Perjanjian Jualan Saham bertarikh 13 Julai 2023 yang ditandatangani pihak-pihak. Klausa 2.2 (e) Perjanjian Jualan Saham (SSA) menyatakan seperti berikut: “pursuant to Clause 2.2(c) above, the Vendor shall allow an extension of time to the Purchaser in the event of any delay for removal is due to the financiers and/or any third party which is not at the fault of the Purchaser and such request for extension of time to be requested from the Purchaser shall be in writing, and the Vendor shall allow for the same without charging any penalty against the Purchaser (“Extended Period”);”

Caj penalti dikenakan adalah bermula November 2023 dan bukan Oktober

Justeru kiraan pada jadual di Saman Pemula Plaintif dikurangkan sebanyak RM10,000. KESIMPULAN [19] Oleh itu, Mahkamah membenarkan tuntutan Plaintif terhadap defendan sebanyak RM 50,000 dengan kos mengikut skala yang diperuntukan mengikut Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Bertarikh pada 12 Ogos 2025 ………………………T.T..…..………………… ZUR AZUREEN BINTI ZAINALKEFLI MAJISTRET Mahkamah Majistret Sivil (5) Shah Alam Selangor Darul Ehsan Peguamcara Plaintif: Tetuan Min. C Chambers. L-07-01, Level 7, Block L, Solaris Mont Kiara, No.2, Jalan Solaris Mont Kiara, 50480, Kuala Lumpur Peguamcara Defendan: Tetuan Ho Mogan & Nor'aini (Triang) No. 39 & 41, Tingkat Atas, Jalan Dagangan 8, Pusat Dagangan Triang, 28300 Triang, Pahang. (Ruj: 6000-5862)