YASMEEN BINTI MOHAMMED YASIN (beramal dengan nama dan gaya Yasmeen Yasin & Co) v CHOONG EWE TENG (PA-12ANCvC-4-01/2024)

The Respondent had deposited an amount of RM350,000.00 in the name of the Appellant's law firm as a Stakeholder for the purpose of the purchase. During the course, the Respondent had signed some documents at the Appellant’s office, but the copy of the documents had not been given to the Respondent.

Later, in 2020, the Respondent found out that the Seller is a bankrupt, in which this fact had been omitted by the Appellant during the initial agreement and transaction in 2017.

The Respondent then sought for his payment of RM350,000-00 to be returned since the agreement with the Seller cannot be enforced without the sanction from the Director General of Insolvency.

Upon request from the Respondent’s solicitor, on 18.04.2023, the Respondent's solicitor received documents which include a document purporting to be Surat Pengesahan dan Akujanji dated 19.04.2018 (Letter) via email from the Appellant's solicitor. After examining the Letter closely, the Respondent found that there was a signature on the Letter claiming to be the Respondent’s signature.

The Respondent had no recollection of signing the Letter in the Appellant's office in 2017. Therefore, the Respondent makes an application to amend the Reply to the Statement of Defence to give a true explanation to the facts of the case. Appellant’s Contention [8] The Appellant contended that the reason given by the Respondent in the Affidavit in Support that the amendment is to incorporate the complete facts in the proposed amendment to Reply to Defence, was incomplete and an unreasonable explanation.

The Appellant submitted that there were several Case Managements held prior to the filing of Notice of Application to amend the Reply to Defence by the Respondent/Plaintiff. However, the Respondent/Plaintiff did not raise and/or state their intention to amend their Reply to Defence in the Court during these Case Managements.

The Appellant also submitted that the Respondent had failed to explain the Respondent's delay in filing the Notice of Application to amend their Reply to Defence in the Respondent's Affidavit in Support.

The Appellant further contended that the Respondent retracted an admission in the proposed amendment to Reply to the Defence

The Appellant also contended that the Respondent's reason stating that the Respondent did not have the knowledge of the content of the document signed and the Appellant did not provide the documents at the material time was baseless. The Appellant further contended that the Respondent had access to the documents referred by the Appellant in their Defence before the Respondent filed the Reply to Defence.

The Appellant submitted that the proposed amendment to the Reply to Defence by the Respondent is mala fide and prejudices the Appellant.

The Appellant then contended that the proposed amendment has an element of forgery. However, the proposed amendment was mala fide and afterthought since the Respondent failed to plead and raise the elements of forgery in their Statement of Claim stating that the Respondent should amend the Statement of Claim rather than amending the Reply to Defence.

The Appellant further argued that the Respondent's Affidavit in Support cannot be considered because the facts deposited by the deponent were not of his own knowledge as the Respondent's solicitor. Respondent’s Contention [16] The Respondent submitted that the Respondent’s application is bona fide as the Respondent only discovered that the signature was not his after having a second and closer look of the Letter. The Respondent Page 5 of 10 then filed this necessary amendment to correct the actual fact concerning the Letter.

The Respondent contended that there is no inordinate delay in filing the amendment application since the case is not yet fixed for trial as a general principle, amendment can be made at any stage of the proceedings. The Respondent further contended that the application is not prejudicial to the Appellant and that the Appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain what prejudice she has actually suffered as mere contention that the application is an attempt to frustrate the Appellant’s Defence is inadequate to prove prejudice as held by the Court of Appeal in China Orient Asset Management Corporation v. Alexma Corporration Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 MLRA.

The Respondent further contended that the Respondent’s proposed amendment arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as a cause of action in respect of which relief has already been claimed in the original statement of claim.

Finally, the Respondent contended that the learned Sessions Court Judge has applied the law correctly in allowing the Respondent’s application to amend the Reply to the Statement of Defence. Decision of the Sessions Court Judge [20] The Learned Sessions Court Judge allowed the Appellant’s application with the following findings-

Di dalam kes ini, pihak Defendan telah menyatakan bahawa di dalam pindaan Plaintif tersebut Plaintif telah menarik balik pengakuannya di dalam pindaan tersebut dan juga terdapatnya Page 6 of 10 unsur pemalsuan (fraud) terhadap Defendan. Oleh kerana itu permohonan ini tidak seharusnya dibenarkan kerana ia telah mengubah ciri-ciri tuntutan Plaintif.

Setelah meneliti dengan cermat isi kandungan pindaan tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati pihak Plaintif tidak menarik apa-apa pengakuannya di mana Plaintif memang pergi ke pejabat Defendan untuk menandatangani beberapa dokumen dan Plaintif hanya menafikan telah menandatangani Surat Pengesahan dan Akujanji bertarikh 19.04.2018.

Oleh itu Mahkamah berpendapat pindaan tersebut tidak mengubah ciri-ciri tuntutan Plaintif melalui pindaan tersebut malah ianya adalah berlandaskan fakta yang sama seperti yang diplidkan di dalam pliding asal (it arises out of the same facts as pleaded in original pleadings).

Mahkamah juga berpendapat pindaan tersebut juga tidak memprejudiskan Defendan di dalam tindakan ini

Pendek kata, permohonan Plaintif ini wajar dibenarkan kerana ia adalah selari dengan peruntukan Aturan 20 Kaedah 5 KKM 2012 dan juga telah memenuhi kriteria-kriteria yang digariskan di dalam kes-kes Mahkamah atasan termasuklah kes Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd vs Yamaha Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors.

Mahkamah juga berpendapat tidak timbul isu kelewatan di dalam memfailkan permohonan ini kerana kes ini masih di peringkat Pengurusan Kes (case management) dan tiada tarikh bicara ditetapkan lagi. Oleh itu tidak timbul isu kelewatan melampau seperti yang dibangkitkan oleh pihak Defendan.

Pihak Defendan juga membangkitkan isu Afidavit Sokongan diikrarkan oleh peguamcara Plaintif dan bukannya Plaintif sendiri.

Di dalam hal ini, Mahkamah telah meneliti kandungan Afidavit Sokongan tersebut secara cermat. Mahkamah mendapati peguamcara tersebut mempunyai pengetahuan penuh mengenai Page 7 of 10 perjalanan kes ini dan mempunyai rekod-rekod dan dokumen-dokumen mengenai kes ini.

Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Malayan Banking Berhad vs Charterlield Corporation Sdn Bhd (20011 2 MLRH 646 yang membincangkan isu yang sama di mana Mahkamah telah membenarkan peguamcara mengikarkan Afidavit bagi pihak litigant". Justeru itu Mahkamah tidak nampak ia satu isu yang boleh mencacatkan permohonan ini.

Oleh itu, atas alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah berpendapat permohonan Plaintif ini wajar dibenarkan dengan kos. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [21] Substantially, Order 20 Rule 5 of the ROC stipulates for amendment of pleadings with leave of the Court. It provides a discretion for the Court to allow leave to amend pleadings which must be exercised judicially (see Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd. v. Yamaha (M) Sdn. Bhd. & Ors [1982] 1 MLRA 417; [1983] 1 MLJ 213). In Yamaha Motor Co Ltd (supra), the Federal Court held- “(1) Under O 20 of the RHC, a judge had a discretion to allow leave to amend pleadings and it must be exercised judicially. The Court would allow such amendments as would cause no injustice to the other parties. Three basic questions should be considered to determine whether injustice would result,

whether the application was bona fide; (2) whether prejudice caused to the other side could be compensated by costs and (3) whether the amendments would not in effect turn the suit from one character into another and inconsistent character. (para 4)”. [22] It is an established principle that the Courts have a wide discretion whether to allow an amendment or not (See Ismail bin Ibrahim v. Sum Poh Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [1988] 3 MLJ 348; [1988] 1 CLJ Page 8 of 10 Rep 606; [1988] 1 MLRH 186). Of course, this has to be based on a case-to-case basis with judicial fairness as the main concern. [23] In this regard, this Court has perused and reproduced herewith, the decision of the Learned Sessions Court Judge and agrees with the finding of facts and the determination of the law deliberated by the learned Sessions Judge. In other words, the Learned Sessions Court Judge has not made any appealable error requiring appellate intervention. [24] Particularly, reference is made to the Grounds of Judgment delivered by the Learned Sessions Court Judge that- “10. Setelah meneliti dengan cermat isi kandungan pindaan tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati pihak Plaintif tidak menarik apa-apa pengakuannya di mana Plaintif memang pergi ke pejabat Defendan untuk menandatangani beberapa dokumen dan Plaintif hanya menafikan telah menandatangani Surat Pengesahan dan Akujanji bertarikh 19.04.2018.

Oleh itu Mahkamah berpendapat pindaan tersebut tidak mengubah ciri-ciri tuntutan Plaintif melalui pindaan tersebut malah ianya adalah berlandaskan fakta yang sama seperti yang diplidkan di dalam pliding asal (it arises out of the same facts as pleaded in original pleadings).

Mahkamah juga berpendapat pindaan tersebut juga tidak memprejudiskan Defendan di dalam tindakan ini

Pendek kata, permohonan Plaintif ini wajar dibenarkan kerana ia adalah selari dengan peruntukan Aturan 20 Kaedah 5 KKM 2012 dan juga telah memenuhi kriteria-kriteria yang digariskan di dalam kes-kes Mahkamah atasan termasuklah kes Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd vs Yamaha Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors.”. Page 9 of 10 [25] The Learned Sessions Court Judge has rightly applied Order 20 Rule 5 of the ROC and rightly found that the Respondent has fulfilled the requirement under Yamaha Motor (supra). Furthermore, the Respondent only denied the authenticity of the Letter. No prior admission was retracted. [26] Accordingly, this Court finds that the Learned Sessions Court Judge has not erred when making the decision to allow the Plaintiff’s application. This Court agrees with the finding of facts and the determination of the law of the Learned Sessions Court Judge. Thus, there is no necessity to interfere with the findings of the Learned Sessions Court Judge. CONCLUSION [27] Accordingly, under Order 55 of the ROC, this appeal is by way of a rehearing and this court has assessed and weighed all the evidence and laws placed before this Court in its entirety. In this regard, for all the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no merit in the appeal to warrant appellate intervention (See Ong Leong Chiou v. Keller (M) Sdn Bhd (FC) [2021] 4 MLRA 211; [2021] 3 MLJ 622; [2021] 4 CLJ 821, Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra Tengku Indra Petra v. Petra Perdana Berhad & Another Case [2018] 1 MLRA 263; [2018] 2 MLJ 177; [2018] 2 CLJ 641 (FC), Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng & Ors, [2020] 12 MLJ 67; [2020] 6 MLRA 193 and MMC Oil & Gas Engineering Sdn Bhd v. Tan Bock Kwee & Sons Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 MLRA 144; [2016] 2 MLJ 428; [2016] 4 CLJ 665). Page 10 of 10 [28] Thus, this appeal is dismissed with cost. Dated: 30 NOVEMBER 2025 -SGD- (SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) Judicial Commissioner of The High Court OCVC 2 Pulau Pinang For the Appellant : Mureli Navaratnam, Lai Chian Loong & Rubiniswary Messrs. Mureli Navaratnam For the Respondent : Yeap Chin Pho & Wendy How Mei Mei Messrs. Geh Cheng Lok, C. P. Yeap & Co.