Yayasan Ipoh bagi Orang Kurang Upaya v Beloved Angels Sdn Bhd (AA-12B-9-02/2026)

High Court of Malaysia5 May 2026

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Outcome

What the court ordered

[29]. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the Appellant has provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal. [30]. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, including the explanation advanced by the Appellant, the length of the delay, the absence of any evidence of deliberate non-compliance, the absence of substantial prejudice to the Respondent and the interests of justice generally, I find that this is a proper case for the Court to exercise its discretion under Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 in favour of the Appellant. [31]. I am further satisfied that the justice of the case would be better served by allowing the intended appeal to be ventilated and determined on its merits rather than shutting out the Appellant on account of a procedural default. [32]. Accordingly, Enclosure 4 is allowed with no order as to costs. The Appellant is granted an extension of time to file and serve the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal on or before 4.4.2026. Dated : 6 July 2026 (ABDUL WAHAB BIN MOHAMED) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA, IPOH , PERAK Solicitor For the Appellant Tetuan Naqiz & Partners Advocates & Solicitors Strata Office SO-16-5 & SO-16-6, Menara 1, KI Eco City, Jalan Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur, 59200, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur [Ref: NP(B).2603.701.EH(KK)] Phone : 03-2201 8000 Fax : 03-2201 3300 Email : enquiries@naqiz.com Lawyer : Mr. Khisok Kumaar A/L Sundram Solicitor For the Respondent Tetuan Maxwell, Kenion, Cowdy & Jones Advocates & Solicitors Wisma Makencone, No. 31, Jalan Tun Sambanthan, 30000, Ipoh, Perak [Ref : RAJ/SD/fd/2600121]] Phone: 05-255 1225 Faks : 05-249 2106 Email : maxwell@mkcj.my Lawyer : Mr. Shassidaren Deva Sana Pathy

Content

AA-12B-9-02/2026 Kand. 28 09/07/2026 09:25:13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT IPOH IN THE STATE OF PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN, MALAYSIA CIVIL APPEAL NO: AA-12B-9-02/2026 BETWEEN YAYASAN IPOH BAGI ORANG KURANG UPAYA PERAK (COMPANY NO.:91717-V) ..APPELLANT AND BELOVED ANGELS SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.:1391772-A) ..RESPONDENT (IN THE MATTER OF THE SESSIONS COURT IN IPOH LAW NO.: AA-B52NCvC-31-08/2022) BETWEEN YAYASAN IPOH BAGI ORANG KURANG UPAYA PERAK (COMPANY NO.:91717-V) ..PLAINTIFF AND BELOVED ANGELS SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.:1391772-A) ..DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT INTRODUCTION [1]. This is the Appellant's application vide Enclosure 4 for an extension of time to file the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal pursuant to Order 3 Rule 5 and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 as well as section 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. [2]. The application arises from the Appellant's failure to file the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal within the prescribed time stipulated under the Rules of Court 2012 following the filing of its Notice of Appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court. [3]. The Appellant contends that the delay was occasioned by circumstances surrounding the appointment of its present solicitors and the internal approval process required before such appointment could be effected. The Appellant therefore seeks the indulgence of this Court to regularise the appeal proceedings by way of an extension of time. [4]. The Respondent opposes the application on the ground that the reasons advanced by the Appellant do not constitute sufficient justification for the delay and that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate any basis warranting the exercise of this Court's discretion in its favour. [5]. Having considered the cause papers, the submissions of learned counsel for both parties and the relevant authorities cited before this Court, I was satisfied that sufficient cause had been shown to justify the grant of the extension sought. Accordingly, I allowed Enclosure 4. These are my grounds. BACKGROUND FACTS [6]. The present appeal arises from the decision of this Court delivered on 5.5.2026 in respect of the Appellant's Notice of Application vide Enclosure 4. By way of the said decision, this Court allowed the Appellant's application and granted an extension of time for the filing of the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal pursuant to Order 3 Rule 5 and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 as well as section 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. [7]. The background to the present application is relatively straightforward. The Appellant, Yayasan Ipoh Bagi Orang Kurang Upaya Perak ("Yayasan Ipoh"), being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Sessions Court delivered on 22.1.2026, filed a Notice of Appeal on 4.2.2026 with the intention of challenging the said decision before the High Court. Pursuant to Order 55 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, Yayasan Ipoh was required to file the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal within the prescribed timeline. However, the same was not filed within the stipulated period. [8]. Consequently, on 4.3.2026, Yayasan Ipoh filed Enclosure 4 seeking an extension of time until 4.4.2026 to file the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal. In support of the application, Yayasan Ipoh contended, amongst others, that it had undergone a change of solicitors and that the appointment of its new solicitors required prior approval and resolution from its Board of Trustees. According to Yayasan Ipoh, the process of obtaining the necessary approval, coupled with the subsequent transition of conduct of the matter to its newly appointed solicitors, necessitated additional time before the appeal documents could be prepared and filed. [9]. The application was opposed by the Respondent, Beloved Angels Sdn Bhd ("Beloved Angels"). In essence, Beloved Angels contended that the reasons advanced by Yayasan Ipoh did not constitute sufficient cause for the grant of an extension of time. It was further contended that the delay arose solely from Yayasan Ipoh's own internal administrative arrangements and that the discretion of the Court ought not to be exercised in its favour. [10]. After hearing the parties and considering the affidavits, written submissions and authorities cited by both parties, this Court was satisfied that sufficient grounds had been established to justify the exercise of its discretion in favour of Yayasan Ipoh. Accordingly, Enclosure 4 was allowed and the extension sought was granted. [11]. Being dissatisfied with the said decision, Beloved Angels filed the present appeal. The gravamen of the appeal is that this Court had erred in law and in principle in exercising its discretion to grant the extension of time sought by Yayasan Ipoh. It is against this factual and procedural backdrop that the present appeal falls to be determined. ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED [12]. The principal issue before this Court is whether the learned High Court Judge had properly exercised his discretion in allowing Enclosure 4 and granting an extension of time to Yayasan Ipoh. [13]. More specifically, whether the reasons advanced by Yayasan Ipoh constituted sufficient cause to justify the extension granted by the High Court COURT'S FINDINGS [14]. The present application is one for an extension of time pursuant to Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012. It is trite that the power conferred upon the Court under the said provision is discretionary in nature. Such discretion, however, is not to be exercised arbitrarily but must be exercised judicially upon a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case. [15]. The applicable principles governing an application of this nature are well-settled. In Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1965] 1 MLJ 228, the Privy Council observed that whilst rules of procedure are intended to be complied with, the Court nevertheless retains the discretion to extend time where sufficient material is placed before it to justify the exercise of such discretion. The decision remains an authoritative statement of the law that procedural defaults do not automatically foreclose relief where justice requires otherwise. [16]. Similarly, in Md Amin Md Yusof & Anor v Cityvilla Sdn Bhd [2004] 2 CLJ 57, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that no rigid formula can be applied when determining an application for extension of time. Each case must be decided on its own facts and the Court must evaluate all relevant circumstances before arriving at a just conclusion. [17]. From the authorities, several factors emerge as relevant considerations, namely:

the length of the delay;

the explanation advanced for the delay;

whether the delay was intentional, contumelious or amounted to an abuse of process;

the degree of prejudice, if any, suffered by the opposing party; and

the broader interests of justice. [18]. Applying those principles to the present case, I first considered the explanation advanced by the Appellant. The Appellant contended that it is a charitable foundation administered by a Board of Trustees and that the appointment of new solicitors required the approval of the Board through a formal resolution. The Appellant further explained that consultations amongst the trustees were required before the appointment could be finalised and that the transition to new solicitors inevitably required additional time. [19]. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the reasons relied upon by the Appellant amounted to nothing more than internal administrative difficulties and that such matters ought not to constitute a valid justification for non-compliance with the Rules of Court. [20]. Whilst there is force in the Respondent's submission that litigants cannot ordinarily rely on their own internal administrative arrangements as a basis for non-compliance with procedural timelines, the Court must nevertheless examine the explanation in its proper factual context. The exercise before the Court is not whether the explanation is perfect, but whether it is sufficiently reasonable to justify the Court's intervention. [21]. Having considered the evidence before me, I am unable to conclude that the delay was deliberate, contumelious or indicative of any intention on the part of the Appellant to disregard the Rules of Court. There is likewise no evidence suggesting that the Appellant had abandoned its appeal. On the contrary, the filing of the Notice of Appeal clearly demonstrated the Appellant's continuing intention to challenge the decision of the learned Sessions Court. [22]. I further note that once the necessary arrangements had been made and the present solicitors were appointed, the Appellant proceeded to file the present application seeking to regularise the appeal process. This conduct is inconsistent with any suggestion that the Appellant was acting in bad faith or was indifferent towards its procedural obligations. [23]. As regards the length of the delay, I do not find the delay in the present case to be so inordinate as to warrant the dismissal of the application outright. While the Court does not condone noncompliance with procedural timelines, the extent of the delay remains a relevant consideration when balancing the competing interests of the parties. [24]. Equally important is the question of prejudice. The Respondent bears the burden of demonstrating that the grant of the extension would occasion some real and substantial prejudice beyond the mere fact of having to face an appeal on the merits. [25]. In the present case, no such prejudice has been demonstrated. The Respondent remains fully entitled to resist the appeal and advance all available arguments before the appellate court. The grant of the extension merely enables the appeal process to proceed in accordance with law. [26]. I also bear in mind the observations of the Federal Court in National Union of Bank Employees v Director General of Trade Unions & Anor [2013] 6 MLJ 167 that procedural rules are intended to facilitate, and not hinder, the administration of justice. Whilst procedural compliance remains important, the Court must be careful not to elevate procedural requirements above the overarching objective of achieving substantive justice between the parties. [27]. In my judgment, the justice of the present case favours allowing the dispute to be determined on its merits. To deny the extension sought would effectively terminate the Appellant's right of appeal without any consideration of the substantive issues arising from the decision of the learned Sessions Court. [28]. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, including the explanation provided, the absence of bad faith, the absence of substantial prejudice to the Respondent and the interests of justice generally, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Appellant.

Decision

para

[29]. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the Appellant has provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal. [30]. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, including the explanation advanced by the Appellant, the length of the delay, the absence of any evidence of deliberate non-compliance, the absence of substantial prejudice to the Respondent and the interests of justice generally, I find that this is a proper case for the Court to exercise its discretion under Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 in favour of the Appellant. [31]. I am further satisfied that the justice of the case would be better served by allowing the intended appeal to be ventilated and determined on its merits rather than shutting out the Appellant on account of a procedural default. [32]. Accordingly, Enclosure 4 is allowed with no order as to costs. The Appellant is granted an extension of time to file and serve the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal on or before 4.4.2026. Dated : 6 July 2026 (ABDUL WAHAB BIN MOHAMED) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA, IPOH , PERAK Solicitor For the Appellant Tetuan Naqiz & Partners Advocates & Solicitors Strata Office SO-16-5 & SO-16-6, Menara 1, KI Eco City, Jalan Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur, 59200, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur [Ref: NP(B).2603.701.EH(KK)] Phone : 03-2201 8000 Fax : 03-2201 3300 Email : enquiries@naqiz.com Lawyer : Mr. Khisok Kumaar A/L Sundram Solicitor For the Respondent Tetuan Maxwell, Kenion, Cowdy & Jones Advocates & Solicitors Wisma Makencone, No. 31, Jalan Tun Sambanthan, 30000, Ipoh, Perak [Ref : RAJ/SD/fd/2600121]] Phone: 05-255 1225 Faks : 05-249 2106 Email : maxwell@mkcj.my Lawyer : Mr. Shassidaren Deva Sana Pathy

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 5 May 2026
Case number: AA-12B-9-02/2026
Coram: YA Dato' Abdul Wahab Bin Mohamed
Practice area: CIVIL APPEAL: Appellant's application – Enclosure 4 – an extension of time to file the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal – pursuant to Order 3 Rule 5 and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 – section 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – whether the reasons advanced by Yayasan Ipoh constituted sufficient cause to justify the extension granted by the High Court – the length of the delay – the explanation advanced for the delay – whether the delay was intentional, contumelious or amounted to an abuse of process – the degree of prejudice –the broader interests of justice
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 9 Jul 2026
Source ID: 12487108-6838-47fd-9e00-07064dd9246a

Catchwords

CIVIL APPEAL: Appellant's application – Enclosure 4 – an extension of time to file the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal – pursuant to Order 3 Rule 5 and Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 – section 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – whether the reasons advanced by Yayasan Ipoh constituted sufficient cause to justify the extension granted by the High Court – the length of the delay – the explanation advanced for the delay – whether the delay was intentional, contumelious or amounted to an abuse of process – the degree of prejudice –the broader interests of justice

Parties

YAYASAN IPOH BAGI ORANG KURANG UPAYA - appellant - ejudgment_parties
BELOVED ANGELS SDN BHD - respondent - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Yayasan Ipoh bagi Orang Kurang Upaya v Beloved Angels Sdn Bhd (AA-12B-9-02/2026)

High Court of Malaysia5 May 2026

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Outcome

What the court ordered

[29]. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the Appellant has provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal. [30]. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, including the explanation advanced by the Appellant, the length of the delay, the absence of any evidence of deliberate non-compliance, the absence of substantial prejudice to the Respondent and the interests of justice generally, I find that this is a proper case for the Court to exercise its discretion under Order 3 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 in favour of the Appellant. [31]. I am further satisfied that the justice of the case would be better served by allowing the intended appeal to be ventilated and determined on its merits rather than shutting out the Appellant on account of a procedural default. [32]. Accordingly, Enclosure 4 is allowed with no order as to costs. The Appellant is granted an extension of time to file and serve the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal on or before 4.4.2026. Dated : 6 July 2026 (ABDUL WAHAB BIN MOHAMED) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA, IPOH , PERAK Solicitor For the Appellant Tetuan Naqiz & Partners Advocates & Solicitors Strata Office SO-16-5 & SO-16-6, Menara 1, KI Eco City, Jalan Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur, 59200, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur [Ref: NP(B).2603.701.EH(KK)] Phone : 03-2201 8000 Fax : 03-2201 3300 Email : enquiries@naqiz.com Lawyer : Mr. Khisok Kumaar A/L Sundram Solicitor For the Respondent Tetuan Maxwell, Kenion, Cowdy & Jones Advocates & Solicitors Wisma Makencone, No. 31, Jalan Tun Sambanthan, 30000, Ipoh, Perak [Ref : RAJ/SD/fd/2600121]] Phone: 05-255 1225 Faks : 05-249 2106 Email : maxwell@mkcj.my Lawyer : Mr. Shassidaren Deva Sana Pathy

Content

Catchwords

Yayasan Ipoh bagi Orang Kurang Upaya v Beloved Angels Sdn Bhd (AA-12B-9-02/2026)

Outcome

How this case connects

Cited by

Authorities cited

Decision

Something wrong on this page?

Yayasan Ipoh bagi Orang Kurang Upaya v Beloved Angels Sdn Bhd (AA-12B-9-02/2026)

Outcome

How this case connects

Cited by

Authorities cited

Decision

Something wrong on this page?