The plaintiff was the registered owner of a parcel of land (`the land') situated in Miri. It was the plaintiff's allegation that the first defendant had fraudulently sold and transferred the land pursuant to an Irrevocable Power of Attorney registered at the Miri Land Registry. The plaintiff further submitted that the first defendant had forged his signature on the Power of Attorney and that the fourth defendant, being the legal firm that prepared and attested the plaintiff's purported signature in the Power of Attorney and prepared the Sale and Purchase Agreement as well as the Memorandum of Transfer was negligent in doing so. The plaintiff also pleaded that the second defendant, being the Superintendent of the Lands and Surveys Department of Miri, was negligent in failing to ensure that the first defendant had the requisite power to transfer the land when it registered the transfer of the land to a third party. In light of this, two applications arose before the court. The first application (`encl. 9') was an application by the fourth defendant to strike out the writ and statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action against the fourth defendant because the action was barred by limitation. The second application (`encl. 16') was an application by the second and third defendants for the court to determine the questions under O. 14A Rules of the High Court 1980, ie, (i) whether the plaintiff's claim against the second and third defendants were barred by virtue of the provisions of the Limitation Ordinance of Sarawak; and (ii) whether the plaintiff's action against them was maintainable under s. 2 of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 (`PAPA').

Held (allowing applications in encls. 9 and 16; dismissing plaintiff's action against second, third and fourth defendants):

(1) There were disputes of facts which could only be resolved by the parties and their witnesses being subject to cross examination in a trial of the action. The court should not embark on a minute and protracted examination of the pleadings and affidavit evidence nor make any comment on the veracity or strength of the case of the parties in these applications (Abdul Rahim Abdul Hamid & Ors v. Perdana Merchant Bankers Bhd & Ors; refd). (para 10)

(2) The act of negligence complained of against the second and third defendants was the registration of the memorandum of transfer which the plaintiff had pleaded was wrongful. The said memorandum of transfer was registered on 1 August 2007 at the Miri Land Registry and the two year limitation period expired on or before 1 August 2009. This suit was filed by the plaintiff against the second and third defendants on 2 February 2012, well outside the limitation period of two years. Similarly, this action was filed well outside the thirty six months mandated by PAPA. (paras 15 & 17)

(3) The plaintiff had not shown that Item 19 of the Schedule of the Limitation Ordinance of Sarawak and/or that s. 2(a) PAPA were not applicable and/or not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The plaintiff had also not shown that it could escape from the defence of limitation as pleaded by the second and third defendants. The plaintiff's action was therefore statute barred against the second and third defendants. (para 18)

(4) The Irrevocable Power of Attorney was registered at the Miri Land Registry on 31 May 2004. The Sale and Purchase Agreement was dated 4 June 2004 and the memorandum of transfer was registered on 1 August 2007. Based on these dates, the alleged acts of malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance occurred outside the two year limitation period as prescribed under Item 19 of the Schedule to the Limitation Ordinance. Again, the plaintiff had not shown that it could escape the provisions of the Limitation Ordinance. Similarly, the plaintiff's action against the fourth defendant was time barred. (para 20)

Case(s) referred to:

Abdul Rahim Abdul Hamid & Ors v. Perdana Merchant Bankers Bhd & Ors [2000] 2 CLJ 457 CA (refd)

Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 4 CLJ 7 SC (refd)

Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v. Lat Kee Tee & Ors [2009] 1 CLJ 663 FC (refd)

Ronex Properties v. John Laing [1983] 1 QB 398 (refd)

Tasja Sdn Bhd v. Golden Approach Sdn Bhd [2011] 3 CLJ 751 FC (refd)

Tio Chee Hing & Ors v. Government Of Sabah [1981] 1 LNS 146 FC (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Civil Law Act 1956, s. 7(5)

Limitation Act 1953, s. 4

Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, s. 2(a)

Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 14A, O. 18 r. 19(1)

For the plaintiff - Jimmy Wee; M/s Jimmy HT Wee & Co Advocs

Counsel:

For the plaintiff - Jimmy Wee; M/s Jimmy HT Wee & Co Advocs

For the 2nd & 3rd defendants - Marjanah Adenan; SAG's Chambers

For the 4th defendant - Arthur Lee; M/s Arthur Lee, Lin & Co Advocs

Reported by Suhainah Wahiduddin

Satu perjanjian sewa beli (`HPA') telah dimasuki antara plaintif dan defendan pertama (`D1') berkenaan pembelian sebuah kenderaan jenis BMW 320 manakala penjaminnya adalah defendan kedua (`D2'), bekas pengarah syarikat D1. Plaintif telah memfailkan tuntutan ini atas dasar bahawa terdapat hutang yang masih tertunggak di bawah HPA tersebut di mana defendan-defendan telah ingkar membuat bayaran ansuran bulanan. Di antara isu yang telah diplid oleh D1 adalah (i) bahawa D2 telah melaksanakan HPA tanpa pengetahuan dan kelulusan D1 dan (ii) bahawa tandatangan pengarah D1, iaitu Viveganand Ramesh a/l Raja Manakiam (`Viveganand') telah dipalsukan oleh D2. Tidak dinafikan bahawa dalam Director's Resolution (`P3') yang disediakannya, D2 mencatat nama Viveganand sebagai "Viveganand a/l Raja Manakiam".

Diputuskan (menolak tuntutan plaintif dengan kos):

(1) Semua dokumen terdapat dalam milikan plaintif dan plaintif mempunyai cukup masa untuk membuat pemeriksaan teliti. Walaubagaimanapun, plaintif tidak melakukan usaha secukupnya untuk meneliti semua dokumen dengan baik. Dengan itu, plaintif didapati cuai sehingga terlepas pandang bahawa nama Viveganand tidak dieja dengan betul dan Viveganand tidak dipanggil untuk membuat pengesahan nama dan tandatangannya di pejabat plaintif. (perenggan 7)

(2) Kecuaian plaintif tidak dapat diperbaiki dan tidak boleh dipindahkan bebannya kepada bahu pengguna yang lain. Berdasarkan keterangan pegawai plaintif dan keterangan dokumen yang lain, adalah jelas bahawa transaksi ini hanya dibuat di antara plaintif dan D2 sahaja tanpa pengetahuan D1. (perenggan 7)

(3) Berdasarkan pembacaan secara am dan keseluruhannya, Memorandum and Articles of Association D1 berniat supaya penglibatan kedua-dua orang pengarah diperlukan untuk apa sahaja tindakan bagi pihak syarikat. Maka penglibatan kedua-dua orang pengarah adalah diperlukan. Walaupun terdapat tandatangan Viveganand di dalam P3, namun namanya adalah silap dan kesilapan ini adalah serius kerana ia ada kaitan dengan fasal 90 yang berkaitan dengan apa-apa pinjaman atas kepentingan D1. Dengan itu, tiada kelulusan yang telah diberikan oleh Viveganand selaku pengarah P1 pada masa itu memandangkan P3 diperoleh/dibuat secara palsu. Oleh yang demikian, transaksi tersebut adalah tidak sah dan batal sejak dari mula lagi. Transaksi yang tidak sah ini disumbangkan oleh kecuaian pihak plaintif sendiri. (perenggan 7)

(4) Plaintif didapati telah gagal membuktikan bahawa HPA tersebut telah sebenarnya diserahkan dalam tempoh 14 hari selepas ianya ditandatangani. Berikutan s. 5(1A) Akta Sewa Beli 1967, kegagalan penyerahan dalam tempoh 14 hari mengakibatkan "HPA is unenforceable by the owner". (perenggan 7)

Kes-kes yang dirujuk:

Goh Cheng Teik & Anor v. Syarikat Goh Guan Ho & Ors [1996] 1 LNS 110 HC (dirujuk)

Hong Leong Bank Berhad v. Linear Corporation Berhad [2011] 1 LNS 356 HC (dirujuk)

Perundangan yang dirujuk:

Evidence Act 1950, s. 73

Hire-Purchase Act 1967, s. 5(1), (1A)

Counsel:

Bagi pihak plaintif - Harcharan Singh; T/n Harcharan Sidhu & Assoc

Bagi pihak defendan pertama - Vishnu Kumar; T/n Rajpal Firah & Vishnu

Dilaporkan oleh S Barathi