[2022] 5 LNS 281
Legal Network Series
DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET JOHOR BAHRU
DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TA’ZIM
[GUAMAN SIVIL NO: JA-A72NCvC-1332-11/2021]
ANTARA
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD
[ No.SYARIKAT : 199001009294 (200866-W) ]
… PLAINTIF
DAN
GOH KEAN TEONG
[ No.KAD PENGENALAN: 800817086087 ]
… DEFENDAN
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
PERMOHONAN LAMPIRAN 16
(ATURAN 3 KAEDAH 5, ATURAN 13 KAEDAH 8,
ATURAN 42 KAEDAH 13 & ATURAN 92 KAEDAH 4 KKM2012)
PRAEFATIO:
[1] Defendan memfailkan Notis Permohonan Lampiran 16 untuk
mengenepikan Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran (JID) bertarikh
13.04.2022 yang telah diperolehi oleh Plaintif yang mana Mahkamah
telah menolak permohonan tersebut dan kini Defendan merayu ke
Mahkamah Tinggi atas keputusan tersebut.
[2] Kes ini bermula apabila pada 16.11.2021 Plaintif memfailkan
tuntutan inter alia seperti berikut:
(a) Menuntut jumlah RM55,945.95 daripada Defendan yang
merupakan jumlah kerugian dialami Plaintif akibat pengusikan
1
[2022] 5 LNS 281
Legal Network Series
pada pepasangan meter di premis Defendan yang mana Defendan
adalah sebagai pengguna berdaftar bagi akaun pengguna
No.6345 2101 7408 4108 tersebut.
(b) Akibat pengusikan meter di premis Defendan menyebabkan
tidak dapat merekod penggunaan arus eletrik yang sebenar
selaras dengan bekalan elektrik yang diberikan pada masa yang
material.
[3] Defendan telah gagal memasukkan
menyebabkan pada 13.04.2022, Plaintif telah
terhadap Defendan setelah Penyampaian
Seterusnya, pada 01.08.2022, Defendan telah
ini atas alasan-alasan seperti berikut:
kehadirannya sehingga
berjaya memperoleh JID
Ganti disempurnakan.
memfailkan permo honan
(a) Berdasarkan rekod Defendan, hanya mendapat maklumat
berkenaan kes Plaintif pada 01.07.2022 apabila Defendan cuba
memohon satu pembiayaan and pembiayaan tersebut tidak
dibenarkan di mana Defendan mempunyai dua penghakiman
yang dinyatakan di dalam sistem CTOS.
(b) Defendan tidak diserahkan dengan apa-apa penghakiman
pada setiap masa yang material;
(c) Defendan telah sedaya upaya cuba mencari dokumen dokumen yang relevan berkenaan dengan tindakan ini untuk
membolehkan peguamcara Defendan untuk menyediakan dan
memfailkan satu pembelaan kes ini;
(d) Defendan tidak pernah menerima Writ, Pernyataan
Tuntutan dan apa-apa notis permohonan bagi Penyampaian Ganti
walaupun Plaintif telah dimaklumkan bahawa Defendan berada
di Singapura;
(e) Defendan hanya menerima JID tersebut dengan membuat
carian fail;
2
[2022] 5 LNS 281
(f)
Legal Network Series
Defendan mempunyai pembelaan yang bermerit.
PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG
[4] Pertama sekali, Mahkamah merujuk kepada Aturan 13 Kaedah 8
Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012) yang memperuntukkan
seperti berikut:
Setting aside judgment
8.
The court may, on such terms as it thinks just, set aside or
vary any judgment entered in pursuance of this Order.
[5] Penjelasan tentang pemakaian A. 13 K. 8 KKM 2012 dapat
dilihat di dalam kes Chew Chin Ping & Ors v. APL-NOL (Malaysia)
Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 1 LNS 1749 di mana Mahkamah Tinggi Johor
Bahru menerusi YA Shamsulbahri Ibrahim JC merujuk kepada kes
Mahkamah Rayuan:
“In Yap Ke Huat & Ors v. Pembangunan Warisan Murni
Sejahtera Sdn Bhd & Anor [2008] 4 CLJ 175, James Foong JCA
(as the Lordship then was) held (1)When considering an
application to set aside a judgment in default, the first task is to
ascertain whether it is a regular or irregular judgment. If it is
an irregularjudgment, then the default judgment ought to be set
aside ex debitio justitae.If it is regularly obtained, then the
principle expounded in Evans v. Bartlam applies (see the
Federal Court judgment in Hasil Perumahan Sdn Bhd & Ors v.
United Malayan Banking Berhad. This requires the defendant to
show that he has a defence on merits. Delay in making such
application is a factor to be considered by the court in deciding
whether to grant or refuse the application. The learned judge
applied these principles of law correctly when evaluating the
application. However, his ruling that the application was made
out of time was wrong as the facts showed that the application
3
[2022] 5 LNS 281
Legal Network Series
was made well within the 30-day period as stipulated under O.
42 r. 13 RHC. (paras 15 & 16)”.
[6]
Manakala, Aturan 42 Kaedah 13 KKM 2012 memperuntukkan:
Setting aside or varying judgment and orders
13. Save as otherwise provided in there Rules, where
provisions are made in these Rules for the setting aside or
varying of any order of judgment, a party intending to set aside
or to vary such order or judgment shall make an application to
the Court and serve it on the party who has obtained the order
or judgment within thirty days after the receipt of the order or
judgment by him.
Oleh yang demikian, dalam memutuskan permohonan ini, Mahkamah
hendaklah menentukan sama ada JID tersebut teratur dan jika JID
teratur, maka sama ada Defendan mempunyai pembelaan yang
bermerit.
ISU-ISU BERBANGKIT:
[7] Defendan berhujah tidak pernah menerima JID termeterai
tersebut daripada Plaintif.Oleh itu, kiraan tempoh masa 30 hari di
bawah Aturan 42 Kaedah 13 KKM 2012 tidak terpakai. Plaintif pula
berhujah JID termeterai tersebut telahpun diserahkan kepada
Defendan melalui surat iringan secara pos berdaftar pada 20.04.2022
sepertimana ekshibit NMN-8 yang melibatkan (3) alamat Defendan.
[8] Berdasarkan hujahan tersebut, Mahkamah mendapati keterangan
menunjukkan Plaintif telahpun membuktikan serahan JID termeterai
tersebut pada 20.04.2022 secara pos berdaftar, namun tiada bukti
bilakah tarikh penerimaan JID termeterai tersebut oleh Defendan.
Mahkamah merujuk kes Lee Hock Teong v. Ching Suet Yeen [2021] 1
4
[2022] 5 LNS 281
Legal Network Series
LNS 900 di mana YA Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J di Mahkamah
Tinggi Shah Alam memutuskan:
“...(b) O. 42 r. 13 RC 2012 provides, an application to set aside
must be made within thirty (30) days of having received a
properly drawn up, produced, passed, and sealed (O. 42 r.
10(5) copy of the judgment (see Koperasi Belia Nasional Bhd v.
Storage Enterprise (Port Kelang) Sdn Bhd [1998] 3 CLJ 335;...”
(Penekanan diberikan).
[9] Oleh itu, Mahkamah berpendapat tempoh (30) hari tersebut di
bawah Aturan 42 Kaedah 13 KKM 2012 tidak terpakai ke atas
Defendan di mana tiada sebarang kelewatan berlaku dalam
permohonan ini.
[10] Peguamcara Defendan yang bijaksana berhujah serahan Writ
Saman & Pernyataan Tuntutan Plaintif adalah tidak teratur kerana
Defendan langsung tidak pernah menerima kesemua kertas kausa
tersebut. Peguamcara Plaintif yang bijaksana pula berhujah
Penyampaian Ganti telah dilaksanakan ke atas Defendan kerana telah
gagal menyampaikan secara kediri sebelum ini.
[11] Dalam kes ini, memandangkan ianya melibatkan isu serahan
secara Penyampaian Ganti, maka Mahkamah berpandukan kepada kes kes di bawah:
(i)
Mathew Willie & Anor v. Roslin Afui @ Roslin Abui & Ors
[2020] 2 SSLR 310:
“[36] I am not persuaded by the submission of counsel for the
1st defendant that there was impropriety in the service of the
amended Writ together with Statement of Claim by the
substituted service so as to render the said Judgment in Default
is irregular.
5
[2022] 5 LNS 281
Legal Network Series
[37] The substituted service of the Writ together with Statement
of Claim as amended was affected on the 1st defendant by way
of publication of an advertisement. This is authorised by and in
accordance with a court order made on 23 May 2017.
[38] There was no application made by the 1st defendant to set
aside the said order made on 23 May 2017. There is no specific
prayer in the 1st defendant’s application to set aside the said
order made on 23 May 2017 for the substituted service.
[39] In Development & Commercial Bank Berhad v. Aspatra
Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor [1995] 2 MLRA 116, the former
Supreme Court held that an order of substituted service of the
High Court must be obeyed save in a few exceptions and its
validity can only be challenged by proceedings instituted for the
very purpose. It cannot be challenged collaterally in other
proceedings.
[40] Similarly, in Ng Han Seng & Ors v. Scotch Leasing Sdn
Bhd [2003] 2 MLRA 103, the Court of Appeal that held that the
validity of the order for substituted service cannot be challenged
collaterally in an application to set aside a judgment in default.
It must done in a proceedings instituted for the very purpose.
[41] Without an application or specific prayer in the 1st
defendant’s application to challenge or set aside the said court
order for substituted service made on 23 May 2017, the 1st
defendant cannot impugn the substituted service as a ground to
contend that the said Judgment in Default is irregular for it to
be set aside. See: Yap Don Kiang & Ors v. Yong Joon Nyat @
Bong Joong Nyat & Ors [2006] 6 MLRH 64. “
(ii) Development & Commercial Bank Berhad v. Aspatra
Corporation Sdn. Bhd. & Anor [1995] 2 MLRA 116:
6
[2022] 5 LNS 281
Legal Network Series
“For our part, with great respect we were unable to agree with
the learned Judge for deciding in this manner by brushing aside
the order of substituted service, for the learned Judge was
obviously considering the validity of the order of substituted
service of the High Court dated 5 January 1986 when the same
order was not a subject matter of an application before the
learned Judge or for that matter, before the learned Registrar
earlier for its discharge.
The order of substituted service of the High Court, a superi or
Court of competent jurisdiction, must be obeyed by every one
save in a few and rare exceptions and it can only be challenged
as regards its validity by the only way of having it set aside by
proceedings instituted for the very purpose. It cannot be
challenged thus collaterally in any proceedings as regards its
validity save in a very few rare exceptions , (such as a
Bankruptcy Court going behind a judgment of any Court on
credibly raised issues of collusion, fraud, etc. only on hearing a
bankruptcy petition), which all do not apply here, ...”
(Penekanan diberikan)
(iii) Ng Han Seng & Ors v. Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd [2003] 2
MLRA 103
“It was incumbent on the appellants to inform the respondent of
any change of the addresses and this, they failed to do. The
respondent had complied with the ss order and the appellants
could not now challenge the ss order in their applications for
that would amount to a collateral attack on the validity of the
process thereto which is not permitted. The validity of the ss
order can only be challenged by proceedings instituted for the
very purpose. It cannot be challenged collaterally in other
proceedings.”
7
[2022] 5 LNS 281
Legal Network Series
[12] Apabila prinsip kes-kes di atas digarapkan di dalam kes ini,
Mahkamah mendapati Defendan gagal untuk mencabar isu serah an
secara Penyampaian Ganti ini di dalam permohonan yang berasingan
dalam kes ini. Oleh itu, tiada keperluan untuk Mahkamah
mempertimbang isu tersebut dan oleh itu Mahkamah memutuskan
serahan Penyampaian Ganti tersebut adalah sempurna dan teratur.
[13] Tafsiran pembelaan yang bermerit dijelaskan di dalam kes Tan
Chiang Brother’s Marble (S) Ptd Ltd v. Lightweight Concrete Sdn Bhd
[1997] 4 CLJ 759 di mana Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa : “ [2) A defence on the merits means a defence which disclose an
arguable and triable issue. It does not have to show that there is
a real prospect of success or that it has to carry some degree of
conviction. “
[14] Oleh itu, berdasarkan hujahan Peguamcara
membentangkan pembelaan-pembelaan seperti berikut:
Defendan
(i)
Defendan tidak pernah membuat permohonan pembekalan
elektrik daripada Plaintif;
(ii) Defendan tidak pernah memiliki dan/atau menyewa premis
tersebut;
(ii) Plaintif telah mengemukakan dokumen yang palsu di mana
terdapatnya tandatangan Defendan yang palsu di dalam Borang
Permohonan Pembekalan Elektrik dan;
(iii) Defendan tidak pernah mendapat apa-apa manfaat daripada
penyewaan premis tersebut dan tidak pernah membayar bekalan
elektrik.
[15] Berdasarkan
pembelaan-pembelaan
di
atas,
Mahkamah
mendapati terdapatnya Borang Permohonan Bekalan diekshibit NMN 6 telah menunjukkan Defendan sememangnya ada memohon bekalan
elektrik dengan Plaintif di premis tersebut. Selain itu, sebagai
8
[2022] 5 LNS 281
Legal Network Series
dokumen sokongan yang menyokong NMN-6, Defendan telah
membekalkan kepada Plaintif sesalinan kad pengenalan Defendan dan
sesalinan mukasurat-mukasurat relevan bagi perjanjian sewa Defendan
untuk premis tersebut di ekshibit NMN-7. Malah, Mahkamah
mendapati Perjanjian sewa ekshibit NMN -7 turut dimatikan setem di
Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri.Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah
berpendapat pembelaan-pembelaan Defendan ini tidak bermerit dan
penafian semata-mata.
KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH
[16] Setelah meneliti dan mempertimbang permohonan, afidavit afidavit, ekshibit-eskhibit, hujahan-hujahan bertulis dan hujahanhujahan balas yang difailkan pihak- pihak serta alasan-alasan di atas,
Mahkamah berpuas hati dan memutuskan menolak permohonan
Defendan dengan kos sebanyak RM800.00
Bertarikh: 29 DISEMBER 2022
(NOORFAZLIN HAMDAN)
Majistret,
Mahkamah Majistret Sivil 1,
Johor Bahru
KAUNSEL:
Bagi pihak plaintif - Choong Ee Von; T/n Ian Shang Kuan
Bagi pihak defendan - Darshnan Kumar; T/n Tan Kong Hai & Tui
9
[2022] 5 LNS 281
Legal Network Series
Kes-kes yang dirujuk:
Chew Chin Ping & Ors v. APL-NOL (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Ors
[2022] 1 LNS 1749
Lee Hock Teong v. Ching Suet Yeen [2021] 1 LNS 900
Tan Chiang Brother’s Marble (S) Ptd Ltd v. Lightweight Concrete Sdn
Bhd [1997] 4 CLJ 759
Perundangan yang dirujuk:
Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 3 k. 5, A. 13 k. 8, A. 42 k. 13, A.
92 k. 4
10