(NEGERI PULAU PINANG)
DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN GEORGETOWN,
KES SIVIL NO. 52-348-2005)
ANTARA
1. MS ELEVATORS ENGINEERING SDN. BHD
(NO. SYARIKAT 84871 – M)
…PERAYU/PLAINTIF
(Tt : Cheong Wai Meng&Van Buerle)
DAN
1. GETARAN UNGGUL SDN. BHD
(NO. SYARIKAT 325583 – A)
…PENENTANG/DEFENDAN
(Tt : Teow Saw&Associates)
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
1
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN.
RAYUAN.
Rayuan difailkan oleh pihak plaintif/perayu atas
keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Georgetown, Pulau Pinang
ALLAUDEEN BIN ISMAIL menolak tuntutan plaintif terhadap
defendan dengan kos.
FAKTA.
Pihak defendan Getaran Unggul Sdn. Bhd adalah pihak
pemaju. Beliau memajukan kompleks membeli belah Prangin
Mall Komtar. Kompleks itu dibina ditapak diantara Jalan Lim
Chwee Leong, Lebuh Tek Soon, Lebuh Mcnair, Lebuh Lintang
dan Lebuh Ria Georgetown, Pulau Pinang.
Getaran Unggul Sdn. Bhd (Defendan) telah melantik
Kontraktor Utama Penas Construction Sdn. Bhd untuk membina
kompleks tersebut. Perlantikan itu telah disusuli dengan satu
kontrak perjanjian bertulis. Kontrak itu bertarikh 20/10/1995.
Pohon lihat Eksibit C (muka surat 1 hingga 22).
Selaku kontraktor utama, Penas Construction telah
melantik beberapa orang kontraktor kecil untu k pembinaan
kompleks tersebut. Diantara kontraktor kecil yang dilantik adalah
Syarikat MS. Elevators Engineering Sdn. Bhd. Beliau merupakan
kontraktor untuk pembekalan dan pemasangan lif dikompleks
tersebut. Perlantikan itu disusuli dengan perjanjian bertu lis.
Perjanjian bertulis dibuat pada 30/01/1999 diantara plaintif dan
Penas Construction Sdn. Bhd. Sila lihat eksibit A muka surat 44
sehingga 54.
2
Diantara terma didalam perjanjian itu pihak plaintif
perlu menyediakan ‘performance bond’ dan diberikan pada
Penas Construction. Ia bertujuan untuk menjamin kerja -kerja
yang dilakukan oleh pihak plaintif didalam projek tersebut.
Jumlah kontrak antara plaintif dan Penas Construction
adalah RM 1,885.050.00 termasuk variation order. Pihak Penas
telah membayar sebahagian bayaran itu pada plaintif dan
terdapat amaun yang belum berbayar berjumlahRM 97,150.00.
Malangnya
pihak
Penas
Construction
telah
digulungkan pada 22/06/2004. Oleh itu pihak plaintif menuntut
baki bayaran itu pada pihak pemaju Getaran Unggul Sdn. Bh d.
Di dalam kes ini tiada alasan dikemukakan kenapa plaintif
lambat ambil tindakan pada Penas Construction sehingga
digulungkan pada 22/06/2004. Juga tiada ‘proof of debt’ ada
dibuat oleh pihak plaintif.
Juga adalah fakta bahawa pihak
menyelesaikan keseluruhan bayaran beliau
Construction sejumlah RM 220,679,000.00.
pemaju telah
pada Penas
ISU-ISU.
Samada wujud sebarang priviti kontrak diantara plaintif
dengan defendan untuk membenarkan pl aintif menuntut
RM97,150 pada defendan.
3
PENGHAKIMAN.
Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa tidak wujud sebarang
priviti kontrak antara pihak plaintif dan defendan. Oleh itu
tuntutan-tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan telah ditolak dengan
kos.
Antara perkara dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah : -
1) Tidak ada wujud sebarang perjanjian bertulis antara plaintif
dan defendan. Yang ada antara plaintif dan Kontraktor
Utama Penas Construction Sdn. Bhd. Juga antara pemaju
Getaran Unggul dan Penas Construction Sdn. Bhd. Sila lihat
Eksibit A muka surat 44 sehingga 54. Dan eksibit C muka
surat 1 sehingga 22.
2) Performance bond telah dibayar oleh plaintif pada Penas
Construction Sdn. Bhd dan bukan pada Getaran Unggul.
Didalam kes saksi plaintif SP1 bersetuju tentang perkara ini.
3) Saksi plaintif SP1 setuju bahawa memang ada perjanjian
antara plaintif dan Penas Construction. Perjanjian itu
bertarikh 30/01/1999. Eksibit A muka surat 44 sehingga 54
berkaitan.
4) Pihak saksi plaintif iaitu SP1 setuju bahawa kesemua
bayaran dibuat oleh Penas Construction pada plaintif.
Melainkan satu bayaran melalui cek bertarikh 22/06/2000.
4
5) Pihak plaintif juga bersetuju bahawa mengikut variation
order dalam muka surat 57, Eksibit A dan statement of final
account dalam muka surat 58 Eksibit A ada dinyatakan
majikan adalah Defendan. Kontraktor utama adalah Penas
Construction dan kontraktor kecil adalah plaintif.
6) Manakala saksi Defendan iaitu SD1 sahkan tak ada
sebarang kontrak antara plaintif dan defendan. Beliau juga
memberitahu plaintif adalah kontraktor kecil dan membuat
perjanjian dengan Penas Construction untuk membekalkan
dan memasang lif-lif pada Kompleks Perangin Mall yang
dimajukan oleh defendan.
7) Beliau
sahkan
keseluruhan
jumlah
kontrak
RM
220,679,000.00 telah dibayar oleh pemaju pada kontraktor
utama iaitu defendan.
8) Beliau sahkan tidak ada pengetahuan bahawa pihak Penas
Construction ada berhutang sejumlah RM 97,150.00 pada
plaintif.
9) Beliau jelaskan ada satu bayaran kontrak dibuat untuk
Penas Construction dan ia ada ditolak dari jumlah kontrak
yang defendan patut bayar pada pihak Penas Construction.
Tindakan ini dibenarkan dibawa Klausa 27 (c) . Perjanjian
Utama Eksibit C. Petikannya :
Klausa 27 “ The following provisions of this Condition shall
apply where prime cost sums are included in the Contract
Bill or arise as a result of Architect’s instructions given in
regard to the expenditure of provisional sums in respect of
persons to be nominated by the Architect to supply and fix
materials or goods or to execute work”. (Nominated subcontractors)
5
(c) Before issuing any certificate under clause 30 of these
Condition the Architect may request the Contractor to
furnish to him reasonable proof that all amounts included
in the calculation of the amount stated as due in
previous certificates in respect of the total value of the
work, materials or goods executed or supplied by any
nominated sub-contractor have been duly discharges,
and if the Contractor fails to comply with any such
request the Architect shall issue a certificate to that
effect and thereupon the Employer may himself pay such
amounts to any nominated sub-contractor concerned and
deduct the same from any sums due or to become due to
the Contractor.
10) Defendan jelaskan Klausa 27 (f) Perjanjian utama
menyatakan defendan tak bertanggungan pada mana-mana
kontraktor kecil. Petikannya :
Klausa 27 “ The following provisions of this Condition shall
apply where prime cost sums are included in the Contract
Bill or arise as a result of Architect’s instructions given in
regard to the expenditure of provisional sums in respect of
persons to be nominated by the Architect to supply and fix
materials or goods or to execute work”. (Nominated subcontractors)
(f) Neither the existence nor the exercise of the foregoing
powers nor anything else contained in these Conditions
shall render the Employer in any way liable to any
nominated sub-contractor.
6
11)Pihak defendan menjelaskan surat-surat Eksibit A muka
surat 4 sehingga 40 dialamatkan pada defendan kerana
defendan adalah pemaju. Surat-surat itu diberikan untuk
pengetahuan defendan sahaja.
12) Klausa 25 (2) majikan iaitu defendan boleh bayar manamana kontraktor-kontraktor kecil jika kontraktor utama
digulungkan. Itupun atas persetujuan pihak defendan. Dan
saksi plaintif SP1 tidak mahu menjawab soalan samada
majikan/defendan pernah bersetuju untuk meneruskan
perkhidmatan plaintif. Petikannya :
Klausa 25 (2), “ In the event of the Contractor becoming
bankrupt or making a composition or arrangement with his
creditors or having a winding up order made or (except for
purposes of reconstruction) a resolution for voluntary
winding up passed or a receiver or manager of his business
or undertaking duly appointed, or possession taken by or
on behalf of the holders of any debentures secured by a
floating charge, of any property comprised in or subject to
the floating charge, the employment of the Contractor under
this Contract shall be forthwith automatically determined but
the said employment may be reinstated and continued if the
Employer and the Contractor his trustee in bankruptcy
liquidator receiver or manager as the case may be shall so
agree.
13) Klausa 25 (3) (b) majikan / defendan boleh bayar manamana kontraktor kecil. Dan Klausa 27 (c), Memperuntukkan
bayaran dibuat boleh ditolak dari jumlah kontrak. Tetapi
bayaran itu adalah pilihan dan defendan tak ada
tanggungjawab kontraktual untuk membuat bayaran.
Petikannya :
7
Klausa 25 (3) In the event of the employment of the
Contractor being determined as aforesaid and so long as it
has not been reinstated and continued, the following shall be
the respective rights and duties of the Employer and
Contractor : -
(b) The Contractor shall, if so required by the Employer or
Architect within fourteen days of the date of determination,
assign to the Employer without payment the benefit of any
agreement for the supply of materials or goods and/or for the
execution of any work for the purposes of this Contract but
on the terms that a supplier or sub-contractor shall be
entitled to make any reasonable objection to any further
assignment thereof by the Employer . In any case the
Employer may pay any supplier or sub-contractor for any
materials or goods delivered or works executed for the
purposes of this Contract (whether before or after the date of
determination) in so far as the price thereof has not already
been paid by the Contractor. The Employer’s rights under
this paragraph are in addition to his rights to pay nominated
sub-contractors as provided in clause 27 (c) of these
Conditions and payments made under this paragraph may
be deducted from any sum due or to become due to the
Contractor.
Klausa 27“ The following provision of this Condition shall
apply where prime cost sums are included in the Contract
Bill or arise as a result of Architect’s instructions given in
regard to the expenditure of provisional sums in respect of
persons to be nominated by the Architect to supply and fix
materials or goods or to execute work”. (Nominated subcontractors)
8
(c) Before issuing any certificate under clause 30 of these
Conditions the Architect may request the Contractor to
furnish to him reasonable proof that all amounts included
in the calculation of the amount stated as due in
previous certificates in respect of the total value of the
work, materials or goods executed or supplied by any
nominated sub-contractor have been duly discharges,
and if the Contractor fails to comply with any such
request the Architect shall issue a certificate to that
effect and thereupon the Employer may himself pay such
amounts to any nominated sub-contractor concerned and
deduct the same from any sums due or to become due to
the Contractor.
14) Isu Certificates Of Fitness walaupun sijil asal lif-lif itu
diserahkan pada defendan melalui Penas Construction Sdn.
Bhd. Mahkamah membuat finding bahawa ia masih tidak
dapat menunjukkan ada priviti kontrak antara plaintif dan
defendan. Sebab perjanjian dibuat antara plaintif dan Penas
Construction.
15) Apa yang jelas disini adalah tindakan plaintif adalah
berdasarkan kemungkiran kontrak. Kemungkiran bayaran
itu dilakukan oleh Penas Construction yang patut membayar
tertera didalam perjanjian. Kemungkiran bayaran ini tidak
membolehkan plaintif menuntut dari pihak yang lain. Atau
pun pihak plaintif sendiri perlu menanggung risiko apabila
lambat mengambil tindakan terhadap Penas Construction
sehinggakan syarikat itu digulungkan pada 22/06/2004.
9
16) Selain itu tiada klausa didalam perjanjian menunjukkan
defendan hendaklah membayar baki hutang yang dibuat
oleh Penas Construction pada pihak plaintif.
17) Oleh itu berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan saksi serta
dokumen-dokumen
yang
dikemukakan,
Mahkamah
memutuskan tak wujud priviti kontrak antara plaintif dan
defendan. Oleh itu tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan
ditolak dengan kos. Nas diambil kira adalah HAZAMA
CORPORATION V. KMS BUILDERS SDN.BHD & 2 ORS
[2004] 2 AMR 612 : -
Kes ini merujuk kepada priviti kontrak dan memutuskan
bahawa tidak ada priviti kontrak diantara pemilik tanah dengan kontraktor
kecil. Petikannya seperti berikut :
“ The plaintiff, on the other hand, maintained that their claim
against the third defendant was premised on s 71 of the Contracts Act 1950
reproduced here for ease of reference.
10
Section 71. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of nongratuitous act. Where are person lawfully does anything for another person,
or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously,and such
other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make
compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or
delivered.
The pivotal question that needed to be addressed for the
purposes of this appeal was whether the works completed on the said land
by the plaintiff was done for the third defendant.
From the statement of claim, it was obvious that the plaintiff
was suing the first defendant for works done under the sub-contract. At no
time did the plantiff carry out the works for the third defendant nor did they
intend to deliver the fruits of their labour to third defendant. Upon, the first
defendant’s default to pay, it was not open to the plaintiff to seek
reimbursement from the third defendant by claiming that the works were
actually done for the benefit of the third defendant.
I hold that any benefit enjoyed by the third defendant for the
works completed on the said land was neither derived nor a result of the
plaintiff ‘s act, but rather the works delivered by the second defendant as
the turnkey contractor in return for a financial consideration of RM 92.5
milion. For this reason, clearly, the third defendant did not acquire any
unjust enrichment at the expense of the plaintiff.
11
The true purpose of s 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 is to enable
a plaintiff to claim for restitution in the absence of a contract where
otherwise the plaintiff would be without remedy to sue. The section seeks
to prevent unjust enrichment.
In the present case, the third defendant gains no enrichment at
the expense of the plaintiff. They are in fact bound by contract to pay the
second defendant for the entire works done on the said land. The plaintiff’s
remedy, if any, is only against the first and second defendants.
(ALLAUDEEN BIN ISMAIL)
Hakim Sesyen (4)
Georgetown, Pulau Pinang.
12
13