Back
2022 MarsdenLR 711
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA GEORGETOWN
ROHAIZAD REZUAN LWN. SWOON-LEA CREDIT SDN BHD
[Nombor Rayuan: PA-11ANCC-17-09/2021]
Dalam kes jaminan, penjamin bertanggungjawab secara utama bagi jumlah yang terhutang, tanpa perlu mengemukakan dokumen formal untuk membuktikan tanggungjawab.
Headnote:(A) Mahkamah Majistret - Aturan 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Penghakiman Terus – Mahkamah mempertimbangkan kesahihan notis tuntutan dan alamat yang dinyatakan - D2 didapati gagal membuktikan bahawa notis tersebut tidak dihantar ke alamat yang sah - Tanggungjawab pembuktian terletak pada pihak yang mendakwa. (Paras 6, 7, 10, 15, 25)
(B) Bukti dan Tanggungjawab - Dalam kes jaminan, penjamin bertanggungjawab secara utama untuk jumlah yang terhutang walaupun tidak ada dokumen formal yang membuktikan. Tanggungjawab D2 adalah sama seperti Defendan Pertama. (Paras 27, 29).
Facts of the case: Rayuan D2 terhadap penghakiman terus yang diperoleh oleh Plaintif untuk jumlah terhutang berdasarkan perjanjian sewa beli yang tidak dipatuhi oleh Defendan Pertama. D2 mendakwa tiada bukti yang menunjukkan notis telah dihantar ke alamatnya, serta kesahihan tarikh pada dokumen perjanjian. (Paras 6, 9)
Findings of Court: Mahkamah mendapati tiada bukti yang menyokong dakwaan D2 mengenai penghantaran notis dan kesahihan dokumen perjanjian sewa beli; penghakiman terus oleh Majistret adalah sah. (Paras 31)
Issues: 1. Kesahihan alamat yang dinyatakan dalam notis tuntutan 2. Adakah D2 memalsukan tarikh perjanjian 3. Perincian jumlah hutang dalam penyata tuntutan. (Paras 25, 26)
Ratio Decidendi: D2 tidak dapat membuktikan alamat yang tidak sah dan tidak mempunyai hujah yang kuat untuk menafikan tanggungjawab sebagai penjamin sewa beli. Tanggungjawab D2 di bawah perjanjian jaminan adalah utama. (Paras 30)
Result: Rayuan D2 ditolak dengan kos RM3,000.00. (Paras 32)
Pengenalan
[1] Ini adalah rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Majistret Bukit Mertajam yang diberikan pada 21 Mei 2021 oleh Defendan Kedua (D2). Mahkamah Majistret telah membenarkan permohonan Plaintif untuk Penghakiman Terns di bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Mahkamah ini pada 22 Julai 2022 telah mendengar rayuan ini dan mengekalkan keputusan Majistret Yang Bijaksana. Pihak-pihak dalam Alasan Penghakiman ini dirujuk sebagaimana mereka di Mahkamah Majistret. Alasan Penghakiman ini merujuk kepada Defendan Kedua ("D2") dalam tindakan asal di Mahkamah Majistret kerana tiada rayuan daripada Defendan Pertama.
[2] Dalam mendengar dan memutuskan sesuatu rayuan daripada Mahkamah Rendah kepada Mahakamah Tinggi adalah berpandukan kepada nas-nas yang mantap dan antaranya ialah sepertimana yang diputuskan dalam kes Chan Lai Yoke & Anor v. ESS Engineering Sdn Bhd, diputuskan bahawa:
"Order 55 r 2 of the Rules of 2012 provides that all appeals to the High Court shall be by way of re-hearing. The White Book on the Malaysian Civil Procedure 2021 Volume 1, p 812 at para 55/2/1 states as follows:
In a re-hearing, a judge is not tasked to consider whether the lower Court judge had exercised his discretion correctly or had properly considered the relevant material. He would consider the case as if it came before him for the first time."
Undang-Undang Penghakiman Terus (Summary Judgment)
[3] Panduan berkaitan undang-undang berkaitan Penghakiman Terus di bawah Aturan 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (A 14 KKM 2012) dapat dilihat dalam kes National Company For Foreign Trade v. Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd , , di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan seperti berikut:
" We think it appropriate to remind ourselves once again that in every application under O 14, the first considerations are (a) whether the case comes within the Order and (b) whether the plaintiff has satisfied the preliminary requirements for proceeding under O 14. For the purposes of an application under O 14, the preliminary requirements are:
(i) the defendant must have entered an appearance;
(ii) the statement of claim must have been served on the defendant; and
(iii) the affidavit in support of the application must comply with the requirements of r 2 of the O 14.
... If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either of these considerations, the summons may be dismissed. If however, these considerations are satisfied, the plaintiff will have established a prima facie case and he becomes entitled to judgment. This burden then shifts to the defendant to satisfy the Court why judgment should not be given against him." (sila lihat Cempaka Finance Bhd v. Ho Lai Ying & Anor, )
[4] Dalam kes Yeohata Machineries Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Coil Master Sdn Bhd & Ors, , at p 818, his Lordship Court of Appeal Justice Vernon Ong (as His Lordship then was held):
" [17] In law, the party who desires the Court to give judgment in its favour as to any legal right or liability bears the burden of proof (s 101(1) of the Evidence Act 1950). The burden of proof on that party is twofold: (i) the burden of establishing a case; and (ii) the burden of introducing evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party throughout the trial. The standard of proof required of the plaintiff is on the balance of probabilities. The evidential burden of proof is only shifted to the other party once that party has discharged its burden of proof. If that party fails to discharge the original burden of proof, then the adverse party does not need to adduce any evidence..."
[5] Dalam kes International Times & Ors v. Leong Ho Yuen, [1980] 2 MLJ 86, pada ms 87 diputuskan seperti berikut:
"... According to ss 12 and 103 of the Evidence Act, if the party with whom this onus lies whether initially or subsequently as a result of its shifting does not give any or further evidence or gives evidence which is not sufficient, such party must fail."
It is also trite law that in a claim for summary judgment the burden is on the Defendant t
