The court ruled that misrepresentation must be proven with specificity, and failure to meet contractual timelines voids the agreement, impacting claims for damages.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant were for a declaration that the Defendant had misrepresented to the Plaintiff causing the Plaintiff to enter into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 18 January 2013, that the Plaintiff was entitled to terminate or rescind the JVA, to restitution or claims for losses suffered and costs for various work done totaling RM3,186,301.06. The subject matter of the JVA was 2 pieces of land, namely Geran Mukim No 2307 Lot No 9455 Mukim Gerik, Daerah Hulu Perak and Geran Mukim No 2310 Lot 9458 Mukim Gerik, Daerah Hulu Perak (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Land") owned by the Defendant. The Defendant counterclaimed for specific performance of the JVA by the Plaintiff and various damages.

[2] The suit commenced on 17 May 2022 and the Court delivered its decision on 31 May 2023 after the Defendant made a submission of no case to answer. The Court allowed the Plaintiff only the declaration it had sought that it was entitled to terminate the JVA and costs of RM40,000.00 and dismissed the counterclaim with no order as to costs. Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on 20 June 2023 against the Court's decision.

[3] During the period between the filing of the suit on 12 November 2019 until the end of trial there had been a change of solicitors for the Defendant and a number of interlocutory applications which the Court had disposed of accordingly, amongst others:

i. to bring in third parties into the suit (Encl 11);

ii. a stay of proceedings pending disposal of an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Court to partly allow Encl 11 (Encl 37);

iii. to strike out the Defendant's claim against the First Third Party (Encl 55);

iv. to amend the Statement of Defence (Encl 81); and

v. to strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim (Encl 121).

[4] Prior to the commencement of trial, the Defendant decided only to proceed with the main suit when it was discovered that the Second Third Party, Metro Asiamaju Sdn Bhd had been dissolved and no leave was obtained to bring in a company that had been struck off or dissolved. The Second Third Party was the previous owner of the Land and the First Third Party was the firm of solicitors that handled the conveyancing of the Land.

The Plaintiff's Case

[5] The Plaintiff's evidence below were based on the testimonies and documents of their witnesses. The witnesses called to testify in Court on behalf of the Plaintiff were:

1. Johar Bahar Abdullah (PWI) - PWS 1

2. Chai Heng Foo (PW2) - PWS2, PWS2A

3. Wong Yew Kin (PW3) - PWS3

4. Nurul Hidayah bt Abdul Rahman (PW4).

[6] The bundles of documents that were filed and marked were as follows:

Ikatan Pliding Terpinda (Encl 137) BOP

Ikatan Dokumen Bahagian B Jilid 1 (Encl 23) CBOD 1

Ikatan Dokumen Bahagian B Jilid 2 (Encl 22 & 29) CBOD 2

Ikatan Dokumen Bahagian B Jilid 3 (Encl 30) CBOD 3

Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif Tambahan 1 (Encl 34) PBOD 1

Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif Tambahan 2 (Encl 45) PBOD 2

Ikattan Dokumen Plaintif Tambahan 3 (Encl 51) PBOD 3

Ikatan Dokumen Bahagian C (Encl 27 & 28) CBOD 4

Ikatan Dokum