Court has inherent jurisdiction to amend judgments to correct clerical mistakes or omissions, ensuring justice and full compensation for the plaintiff.

[1] This is the plaintiff's Application to amend the sealed Judgment and Order dated 29 January 2013 ("the Court Order") which Court Order was given after the Court allowed the plaintiff's Application for Summary Judgment vide encl 7 (see Judgment on encl 7 dated 13 February 2013).

[2] The main amendments sought by the plaintiff as outlined in exh SPY-6 of the plaintiff's Affidavit in Support affirmed on 15 April 2013 (encl 54), inter alia, are as underlined below:

"MAKA ADALAH PADA HARI INI DIHAKIMI seperti berikut:

a) Deklarasi bahawa Hap Seng Star Sdn Bhd (No Syarikat: 659844-H) (Selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Defendan tersebut") perlu mengambil balik kereta no plat WWM 9696 dengan no enjin 27186030412835 dan no casis WDD2040486L055638 (Selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "kereta tersebut") yang dijual Defendan dan telah berada dalam simpanan Defendan sejak 13 Mei 2012 serta membuat kesemua bayaran yang diperlukan disini untuk menyebabkan nama didaftarkan dalam Geran kereta dipindahmilik kepada Defendan;

b) Pembayaran kepada Plaintif sebanyak RM191,690.97 bersama dengan caj terma sebanyak 2.42% setahun berjumlah kepada RM33,800.00 dan faedah 4.55% setahun sebagai caj bank yang berjumlah RM233,880.00 dan apa-apa bayaran termasuk RM86,227.83 yang merupakan wang dibayar Plaintif dan/atau penalti yang akan dikenakan oleh bank pembiaya terhadap Plaintif;".

Court's Decision Given On 20 June 2013 Regarding Encl 53

[3] The plaintiff's Application is allowed. Costs of RM1,000.00 are to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant forthwith.

Grounds of Decision

[4] The Court is of the view that the Court is not functus officio and the Application for amendment can be allowed under the slip rule in O 20 r 11 of the Rules of 2012 ("the ROC ") which provides:

"Amendment of judgment and orders (O 20, r 11)

11. Clerical mistakes in judgment or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Court by a notice of application without an appeal.".

[5] In this case, the error in the Court Order, at first instance, was not made by the Court. The error was caused by the Solicitor for the plaintiff who did not include the words now sought to be inserted in the Court Order by the amendment, ie the words were omitted or not stated in prayers a) and b) of para 25 of in the Statement of Claim ("prayers a) and b)"), and later in the same prayers in the Application for Summary Judgment in encl 7. As a result of this omission by the Solicitor for the plaintiff, the Court, when giving the Court Order upon granting Summary Judgment to the plaintiff, gave the Court Order according to the exact words stated in prayers a) and b).

[6] Subsequently, when the plaintiff endeavored to enforce the Court Order, the plaintiff could not get the agreement of the defendant to pay the following two additional sums of money which were not expressly stated in the Court Order, ie all payments made by the plaintiff thus far for:

(1) The past year's installment payments; and

(2) The initial deposit of RM86,227.83.

[7] The above 2 payments, in particular the payment in (1), are necessary in order to give effect to prayer a) in the Court Order so that the defendant would then cause the name registered in the Car Grant to be transferred back to the defendant. The initial deposit should rightly be returned to the plaintiff since the defendant is getting the car back.

[8] In Mature Land Sdn Bhd v. Atlantic Plantation Bhd , 2012 MarsdenLR 1394 the Court of Appeal stated that "It is trite that the Court cannot entertain or grant