Procedural compliance is critical for appeals, non-compliance can lead to dismissal despite substantive claims.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the trial judgment of the Sessions Court for recovery of vacant possession of the canteen and annex building to the St Anne's Hall, Bukit Mertajam, Penang.

[2] The Appellant is an individual and the defendant in the Butterworth Sessions Court suit no. A52NCC-75- 16/2016 ("Suit").

[3] The Respondent is incorporated under the Roman Catholic Bishops (Incorporation) Act 1958 and the Plaintiff in the Suit.

Salient Facts

[4] By a tenancy agreement dated 15 December 2000, the Respondent rented the canteen adjacent to the St Anne's Hall to the Appellant's husband to operate as Kafe Zui Xiang Lon for a fixed term of 2 years. Subsequently, the tenancy agreement was extended 6 times viz, twice for a fixed term of 1 year, thrice for a fixed term of 2 years and finally on monthly basis from 15 June 2010.

[5] Also in 2009, the Respondent claimed that the Appellant constructed and utilized an annex building next to the canteen without the consent of the Respondent.

[6] The Respondent terminated the tenancy agreement on 29 May 2014 and demanded for vacant possession of the canteen and annex building by 31 December 2015.

[7] The Appellant failed, refused or neglected to do so and the Respondent hence initiated the Suit against the Appellant. The Appellant in turn counterclaimed for a declaration and specific performance of an oral agreement for tenancy of the canteen and annex building for 15 years until 2025.

[8] After trial, the learned Sessions Court Judge on 18 August 2017 entered judgment in favour of the Respondent's claim but in terms that the Appellant must give vacation possession of the canteen and annex building on 31 December 2018 at the monthly rental of RM4,000.00. The Appellant's counterclaim is accordingly dismissed.

[9] The Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge and has on 24 August 2017 appealed to the High Court.

[10] The appeal came before me for hearing on 23 January 2018. After having read the appeal record and written submissions filed by parties as well as oral arguments of counsel, I dismissed the appeal with costs of RM3,500.00.

[11] The Appellant is dissatisfied with my decision and has on 7 February 2018 further appealed to the Court of Appeal.

[12] Consequently, I furnish below the grounds of my decision.

Preliminary Objections

[13] The Respondent raised several preliminary objections that the appeal is seriously irregular. Firstly, the Respondent contended that the Appellant had changed her solicitors from M/s Khor Gaik Thiam & Latsmanan to M/s Mirzawati & Associates without the notice of change of solicitors served upon the Respondent's solicitors at all material times.

[14] Secondly, the Respondent contended that the record of appeal was filed and served out of time. The time limited for so doing is 1 month from the filing of the notice of appeal, to wit by 23 September 2017. The Appellant however only filed the record of appeal on 26 September 2017 and served the same on the Respondent's solicitors on 2 January 2018.

[15] Thirdly, the Respondent contended that the record of appeal was filed by the Appellant's solicitors without submitting to the Respondent's solicitors the draft index of the record of appeal for approval before filing the record of appeal.

[16] Fourthly, the Respondent contended that the Appellant failed to file and serve the supplementary record of appeal by 25 October 2017 as directed by the Deputy Registrar during the case management on 27 September 2017. The supplementary record of appeal was only filed in December 2017 and served up