Acknowledgment of debt can reset the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1953, impacting the validity of claims.

Background Of The Case

[1] On or about 2 January 2008, the Respondent discovered that the Respondent's underground cable situated between PMU Salak Tinggi and SSU Enstek No 1 ("the Area") was damaged. Further investigation conducted by the Respondent shows that the damage done was as a result of the works carried out by the Appellant and/or its agents and/or its employees at the vicinity of the Area.

[2] Following this, the Respondent issued a demand on 18 January 2013 to the Appellant to recover the damages suffered by the Respondent in the sum of RM104,615.09 in repairing the damaged underground cable.

[3] By letter dated 14 February 2013, the Appellant requested for several documents from the Respondent to enable it to process the said claim and these have been provided by the Respondent by letter dated 22 February 2013.

[4] However, the Appellant has refused, failed and/or neglected to make payment in respect of the Respondent's claim. Hence, the Respondent commenced an action against the Appellant in the Seremban Session's Court.

[5] The Appellant had on 16 December 2014 filed a Notice of Application to strike out the Respondent's case on the basis that the Suit is time-barred under s 6(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 and ought to be dismissed.

Documents Filed

[6] The following are the documents filed as Record of Appeal and referred during the Hearing before this Court:-

[1] Writ and Statement of Claim dated 28 October 2014 [p 5-12 of the Record of Appeal ("ROA")];

[2] Statement of Defence dated 16 December 2014 [pp 9-12 of the ROA];

[3] Reply to Defence dated 30 December 2014 [pp 16-17 of the ROA];

[4] Notice of Application dated 16 December 2014 [pp 1-4 of the ROA];

[5] Appellant/Defendant's Affidavit (1) affirmed by Yap Ming Chai on 15 December 2014 [pp 44-46 of the ROA];

[6] Respondent/Plaintiff's Affidavit In Reply affirmed by Noor Faiz Binti Jabar on 30 December 2014 [pp 47-50 of the ROA]; and

[7] Appellant/Defendant's Affidavit In Reply to Respondent/Plaintiff's Affidavit affirmed by Yap Ming Chai dated 6 January 2015 [pp 51-56 of the ROA].

[7] The Appellant contended that the Respondent's claim was time barred under s 6(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 as the cause of action accrued on or about 2 January 2008 when the Respondent discovered that the Respondent's underground cable situated between PMU Salak Tinggi and SSU Enstek No 1 was damaged.

[8] In this regard, the Court of the view that the Respondent's cause of action has been postponed by an acknowledgment of the Respondent's claim by the Appellant in its letter dated 14 February 2013 (Exhibit "TNB-2" at pp 59 to 60). In this letter, the words used ie "untuk mempermudahkan pihak kami memproses invois ini" shows that on 14 February 2013, the Appellant was ready and able to make payment in respect of the Respondent's claim.

[9] Section 26 (2) of the Limitation Act 1953 provides for the fresh accrual of action on acknowledgment or on any payment of any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim.

Section 26 (2) of the Limitation Act 1953 provides as follows:-

"Where any right of action has accrued to recover any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim, or any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest therein, and the person liable or accountable therefore acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect thereof, the right shall be deemed to have accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or the last payment:

Provided that a payment of a part of the rent or interest due at any time shall not extend the period for claiming the remainder of the rent or interest then due, but any payment of interest shall have effect, for the