Back
2021 MarsdenLR 1685
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KOTA KINABALU
FREELANDER TECH INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
SERBA MAHIR SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BKI-12ANCvC-3/4-2020]
The Sessions Court had jurisdiction over the matter based on where the breach of contract occurred, and a Consent Judgment remains valid unless challenged on valid legal grounds.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Section 23(1) – Subordinate Courts Act 1948 – Section 59(2) – Jurisdiction of Sessions Court – Appellants contested the Sessions Court's jurisdiction in Kota Kinabalu, asserting it to be invalid based on their location in Sarawak – Court upheld that jurisdiction was applicable based on the contractual obligation arising in Kota Kinabalu. (Paras 5-24)
(B) Consent Judgment – The Appellants argued the Consent Judgment was invalid as the 1st Appellant was unrepresented by a solicitor – The court held the Consent Judgment remains valid despite this, as it acted as a binding contract between the parties. (Paras 25-42)
Facts of the case: An appeal against a Consent Judgment requiring payment to the Respondent and the Appellants' application to set it aside based on jurisdictional arguments and representation issues.
Findings of Court: The Appellants' arguments regarding jurisdiction and lack of representation do not provide valid grounds to set aside the Consent Judgment.
Issues: Determination of jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and the validity of the Consent Judgment entered without legal representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Sessions Court held jurisdiction based on where the breach occurred, and a Consent Judgment, once made, is binding unless set aside on valid grounds such as fraud or misrepresentation.
Result: Appeal dismissed, costs ordered in favor of the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Appellants are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively in the Sessions Court Suit No. BKI-B52NCvC-55/7- 2018(SC1) (hereinafter referred to as "the Sessions Court Action") and whereas the Respondent is the Plaintiff therein.
[2] This is an appeal by the Appellants against the decision of the Sessions Court made on 17 April 2020 which dismissed the Appellants' Notice of Application dated 19 December 2019 for extension of time to make the application to set aside and also to set aside a Consent Judgment entered on 12 October 2018 in the Sessions Court Action.
[3] The Consent Judgment was entered against the Appellants for the payment to the Respondent of a sum of RM293,386.20 claimed by the Respondent (as the Plaintiff) against the Appellants (as the Defendants) in the Sessions Court Action.
[4] It has not been specifically denied by the Appellants that they have themselves agreed for the Consent Judgment to be entered on 12 October 2018 in the Sessions Court Action. It is also not specifically disputed by the Appellants that thereafter, they had even made some monthly instalments under the Consent Judgment after it was entered.
The contention that the Sessions Court in Kota Kinabalu has no jurisdiction over the matter and to enter the Consent Judgment
[5] For their application to set aside the Consent Judgment, firstly, the Appellants asserted that under s 23(1) of the of Judicature Act 1964 and s 59(2) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 , the Sessions Court in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah has no jurisdiction over the Respondent's claim and thus to enter the Consent Judgment.
[6] The contentions were that the 1st Appellant has its registered and business address all in Miri, Sarawak and whereas the 2nd and 3rd Appellants also have their residential addresses in Miri, Sarawak.
[7] Therefore, it was contended by the Appellants that the Sessions Court at Miri or Bintulu has the exclusive jurisdiction over the matter of the Respondent's claim and that the Sessions Court in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah lacked the jurisdiction on the matter and to enter or make the Consent Judgment.
[8] I do not find the contention of the Appellants sustainable.
[9] Section 59 (2) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 reads with Subordinate Courts Act (Extension) Order 1980 P.U. (A) 357/80, provides that:
"59 Constitution and territorial jurisdiction of Sessions Courts
(1).....
(2) Subject to this Act or any other written law, a Sessions Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil or criminal cause or matter arising within the local limits of jurisdiction assigned to it under this section, or, if no such local limits have been assigned, arising in any part of the local jurisdiction of the respective High Court.
[10] Under the Subordinate Courts Act, 1948, "High Court" is defined to mean "the High Court in Malaya and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak or either of them, as the case may require".
[11] The Subordinate Courts Act (Extension) Order 1980 P.U. (A) 357/80 inserted the definition of "local jurisdiction of the High Court" to mean-
"(a) in the case of the High Court in Malaya the territory comprised in the Federal Territory and the States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu; and
(b) in the case of the High Court in Borneo, the territory comprised in the Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak.".
[12] There are two (2) High Courts in Malaysia, namely the High Court of Malaya and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. The High Court at Kota Kinabalu, Sabah is a branch of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. See: Sova Sdn Bhd v. Kasih Sayang Realty Sdn Bhd , and Hap Seng Plantations (River Estates) Sdn Bhd v. Excess Interpoint Sdn Bhd & Anor; [2016] 4 CLJ 641; [2016] 3 AMR 1.
[13] Under s 23(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 , generally, the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak has been given the jurisdiction
