Claims under contract must be filed within six years from the cause of action; failure to do so renders the claim time-barred, with no exceptions applicable in this case.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is for non-payment for the paddy seeds supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant under a Paddy Incentive Program conducted by the Defendant.

[2] The Court in this case ruled that the issue of time limitation as raised by the Defendant in their Statement of Defense be determined first, before hearing the Plaintiff's main claim for non-payment against the Defendant.

Brief Facts

[3] The Plaintiff is a limited liability company incorporated in Malaysia. The Defendant is a limited company incorporated in Malaysia and involved in procurement and processing of paddy, warehousing, distribution and marketing of paddy seeds in Malaysia.

[4] Sometime beginning April 2007, the Defendant appointed the Plaintiff as one of its paddy seed supplier for its Paddy Seed Incentive Program known as "Rakan Benih".

[5] The Plaintiff was entitled to receive incentive payments for the paddy seeds supplied. The Plaintiff was given a certain quota as to the amount of the paddy seeds to be supplied.

[6] The Plaintiff contends that after the appointment by the Defendant and based on a representation made by the Defendant that because of the failure of some of the other suppliers in supplying the paddy seeds under their quota, the Plaintiff was asked to supply the paddy seeds above the quota agreed initially.

[7] The Plaintiff duly complied with this request of the Defendant and supplied the paddy seeds as requested. It is the Plaintiff's contention that incentive payments for the year's harvest season of 208 and 2009 amounting to RM23,279,030 has yet to be paid by the Defendant.

[8] On the failure of the Defendant to pay, several meetings between the representatives of both sides were held culminating in an audit firm being appointed to verify the Plaintiff's claim. A report was prepared by the audit firm verifying the quantity of the certified seeds supplied.

[9] Despite the audit report, a copy of which the Plaintiff has alleged has not been given to them, the Defendant has failed to make any payments and hence the filing of this civil suit dated 26 June 2018.

[10] In its Defense the Defendant acknowledged that the Plaintiff was appointed as a paddy supplier to the Defendant with a quota of 10,000 metric tons for the year 207 to 2009.

[11] The Defendant denied making any representation to the Plaintiff to supply the paddy seeds above the quota which had been agreed.

[12] The Defendant also as a defense to the claim raised the defense of time limitation:

"tanpa membuat apa apa pengakuan, Defendan menyatakan dalam apa-apa jua keadaan, defendan menyatakan bahawa tuntutan Plaintiff untuk RM14,450,000 dan RM8,828,130.00 untuk pengeltran benih padi sah yang didakwa harus dibayar oleh Defendan adalah hutang yang terakru pada tahun 208 dan 2009 dan oleh demikian Plaintiff adalah dihalang oleh Akta Had masa 1963 untuk membuat tututan tersebut sebaba tempoh had masa untuk Plaintiff menuntut telah luput pada tahun 2014 dan 2015 masing masing:"

[13] In the light of this defense of the Defendant the Court ruled that a decision of time bar was an issue that could be determined based on the agreement for the supply of the paddy seeds which was not denied by either party, without the need to call witnesses.

[14] The issue of time bar was a legal issue that could be determined by way of legal submissions from both sides. The Court therefore determined this issue after considering written submissions advanced by both sides.

The Court's Power To Decide A Preliminary Issue

[15] The Court has been clothed with specific power to determine a preliminary issue by