A judgment must provide cogent reasons; failure to do so warrants retrial.

[1] This was an appeal from the decision of the Sessions Court judge in dismissing the appellant's claim and allowing the respondents' counter claim. After hearing counsel, I decided to set aside the decision of the Sessions Court judge due to it being a non speaking judgment and remitted the matter back to the Court below to be reheard before a different judge. My reasoning now follows.

[2] The facts of this case as can be gleaned from the submissions of the respondents are as follows:

"4. Plaintiff's case.

4.1. Plaintiff's claim for RM286,972.42, interest and costs on an alleged services rendered in the construction and renovation works at a homestay known as Inap Bayu Damai and foundation works for shop lot at Pengerang Johor.

5. Defendant's case.

5.1. Defendants appointed the plaintiff for design and built of 36 unit homestay consisting of 3 blocks (A, B & C) and shop lot at the consideration price of RM430,863.50 for homestay inclusive of variation order and the consideration for the shop lot is RM181,665.37 for foundation works.

5.2. The parties herein have agreed that vacant possession of the homestay would be delivered within 5-6 months from October 2016 ie in March 2017 to April 2017.

5.3. Plaintiff delivered vacant possession on or around March 2017 while the foundation works on the shop lot was ordered to stop at the foundation stage (building foundation).

5.4. At the time of delivery of the shop lot in August 2017, only the building foundation was done.

5.5. The defect liability period given by the plaintiff was 12 months from the date of delivery of vacant possession of 36 units of homestay and stop work order was given to the shop lot as the defendants were doubtful of the plaintiff's works.

5.6. The defendants discovered massive cracks in the majority of the 36 units and construction problem and the list of defects were given to the plaintiff to rectify the problems within the agreed defect liability period. Among the defects are:

a) Massive vertical cracks;

b) Leaking from outside the unit into majority of the rooms in which the plaintiff failed to comply with the basic requirements and specifications of constructions;

c) The no water proofing and caused serious leaking and did not comply to the constructions requirements and specifications;

d) Water found in electric socket causing short circuit and life threatening;

e) Top beam did not comply to specification and serious crack in several areas in the beam which cause the structure unstable;

f) Crack at footway, drainage crack;

g) Serious crack at the building foundation, collected water and the foundation are not level properly and concrete works did not comply with standard constructions requirements and specifications.

5.7. Plaintiff made 5 attempts to rectify the defects by plastering the cracked wall causing thickness to the wall and the defendant complained that the repeated plastering has changed the look of the wall due the thickness of the plastering.

5.8. In a meeting in September, 2017 between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the plaintiff admitted that the defects are irreparable and the homestay have to be demolished thus established the facts that the plaintiff is aware that the defects could not be rectified although it was only 2 and 3 month after delivery of vacant possession.

5.9. At all material time, the plaintiff confirmed it was confined again in the meeting that the homestay should be able to stand for 20 years and this representation was communicated to defendants' investors.

5 October The defendants had paid RM240,000.00 for homestay and RM110,000.00 for shop lot and the amount paid was not disputed (RM430,965.50 + RM181,665.37 = RM612,530.87).

5.11. Th