A registered association can be sued by any officer-bearer in a representative capacity when no public officer is defined, according to section 9(c) of the Societies Act.

[1] The defendant, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, had filed a successful leave application before us in respect of the sole question of law which reads as follows:

"Whether the Sarawak Housing Developers' Association, which is a society registered under the Societies Act 1966 , can sue as "Chairman Sarawak Housing Developers' Association."

[2] The plaintiff, ie the respondent had sued the appellant for the refund of RM322,007.95 debited from its account. In the course of the hearing at the High Court, followed by an appeal at the Court of Appeal, much centered on the issue whether the respondent was right in suing the appellant under the office-bearer's capacity of 'Chairman, Sarawak Housing Developers' Association' rather than his individual name. As gleaned from above the Sarawak Housing Developers' Association (Association) is an association registered under the Societies Act 1966 (the Act).

[3] The respondent's case was that the appellant had wrongfully cleared 186 cheques encashed by the Association's Executive Secretary, ie one Nazerah Haji Obeng (Nazerah), causing the Association's account to be debited of the aforesaid sum of RM322,007.95. The respondent wanted a refund of the latter sum. In its defence, amongst others, the appellant pleaded that the respondent lacked capacity to sue.

[4] For better appreciation of this appeal, in relation to the question for our determination we reproduce the facts, with the chronology beginning with a letter dated 6 October 1992, when the Association applied to open a current account with the appellant at its branch at Wisma Satok. In support of the account application the following documents were supplied, viz:

(i) the relevant Malayan Banking application forms;

(ii) copies of the Rules and Regulations/Constitution of the Association;

(iii) a list of the current Board members; and

(iv) the Association's resolution to open the current account.

[5] The application was successful and the Association's current account supplied by the appellant bore the number 0-11113-20591-2 ("the account"). The appellant was notified of the persons allowed to operate the account. One of the Rules made known to the appellant at the time of opening the account was evident in para 9.3 of the Rules and Regulations, and reads:

"All cheques or withdrawal notices on the Association's account shall be signed jointly by the Chairman (or in his absence the Vice- Chairman) and the Treasurer. In the absence of the Treasurer the Assistant Treasurer shall sign in his place."

[6] It is pertinent to note that the appellant was forwarded a copy of the Rules and Regulations and was also furnished with the names of the office bearers and signatories of all related negotiable instruments, from the time the account was approved, together with the changes in the office bearers.

[7] Following the third Executive Committee meeting of the Association on 11 April 2002, the abovementioned Nazerah was appointed the Executive Secretary and tasked with the daily administrative duties of the office. She was also tasked with the recording of the minutes of the Executive Committee meetings. At the same time, she kept the cheque book of the account.

[8] Vide letter dated 18 May 2002, purportedly signed by the Association's Chairman, the appellant was informed that Nazerah, was named as an additional signatory of cheques subject to a limit of RM2,000.00. The letter also informed the appellant that only one signatory was required for cheques of RM2,000.00 and below. Attached to the letter was part of the minutes of the Executive Comm