An agent's apparent authority can bind a principal even if internal procedural requirements are not met, ensuring enforceability of contracts and assignments.

[1] Basically the plaintiff's pleaded case is that Panji Alam Creative (M) Sdn Bhd ("Panji Alam") was awarded a contract vide reference JMA/KSNP/PBB/146/2000/6 by Jabatan Muzium Dan Antikuiti Malaysia ("Jabatan Muzium") to supply historical artifacts for Kompleks Kota Ngah Ibrahim or Kompleks Sejarah Matang and Muzium Perak ("Kompleks Kota Ngah Ibrahim") valued at RM1,212,650 listed as Annexure "A" to the statement of claim. Panji Alam applied to the plaintiff for an Al-Murabaha facility to finance the purchase of the historical artifacts and in support of the said application and as a condition for its approval, by a letter dated 9 September 2000 addressed to Dato' Pengarah, Panji Alam absolutely assigned the payment under the said contract to the plaintiff. By a letter dated 11 September 2000 Jabatan Muzium acknowledged and agreed to the assignment of the payment to the plaintiff and also of payment directly to the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied on the letters and approved an Al-Murabaha facility of RM1,098,483.10 to Panji Alam subject to the terms and conditions therein. The plaintiff purchased and paid for the historical artifacts which were delivered to Kompleks Kota Ngah Ibrahim. Since no payment was made to the plaintiff by the defendant for the same, the plaintiff claims for the sum of RM1,098,483.10 from the defendant.

[2] Essentially, the defendant's case is that they have no knowledge about the plaintiff and of the contract allegedly awarded to the plaintiff. Any purported award of contract was made by Encik Abdul Latib bin Ariffin, the then Assistant Curator ("Abdul Latib") without any direction, knowledge, agreement and approval by the Jabatan Muzium and the Ministry of Finance Malaysia ("MOF") and the former has acted in his own personal capacity in dealings with Panji Alam. The purported contract is not binding on the defendant as Abdul Latib has not acted as the defendant's agent; it is irregular and contrary to the guidelines applicable to any contract entered on defendant's behalf. Abdul Latib has wrongfully used the letterhead of the defendant's Department without the consent, knowledge or permission of the defendant when the letter of 11 September 2000 was issued to the plaintiff and he acted in his own capacity; he was a mere employee of the defendant and did not act within the powers of his service when he appointed Panji Alam as the supplier of the historical artifacts for Kompleks Kota Ngah Ibrahim. The defendant is not liable to make any payment for the historical artifacts as it has not entered any contract with Panji Alam and/or the plaintiff; it is only the defendant's headquarters in Kuala Lumpur which is responsible and authorised to deal with any placement of order for any historical artifacts; the defendant has never appointed or authorised Abdul Latib or any other party to make any decision on behalf of the defendant's headquarters. The plaintiff is not entitled to any claim for payment, which payment, if any, should be claimed from Abdul Latib as all the dealings related to supply of the historical artifacts were made between the plaintiff and Abdul Latib without the approval and knowledge of the defendant.

[3] The issues to be determined are marked as "E":

1. Whether the Assistant Curator, Ab. Latib bin Ariffin has express and/or ostensible authority to award the contract to supply historical artifacts to Kompleks