Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2414
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
ZAINI JAMALUDIN – Appellant
Versus
KOLEJ UNIVERSITI ISLAM ANTARABANGSA SELANGOR SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BA-12BNCVC-24-02-2020]
An employee's resignation may not constitute a breach of contract if it results from unfair treatment, and a scholarship agreement's termination clause must be adhered to for damage claims to be valid.
Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Scholarship Agreement - Breach of contract - The Sessions Court found that the defendant breached the Scholarship Agreement by resigning before the completion of the mandatory bond period, awarding damages to the plaintiff - The appellate court intervened based on errors in law and fact by the Sessions Court, particularly in ignoring evidence of unfair treatment and in not considering the correct interpretation of the Scholarship Agreement's termination clause. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 42)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a lecturer, resigned from the respondent university while still under a scholarship bond, leading to a claim for damages for breach of contract. The Sessions Court awarded damages, but the appellate court found the decision flawed due to failure to consider evidence of unfair treatment. (Paras 1-12)
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the Sessions Court's decision was plainly wrong, particularly in its failure to consider the evidence of unfair treatment and the implications of the Scholarship Agreement's termination clause. (Paras 27, 31, 32, 46)
Issues: The key issues included whether the resignation constituted a breach of the Scholarship Agreement and the validity of the damages claimed by the university. (Paras 12, 26)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Sessions Court erred by failing to consider evidence of mistreatment and by misinterpreting the Scholarship Agreement's termination provisions, which required KUIS to formally terminate the agreement before claiming damages. (Paras 28, 31, 42)
Result: Appeal allowed; the decision of the Sessions Court set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal process and court decisions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. background of zaini's employment and contractual obligations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. claims and counterclaims between zaini and kuis. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. testimonies and evidence presented in sessions court. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. court's analysis of errors and legal principles applied. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by the appellant/defendant ("Zaini") against the respondent/plaintiff, Kolej Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Selangor Sdn Bhd ("KUIS"), a private university college, against the decision of the Sessions Court dated 6 February 2020. Zaini was a lecturer who was still under the duration of a scholarship bond with KUIS when he resigned from his employment. KUIS brought an action against Zaini at the Sessions Court seeking damages for an alleged contractual breach of the Scholarship Agreement (defined below).
[2] The Sessions Court found that KUIS has succeeded in proving their case against Zaini. It allowed KUIS's claim and ordered Zaini to pay KUIS double the total course fees, stationary allowance and salary which KUIS had paid to or on behalf of Zaini during his PhD course and dismissed Zaini's counterclaim against the KUIS with costs.
[3] Zaini appealed against the decision. The High Court, on hearing the appeal, decided on 23 September 2020 to set aside the Sessions Court's decision and ordered that the case be remitted to the Sessions Court for re-trial before a different Sessions Court Judge.
[4] Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, KUIS filed an appeal against the High Court's decision. The Court of Appeal on 14 October 2021 ordered that this case be remitted to the High Court for a rehearing of the appeal before another judge.
[5] Upon hearing the appeal, this Court allowed Zaini's appeal and ordered that the decision of the Sessions Court be set aside. My reasons for allowing Zaini's appeal are set out in this judgment.
Facts
[6] Zaini was a lecturer at KUIS before entering a Perjanjian Pengajian/ Latihan dated 1 August 2008 with KUIS ("the Scholarship Agreement"). Zaini successfully completed his PhD. He returned to KUIS and served them as a full-time lecturer. From 2012 to January 2014, Zaini continued his employment as a senior lecturer at KUIS.
[7] In November 2012, 186 staff and officers from various departments and faculties of KUIS, including Zaini, signed a "Memorandum Kehilangan Keyakinan Terhadap Pengurusan KUIS - Memorandum of Loss of Confidence against the College Management ("Loss of Confidence Memorandum").
[8] Zaini and 6 other individuals who signed the Loss of Confidence Memorandum were given a show cause letter by the management of KUIS. Following the show cause letter, a domestic inquiry was commenced against Zaini. Zaini was found guilty of the charges and punished with a 25% salary reduction sentence for two years via a letter dated 26 October 2013. Zaini appealed against the punishment through a letter dated 14 November 2013 to set aside or mitigate his punishment. His appeal was rejected on 20 December 2013.
[9] After his appeal was rejected, Zaini was loaned to a KUIS's subsidiary company, KUISCell Sdn Bhd ("KUISCell"), as their Chief Operating Officer ("COO") for 2 years from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2015.
[10] Approximately 8 months of working in KUISCell, Zaini served a notice of termination of service on 8 August 2014, to take effect after 3 months of the said notice.
[11] In response to the notice of resignation, KUIS notified Zaini that:
(a) Zaini was still under mandatory bond with KUIS as the mandatory period of service is from 25 October 2013 to 24 October 2019;
(b) his notice of resignation was a breach of the Scholarship Agreement;
(c) by tendering the notice of resignation, Zaini was taken to have t
