The court maintains jurisdiction to hear cases against statutory bodies despite legislative provisions attempting to oust such jurisdiction if the statutory body has not acted in good faith.

[1] The defendant is a statutory body established under the Perumahan Rakyat 1 Malaysia Act 2012 (PR1MA).

[2] On 18 March 2016, the plaintiff company (plaintiff), defendant and Sinergi Dayang Sdn Bhd (Contractor) entered into a tri-partite "Master En-Bloc Agreement" (Contract).

[3] The Contract provided as follows, among others:

(1) the plaintiff agreed to sell the plaintiff's land (Land) to the defendant in consideration of payments to be made by the defendant to the plaintiff in three phases ("Phase 1", "Phase 2" and "Phase 3") as specified in Schedule 3A to the Contract (Schedule 3A) - please see cl 4.1 of the Contract;

(2) clause 4.2 of the Contract (Clause 4.2) states that if the payments set out in Schedule 3A are not paid at the expiration of the time periods stipulated in Schedule 3B to the Contract (Schedule 3B), "interest on such unpaid instalment shall commence immediately thereafter and be payable by [the defendant] to the date of actual payment thereof, and such interest shall be calculated from day to day at the rate of [10%] per annum"; and

(3) the Contractor agreed to build "PR1MA Homes" on the Land for the defendant in consideration of payments to be made by the defendant to the Contractor as provided in the Contract.

[4] The defendant had paid the plaintiff for Phases 1 and 2 but there was a total delay of 111 days in those payments [Delay (Payments of Phases 1 and 2)].

[5] Regarding item 2(iv) in Schedule 3B [Item 2(iv)], the defendant had confirmed in writing on 7 December 2016 that Item 2(iv) was not applicable as stated in the plaintiff's letter dated 5 December 2016 to the defendant.

[6] The plaintiff has complied with Schedule 3B regarding Phase 3 but despite many written reminders, the defendant has failed to pay RM18,202,442.00 for Phase 3 (Phase 3 Payment).

[7] The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant (This Action) to recover the following sums, among others:

(1) "late payment charges" for the Delay (Payments of Phases 1 and 2) amounting to RM1,029,390.71 (calculated in accordance with cl 4.2);

(2) Phase 3 Payment;

(3) late payment charges regarding the defendant's failure to make the Phase 3 Payment as provided in cl 4.2;

(4) general damages for breach of the Contract; and

(5) costs.

[8] In court encl no 13 (encl 13), the plaintiff applied for summary judgment against the defendant for the reliefs stated in the above para 7.

B. Issues

[9] Enclosure 13 raises the following questions:

(1) whether s 73(b) PR1MA ousts the court's jurisdiction from hearing This Action when:

(a) Section 3 (3) PR1MA allows the defendant to be sued; and

(b) the defendant has breached the Contract (defendant's Breach) and the defendant's Breach is not made in good faith within the meaning of s 73 PR1MA;

(2) if s 73(b) PR1MA ousts the court's jurisdiction from hearing This Action:

(a) has s 73(b) PR1MA altered the basic structure of the Federal Constitution (Constitution) by depriving the court of its judicial power to decide disputes under art 121(1) of the Constitution?; and

(b) if s 73(b) PR1MA has altered the Constitution's basic structure by excluding the court's judicial power to adjudicate disputes, is s 73(b) PR1MA void under art 4(1) of the Constitution to the extent of such an alteration?; and

(3) if the court has jurisdiction to determine This Action:

(a) is the plaintiff entitled to summary judgment against the defendant under O 14 r 3(1) of the Rules of 2012 (RC)?; and

(b) whether the defendant is able to discharge the burden to prove that cl 4.2 provides "unreasonable compensation" to the plaintiff which attracts the application of s 75 of the Contracts Act 1950 ( CA ).

C. What Is Effect Of Section 73 (b) PR1MA?

[10] Sections 3 and 73 PR1MA provide as follows:

"Establishment of the Corporation

3(1)A body corporate to be known as the