Azimah Omar JCA:

A. Introduction

[1] There were two (2) appeals before us, namely; (i) B-02(IM)(NCvC)-1594-08-2022 ("Appeal 1594 / Developer's Appeal") and (ii) B-02(IM)(NCvC)-1654-09-2022 ("Appeal 1654 / Architect's Appeal"). Both appeals originated from the same High Court Suit No BA-22NCvC-89-02-2021 ("HC Suit 89").

[2] HC Suit 89 is essentially the Respondents-Plaintiffs' claim against the Developer for 'additional' Liquidated Ascertained Damages ("LAD") mounted on the allegation that the Vacant Possession delivered by the Appellant- Defendant Developer (on the basis of a partial Certificate of Completion and Compliance (also known as "Form F1 / Partial CCC / Partial Certificate of Fitness for Occupation / Partial CFO") of the Plaintiffs' specific parcels) was either a meaningless or an invalid delivery of Vacant Possession. Thus, the Plaintiffs contended that the delay for delivery of Vacant Possession subsisted even after the Developer's invalid delivery of Vacant Possession.

[3] A majority of the Respondents-Plaintiffs had already been paid LAD by the Appellant-Developer upon the parties' mutual execution and entry into Full and Final Settlement Agreements.

[4] However,