The court clarified that clerical amendments to judgments are permissible and do not constitute a substantive change invalidating the prior ruling.

JUDGMENT

Mohd Taufik Mohd @ Mohd Yusoff SCJ:

[1] In this case, the Plaintiff has filed an application under encl 16. The application was filed intending to delete and substitute the name of the 3rd Defendant from "PUO EK KOK" to "PUA EK KOK", as underlined, in the intitulement in all the cause papers filed in this case including the Writ and Statement of Claim, Certificates of Non-Appearance (enclosures 11, 12 and 13) and Judgment In Default filed as encl 14 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Judgment').

[2] However, the 3rd Defendant did not file any affidavit to object to the application. Counsel for the 3rd Defendant merely informed the court during the mention date that the 3rd Defendant would only file submission on the question of law.

[3] There are two arguments raised by the 3rd Defendant on the question of law ie whether the court is now functus officio and that O 20 r 11 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC) does not apply to the application.

Findings Of The court

Whether The court Is Functus Officio?

[4] The first argument raised by the 3rd Defendant's counsel is that this court is functus officio once the Judgment was sealed on 7 August 2020. Hence, O 20 r 5 of the ROC cannot aid the Plaintiff for the purpose of the amendment since there is no more proceeding before this court.

[5] The court of Appeal in the case of Chin Wai Leong & Ors v. PP & Other Applications, [2020] 7 CLJ 322 defined functus officio as a person who has discharged his duty, or whose office of authority is at end.

[6] It is settled law that once a court has pronounced a final order, it does not possess the authority to re-open, alter, amend and supplement the final order and judgment relating to the dispute it has adjudicated upon: see Stone World Sdn Bhd v. Engareh (M) Sdn Bhd, [2020] 12 MLJ 237 (FC).

[7] Learned counsel for the 3rd Defendant submitted that the crucial phrase "at any stage of the proceedings" in O 20 r 5 means before judgment is made and cited the case of Hong Leong Bank Bhd v. Staghorn Sdn Bhd & other appeals, 2008 MarsdenLR 4184 to support his contention. The Federal court held:

"The application may be made "at any stage of the proceedings" meaning before judgment, otherwise the proceedings have concluded and there is no longer a proceeding in existence for the party to intervene in. The judge has also become functus officio"

[8] The counsel went on to submit that there was no decided authority on the meaning of the phrase "at any stage of the proceedings".

[9] It was also submitted by the 3rd Defendant's counsel that an amendment or correction to a judgment can only be made upon clerical mistakes arising out of accidental slip or omission and this can only be done under O 20 r 11. An authority that was decided by Mary Lim J (as she then was) in the case of Chew Hon Keong v. Betterproduct Industries Sdn Bhd , 2012 MarsdenLR 865 was cited in support of his submission.

[10] Further argument on O 20 r 11 forwarded by the counsel for the 3rd Defendant is that O 20 r 11 can only be utilised in order to amend a judgment or court order that does not reflect what was actually pronounced, as in that situation, the court is not functus officio: see Sang Lee Company Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Munusamy Karuppiah, [2010] 5 MLJ 285.

[11] The Plaintiff's counsel, on the other hand, argued that when involving judgment in default, the issue of functus officio does not arise and he cited the cases of Scott & English (M) Sdn Bhd v. Yung Chen Wood Industries Sdn Bhd, [2018] 5 MLJ 204 and Hock Hua Bank Bhd v. Sahari Bin Murid ; 1980 MarsdenLR 177 in support.

[12] In the case of Sykt. Marak Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Sykt Masinda Sdn Bhd , [1991] 2 MLJ 417, the court has set out some examples when the court is not functus officio even when an order has been perfected. The first situation is when there is consent by both parties to do so. The second situation is when it involves the setting aside of a judgment in default and the third situation is under O 20 r 11 when the order does not reflec