Visu Sinnadurai J:

Facts

[1] The plaintiff was employed by the defendant, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, as a junior technician in January 1963. On 9 January 1986, pursuant to a domestic inquiry, the plaintiff was dismissed by the defendant on the ground that he had stolen 120 eggs.

[2] On 19 December 1987, the plaintiff through his then solicitors, M/s Lobo & Associates, commenced an action against the defendant in the Special Powers and Appellate Division, High Court in Kuala Lumpur In the statement of claim, the plaintiff prayed inter-alia:

(i) a declaration that the dismissal was without just cause or excuse, and

(ii) all necessary and consequential remedies.

[3] The defendant filed their statement of defence on 5 February 1988. On 3 May 1988, an order was made by the Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) requesting the plaintiff to serve on the defendant further and better particulars.

[4] Sometime in 1989, the plaintiff changed his solicitors, and the present solicitors, M/s Mohan Ghandi and Associates were appointed to represent the plaintiff.

First Amendment (Enclosure 40)

[5] After a number of hearings before the Judge in chambers, on 8 March 1991, the plaintiff applied to amend the writ of summons and the statement of claim, and also to have the case transferred from the Special Powers and Appellate Division of the High Court to the Civil Division of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur.

[6] The proposed amendment was to substitute a claim for "general damages for wrongful dismissal", instead of the earlier prayer for a declaration that the plaintiff's dismissal was without just cause (encl 40).

[7] Earlier, on 4 March 1991, the defendant informed the plaintiff that they will be raising a preliminary objection at the commencement of the hearing of the amendment to the pleadings (encl 38) as to the propriety of the proposed amendments.

[8] In August 1991, the SAR, however, allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the pleadings and also to have the case transferred from the Special and Appellate Division to the Civil Division of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur A new file number, bearing the Civil Division reference was then assigned to this file.

[9] On 16 August 1993, the case was finally set down for trial for 22 and 23 September 1993 (encl 8).

[10] The plaintiff's solicitors, however, on 9 September 1993 wrote to the Court requesting for a postponement of the trial on the ground that they wished to make further amendments to their pleadings (encl 10). This request for postponement was, however, refused.

Second Amendment (Enclosure 12)

[11] On 22 September 1993, that is, on the date fixed for trial, Counsel for the plaintiff again requested for a postponement of the trial on the ground that as the case was now before the Civil Division, certain amendments to the pleadings were necessary, as these were most crucial to the plaintiff's claim. After considering the request of the plaintiff, the Court was of the view that the request by the Counsel for the plaintiff was not unreasonable, and further as Counsel for the defendant did not have any strong objection, granted the postponement of the case to 6 October 1993. Tuan Haji Sulaiman, who appeared for the defendant, however, informed the Court that he would still be raising the preliminary objection.

[12] On 6 October 1993, the formal application made by the plaintiff to amend the pleadings (encl 12) was heard by this Court. In this second application to amend the pleadings, the plaintiff sought to include reinstatement as an alternative remedy:

general damages for wrongful dismissal, and/or reinstatement with all fringe benefits.

[13] However, in view of the defendant's objections to these amendments, and also as it appeared to the Court that Counsel for the plaintiff was still unclear as to the proper remedy which ought to be sought, and also as to the exact nature of the amendments to the pleadings, the Court allowed Counsel for the plaintiff further time to reconsider and study the en