Abdul Hamid Said H:

Di dalam kes ini, kedua-dua pihak telah bersetuju bahawa cuma isu had masa diputuskan di mahkamah.

Plaintif di dalam kes ini telah menuntut gantirugi berjumlah RM145,936 dari defendan. Pihak ketiga ialah syarikat insuran yang memberi insuran kepada defendan. Pihak plaintif dan defendan bersetuju bahawa kerosakan kepada kabel plaintif di Jalan Melati 2, Daerah Gombak, Wilayah Persekutuan telah berlaku pada 17 August 1985. Dan plaintif telah memfailkan tuntutannya pada 17 Januari 1992. Dengan ini adalah nyata bahawa had masa enam tahun telah berlalu. Seksyen 6, Limitation Act 1953(Revised 1981) (2A) L.A. (1953) menyebut:

Section 6 LA (1953)

Save hereinafter after provided the following actions shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, that is to say:

(a) Actions founded on a contract or on tort;

(b) ...

(c) ...

(d) ...

Adalah jelas bahawa plaintif telah terperangkap dengan s. 6 LA (1953). Oleh yang demikian, plaintif telah berusaha menggunakan s. 26(2) LA dan/atau s. 29(b) LA (1953).

Bagi memudahkannya, saya menurunkan di sini, bahagian-bahagian relevan dalam kedua-dua seksyen berkenaan:

Section 26(2) LA (1953):

Where any right of action has accrued to recover any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim, ..., and the person liable or accountable therefore acknowledges the claim ..., the right shall be deemed to have accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or the last payment.

Sementara s. 29 LA (1953):

Where, in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either:

(a) ...

(b) the right of action is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or

(c) ...

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or the mistake, as the case may be, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it:

Di dalam kes ini, saya berpendapat adalah lebih senang memutuskan s. 29 LAmemandangkan ianya lebih mudah kerana faktanya jelas.

Defendan adalah syarikat pembinaan yang telah mendapat sub-kontrak dari prinsipal Syarikat Pembangunan Tenaga Murni Sdn. Bhd. "to construct and complete the water reticulation main, suction pump, pp house and elevated R.C. water tank for a housing scheme at Mukim Batu, Daerah Gombak, Selangor Darul Ehsan."

Defendan melalui ejen dan/atau pekerjanya atau "sub-contractor" telah merosakkan kable plaintif. Kerosakan kabel ini disedari pihak plaintif. IDP m.s. 14 ialah lapuran polis penolong pengurus plaintiff. Ia ketahui kerosakan kabel plaintif pada 22 Januari 1986. Malahan pada 21 Februari 1986 (IDP m.s. 18), plaintif membayar kerja-kerja membaik pulih kabel yang rosak.

Berlatar belakangkan fakta di atas, bolehkah berlakunya penipuan oleh defendan untuk membolehkan had masa terhenti. Di dalam kes Dwarka Prasad v. Shyama CharanA.I.R. 57, Hakim Panday memutuskan:

... It (fraud - tambahan saya) has no application when the other party merely remains silent and does not do any act which is designed to prevent knowledge of the cause of action.

BB Mitra di dalam buku "The Limitation Act, 1963, 1998"berkata:

Fraud affects limitation only when it prevented a person from knowing of his right or the title on which his claim was found.

Fraud contemplated under this section is the actual and active fraud in the means adopted to keep the person injured out the knowledge of his right ...

Selanjutnya penulis tersebut berkata di ms. 307, perenggan 7 bawah tajuk "Discovered the fraud or the mistake or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it":

Under s. 17(1) the period of limitation shall not run against the Plaintiff or the applicant until the Plaintiff or the applicant discovered fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud or mistake.

It follows that if the Plaintiff or the applicant is aware of his right to seek relief he cannot claim the benefit of this section ... what the section concerns itsel