Limitation of actions and estoppel prevent plaintiffs from contesting financial accounts accepted at prior meetings.

[19] In the instant appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the learned judge ought not to have allowed the defendant's application by reason of the inordinate delay. Having considered the provisions of O 33 rr 2 and 5 and the relevant authorities, His Lordship disagreed with the plaintiffs.

[20] The decision of the learned judge was in accord with the provisions of O 33 r 2 which expressly state that the application may be made either before, at or after the trial. Despite the fact that in the instant case trial had proceeded at such an advanced stage, with the plaintiffs' witnesses having completed their testimony and the defendant's first witness had also been examined, it did not preclude the defendant from filing the said application. In this regard, the issue of bad faith as contended by the plaintiffs did not arise, given that the law allows such an application to be made.

[21] The plaintiffs contended that the procedure adopted by the defendant was wrong in the sense that the defendant must apply for an order under r 2 first before seeking the Court's direction as to the manner in which the question or issue is to be stated. We found no merits in the plaintiffs' contention. It was clearly indicated in the learned judge's grounds of judgment that he had allowed the defendant to file the application in encl 68, where His Lordship stated that:

"[8] Pada 24 Mei 2016 defendan telah membuat permohonan kepada Mahkamah ini untuk memfailkan Permohonan Defendan. Mahkamah telah membenarkan defendan untuk memfailkan Permohonan Defendan dan seterusnya menetapkan 16 Jun 2016 sebagai tarikh pendengaran Permohonan defendan tersebut."

[22] As to the appropriateness of the application, we echo the words of Mohd Hishamudin Yunus J (as he then was) in Dayapi Holdings (supra), where His Lordship said at pp 340-341:

"In my judgment, when the proceeding has reached such an advanced stage of the proceeding or had practically reached the trial stage, as has happened in the present case, the appropriate course to adopt, should any party be of view that the cause could be disposed of without the need of a normal trial, is not to invoke O 14A, but to invoke O 33 r 2 and r 5 of the RHC."

[23] Learned counsel for the plaintiffs had submitted that the defendant failed to show that the application has resulted in substantial saving of time and expenditure. We were unable to accept the submission. As evident from the records, the trial of this matter took place from July 2012 until May 2016 with 10 witnesses testifying for the plaintiffs and one for the defendant. The examination of the defendant's witness took more than two years ie from January 2014 until May 2016. In the circumstances, we found no reason to depart from His Lordship's conclusion that:

"(ix) Lagipun Mahkamah amati penolakan tindakan ini dapat menjimatkan kos pihak-pihak dan masa semua pihak memandangkan ia sudah terlampau lama sejak difailkan pada 24 Mei 2011."

[24] Obviously when the learned judge decided on encl 68, the entire matter was disposed of and parties were spared from the rigmarole of the trial process for the defendant's other witnesses to testify.

[25] On the issue of limitation, the learned judge found that the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued in May 2005 when the plaintiffs through one Hamzah Abu Bakar raised the complaints on inter alia the financial statements or the profit and loss account at the 17th AGM held on 24 May 2004. We found no error of law or fact on the part of the learned judge. His finding was supported by the contemporaneous documents in the form of minutes of the 17th AGM, which recorded the following:

"AGENDA 2

UCAPAN KETUA PESERTA

En. Hamzah bin Abu Bakar

...

2.4 Setelah di koperatkan beliau mempertikaikan perjanjian Felcra Berhad dengan Kerajaan Negeri, Potongan Felcra Holding, Penyata Hutang (P&L) yang mengelirukan dan perbelanjaan baja yang tinggi.

...

2.6 Beliau juga mempertikaikan kaedah bayaran dividen bulanan walaupun harga sawit meningkat, peserta masih me