Abdul Malik Ishak JCA:

Introduction

[1] The learned High Court judge struck out the appellant's claims founded in contract and in tort on a preliminary issue of limitation. He also held that the appellant's claims were time barred by reason that the limitation period prescribed under s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953 runs from the date the alleged causes of action first accrued and he rejected the appellant's contention that the limitation period only runs from the date the appellant discovered the alleged causes of action in April 2004.

The Facts Of The Case

[2] The respondents, all lawyers practising with a law firm known as Messrs Aziz Hassan & Co, acted for the appellant in respect of the preparation of the loan documentation for a loan facility to be granted by the appellant for the loan sum of RM800,000 to a borrower company by the name of MYT Builders Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the borrower"). The loan taken by the borrower was to be secured by a third party assignment, which was to be executed by the third party assignor, a company known as Faeiz Corporation Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the assignor"), over a piece of land known as Lot 465, Mukim Hulu Kinta, Perak (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 465").

[3] Now, Lot 465 was one of the sub-divisional portions of another piece of land held under Lot No: 57436, Mukim Hulu Kinta, Perak (hereinafter referred to as "the master title").

[4] That master title was registered in the name of Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh (hereinafter referred to as "MBI"). And by a joint venture agreement dated 20 July 1989, MBI granted to a company known as Kumpulan Promista Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the developer"), the right to develop the land held under the master title. By way of a power of attorney dated 20 July 1989 executed in favour of the developer, MBI authorised the developer to enter into contracts of sale in respect of the land held under the master title with any person of the developer's choice.

[5] And pursuant to the power of attorney, the developer as the attorney for MBI subsequently entered into a sale and purchase agreement dated 9 December 1993 with the assignor to sell Lot 465 only.

[6] In accordance to the appellant's instruction to the respondents, the respondents dutifully prepared and attended to the execution of the loan agreement dated 6 April 1999 by the borrower and the third party assignment dated 6 April 1999 in respect of Lot 465 by the assignor respectively.

[7] Without further ado, on 6 April 1999, the appellant released the loan sum of RM800,000 to the borrower.

[8] Unfortunately, sometime in November 2000, the borrower defaulted on the repayment of the loan to the appellant.

[9] So, in April 2004, the appellant sought to enforce the third party assignment over Lot 465 by way of a private auction and, for that purpose, the appellant sought the consent of MBI for the sale and assignment of Lot 465. When MBI refused to agree, the appellant commenced an action against MBI vide Ipoh High Court originating summons no: MTI-24-365-2005 for the purpose of compelling MBI to consent to the sale and assignment of Lot 465. On second thoughts, the appellant by consent withdrew the proceedings against MBI because the appellant held onto the view that the assignor did not have a good title to Lot 465.

[10] The appellant then turned the table against the respondents and sued the respondents. By way of the instant suit on 17 March 2006, the appellant commenced proceedings against the respondents alleging that the respondents had acted in breach of contract or were negligent in failing to advise the appellant that the assignor did not have a good title to Lot 465 and, that being the case, the third party assignment over Lot 465 in favour of the appellant is said to be invalid.

The Limitation Issue Before The High Court

[11] The learned High Court judge had to consider the preliminary issue surrounding the question of limitation. And the preliminary issue cen