The EPF Act prevails over the terms of a judgment regarding unpaid contributions, ensuring joint and several liabilities and the enforceability of statutory late payment charges.

A. Introduction

[1] The Appeal before this Court is an appeal by a thirteen (13) years Judgment Debtor (the Appellant) insisting to look beyond a Bankruptcy Notice (in hopes of impugning the validity of a 13 years old Summary Judgment on the ground of nullity by uncertainty).

[2] It is pertinent to note that to date (save for the Appellant's challenge against the Respondent's present bankruptcy action), the Appellant has neither moved any application to set aside, vary, nor appealed against the entry of the 13 years old Summary Judgment.

[3] The factum of delay is sorely obvious and undisputable. Nonetheless, the Appellant beckons this Appellate Court's discretion and inherent jurisdiction to absolve the Appellant's apparent indolence and set aside the 13 years old Summary Judgment on the argument that the Summary Judgment was null and void ex debito justitiae for an alleged want of certainty.

[4] Apart from the Appellant's strenuous contention on nullity, the Appellant also seeks to disentitle the Respondent from basing any bankruptcy action on the Summary Judgment on the ground that the parties have somehow reached a 'compromise' outside the ambit of the 13 years old Summary Judgment.

[5] Be that as it may, it is pertinent to first appreciate the facts of the case so as to build the appropriate foundation as well as context to properly determine the issues above.

B. Facts Of The Case

[6] The Respondent ("Judgment Creditor/JC") since 13 years ago has successfully obtained a Summary Judgment dated 14 May 2009 ("13 years old SJ") against the Appellant ("Judgment Debtor/JD") and another co-Defendant Company via suit No S7-21-147-2003 for unpaid Employees Provident Fund ("EPF") Contributions. The 13 years old SJ orders and prescribes the Appellant's indebtedness in the following manner:

a. Judgment sum of RM448,691.00;

b. Dividend at 6.48% a year for the year 1999, at 6% a year for the year 2000, at 5% a year for the year 2001, and at 4.25% a year for the year 2002 until full settlement;

c. Interest at the rate declared by the Plaintiff for the years 1999 until 2002 until full settlement; and

d. Cost.

[7] It is admitted and undisputed that even to date the Appellant JD has neither moved any application to set aside or vary the 13 years old SJ, nor file any appeal against the 13 years old SJ.

[8] On 13 December 2018, the Respondent obtained leave from the High Court to execute the 13 years old SJ after the lapsing of the statutory 6 years' limitation period for execution.

[9] Thereupon, the Respondent proceeded to file the application for issuance of Bankruptcy Notice on 13 September 2019. Only after more than a decade has passed, the Appellant has suddenly moved to impugn the validity of the 13 years old SJ (by filing an application to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice on 17 December 2019 ("Enclosure 15")).

[10] The Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR") allowed encl 15 on 24 July 2020. The SAR allowed as such on the following grounds:

a. The Bankruptcy Notice was defective as it claims for the entire Judgment Sum against one singular debtor (considering that the 13 years old SJ did not state a joint and several liabilities between co-debtors);

b. The part payments/instalment payments by the Appellant JD were evidence of a 'compromise' struck. Thus, there was already an 'outside agreement' governing the Appellant's debt which is already beyond the ambit of the 13 years old SJ; and

c. The Bankruptcy