The existence of a running account and special business arrangement can extend the limitation period for claims under the Sarawak Limitation Ordinance.

JUDGMENT

Azmi Ariffin JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are two (2) separate Notice of Appeals filed before this Honourable Court for us to decide. They are as follows:

[ ] encl 1 dated 15 July 2020 is the Appellant / Plaintiff's (WTK Services & Warehousing Sdn Bhd) Notice of Appeal (Civil Appeal No Q-02(NCvC)(W)-821-07/2020) to this Honourable Court against the Sibu High Court Civil Suit No: SBW-22NCvC-14/8-2016 delivered on 15 June 2020 where the learned High Court Judge held that Limitation Ordinance 1959 applied to bar the Appellant's claim save for the two last invoices dated 31 August 2013 and 30 November 2013.

[ ] encl 1 dated 15 July 2020 is the Appellant / Defendant's (Medan Mestika Sdn Bhd) Notice of Appeal (Civil Appeal No: Q-02(NCvC) (W)-823-07/2020) being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned High Court Judge at Sibu High Court Civil Suit No: SBW-22NCvC-14/8-2016 delivered on 15 July 2020 against such part only of the said decision that:

(a) The Respondent (WTK Services & Warehousing Sdn Bhd has proven, on the balance of probabilities the evidence of a binding contract in a form of a special arrangement between the Respondent and the Appellant for the supply of fertilizers to the Appellant by the Respondent;

(b) The Respondent has proven that the goods were delivered and the Appellant had received them; and

(c) Judgment be entered for the Respondent against the Appellant for the two (2) invoices dated 31 August 2013 and 30 November 2013 totalling RM91,069.50 with interest at 5% per annum from the date of the writ i.e 25 August 2016 till full settlement and cost is fixed at RM20,000.00 to the Respondent.

[2] To facilitate the determination of these two (2) appeals, we find it more convenient to decide both the appeals in a single judgment as they are interrelated.

[3] For ease of reference, parties will be referred to as Plaintiff and Defendant respectively in this Judgment.

The Plaintiff's Case

[4] The Plaintiff (formerly known as TCS Services & Warehousing Sdn Bhd) [hereinafter "WTK Service & Warehousing"] carried on the business of supplying fertilizer.

[5] The Plaintiff brought this action claiming for a sum of RM1,979,273.80 (hereinafter referred to as the said "Outstanding Sum") owed by Defendant to the plaintiff for the fertilizer (hereinafter referred to as the said "Goods") delivered for the last 2 invoices dated 31 August 2013 (P257(C1)) and 30 November 2013 (P260(C1)) at the Defendant's request.

[6] The Defendant received the said Goods delivered and enjoyed the full benefit thereof.

[7] The Plaintiff and the Defendant maintained a running account with each other. The Defendant from time to time made payments to the Plaintiff on account generally and credit was given in the ledger for these payments as they were made.

[8] The payments were made in varying sums and were not made in respect of any particular debit. The plaintiff also kept an account in the name of the Defendant in which there was a series of credits and debits.

[9] In conducting their business, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have a special business arrangement between them which has become the practice and convention in their business dealings.

[10] Previously, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the same business address which is located at Bangunan Hung Ann, No 1 Jalan Bujang Suntong, 96000 Sibu, Sarawak before the Defendant changed its address to a different location at Lorong Lanang Barat, Sibu, Sarawak.

[11] The Defendant had enjoyed the benefit of the goods supplied and delivered and is unjustly enriched to the amount of the Outstanding Sum.

[12] The Plaintiff demanded the payment of the Outstanding Sum from the Defendant but the Defendant failed and still refuses to pay.

The Defendant's Case

[13] The Defendant carried on the business of planting and management of oil palm plantation.

[14] The Defendant denies that it owes the Plaintiff any outstanding sum as alleged.

[15] The Defendant did not order the Goods from the Plaintiff.

[16] The Defendant iss