Back
2023 MarsdenLR 1833
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
ROSWAN ISMAIL – Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITI PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS (UPSI) – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: AA-12BNCVC-2-03-2023]
Failure to complete studies under contractual terms obliges reimbursement of funds advanced by the educational institution.
Headnote:Statutory obligations and principles governing reimbursement under scholarship agreements were examined, emphasizing the Respondent's financial expectations from the Appellant post-Ph.D registration. The Respondent's assertion of contractual breach due to the Appellant's failure to complete studies in five years formed the basis for the claim of RM198,212.17. Key issues identified included the nature of payments based on agreements and elements of waiver and estoppel. The Court upheld the Session Court's judgment, ultimately determining that the Appellant's acceptance of funds implied acknowledgment and commitment to repayment as outlined in existing agreements.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. financial obligations arise from educational sponsorship agreements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. failure to meet educational goals breached contractual terms. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's role is deference to trial judge's factual determinations. (Para 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. inference based on standard practice can establish contractual relation. (Para 24 , 28) |
| 5. consistent acceptance of payments indicates acknowledgment of obligations. (Para 36 , 37 , 40) |
| 6. affirmation of lower court's findings based on evidentiary review. (Para 46) |
Backgrounds Facts
[1] The Respondent, an institution of higher education, sued the Appellant, a former lecturer, to pay compensation in the amount of RM198,212.17.
[2] The Respondent operates under various legislative and regulatory frameworks, including the University Colleges Act 1971 and the Sultan Idris Education University (campus) Order 1997, which dictate its governance and policies.
[3] The Appellant, while being employed by the Respondent, embarked on a Doctor of Philosophy ("Ph.D.") program in Computer Networking at Universiti Putra Malaysia ("UPM"). This academic venture was undertaken through a scholarship scheme known as Skim Latihan Akademik IPTA ("SLAI"), funded by the Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi ("KPT"). The initial study period was set from September 1, 2009, to August 30, 2012, a span of 36 months or three years. However, the Appellant was granted a 12-month extension, extending the study period to August 31, 2013.
[4] During this period, the Respondent continued to support the Appellant financially. It covered the Appellant's monthly salary, emoluments, and other relevant allowances throughout the duration of the Ph.D. study leave at UPM, Serdang. Concurrently, KPT bore the responsibility of funding the Appellant's tuition and other academic fees, in line with the terms and conditions of the offer letter and the agreement between the Appellant and KPT.
[5] However, despite the extensions granted by the Respondent, the Appellant failed to complete the Ph.D. program within the maximum stipulated time of five years. This failure led to the Respondent terminating the Appellant's employment in January 2015, in accordance with the terms of the initial employment contract. The Respondent sought to reclaim the financial support provided during the study period, amounting to RM198,212.17, by legal action.
[6] This legal tussle culminated in a full trial, with the Respondent calling six (6) witnesses from various departments. On the other hand, the Appellant, who initially listed seven (7) witnesses, ultimately presented only one witness, herself. The decision to present only one witness came after the Appellant withdrew her Counterclaim during the continued trial. Consequently, the focus of the Respondent's arguments in the Sessions Court remained solely on their claim and the Appellant's statement of defence.
Respondent's Claim In Session Court
[7] In the Sessions Court, the essence of the Respondent's argument is rooted in the contractual obligations and financial commitments made to the Appellant during their Ph.D. studies.
[8] The Respondent's claims were substantiated by the Appellant's salary, allowances, and related emoluments during the Ph.D. period.
[9] The Respondent proceeded to make out the case against the Appellant who was initially a Tutor and then offered a Ph.D. at UPM through a letter dated June 22, 2009, and voluntarily chose to continue with the Ph.D. in Computer Networking. This fact was acknowledged by the Appellant during crossexamination. The Respondent stressed that standard procedures were followed in granting the scholarship under Skim Latihan Akademik IPTA by KPT, which included providing a copy of the relevant agreement to the Appellant for completion and return, a process confirmed by the plaintiff's witness SP5, Noor Faridah Binti Mohd Saidin.
[10] Despite the requirement to return the completed agreement, the Respondent continued to pay
