The court possesses discretion under Rules of Court to extend time for compliance with consent orders, considering parties' obligations and delays caused by solicitors' disputes, thereby preventing injustice.

(Enclosure 30)

Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs' action against the defendant herein is primarily for a declaration that certain agreed terms established through exchange of letters between both parties' solicitors in February 2021 (the "agreed terms") are valid, binding and enforceable against each of them and as a consequential thereof an order for specific performance for the defendant to fulfill their obligations according to the said agreed terms.

[2] On 28 December 2023, the plaintiffs and the defendant had reached an amicable settlement where by way of a Consent Order ("CO"), it was recorded among others that the plaintiffs agreed to make an application for an extension of the lease tenure of their lands to the Land Office within 2 months from the date of the CO and such application shall only be submitted through a firm of solicitors appointed by the defendant namely Messrs Rosli Kamaruddin & Co ("RKC").

[3] Due to certain issues which will be dealt with later, the application could not be made by RKC within the stipulated time.

[4] Hence, before this Court now is an application by the defendant vide encl 30 to vary the CO for the purpose of enlarging the time for the making of the said application and to appoint Messrs Ikbal Salam & Associates ("IKSA") as new solicitors to replace RKC for the same tasks.

[5] On 30 April 2024, this Court had allowed encl 30 with costs of RM10,000.00 to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The extension of time granted by this Court however was only for a period of 3 months from the date of the order instead of 18 months as applied by the defendant. In relation to the plaintiffs' application to the Land Office, IKSA appointed by the defendant will now be the solicitors in charge for the said application.

[6] Dissatisfied with the said decision, the plaintiffs have filed their appeals to the Court of Appeal.

[7] The followings are the Grounds of Judgment for the said decision.

The Factual Background

[8] The plaintiffs and another person known as "Pau' are the purchasers of 8 units of 2-storey shop office sold by the Defendant as the vendor and developer of the shop offices project ("subject properties"). To that end, parties have entered into various Sales and Purchase Agreements all dated on 14 December 2013.

[9] The defendant's Sales Proforma relied on by the plaintiffs for the abovesaid transaction stated that the leasehold period of the subject properties is for 99 years.

[10] However, when individual titles for the subject properties were issued by the Land Office somewhere in 2014, the plaintiffs discovered that the actual remaining lease period is only for 83 years 11 months. At the time of delivery of vacant possession in 2016, the remaining lease period for the subject properties was only for 81 years 10 months.

[11] As a consequence, the plaintiffs and 'Pau' took out an action against the defendant claiming damages for misrepresentation at the Johor Bahru High Court registered as JA-22NCvC-214-12/2019 ("Suit 214") and another action against Johor Corporation (the defendant's parent company) registered as JA-22NCvC-170-11/2020 ("Suit 170").

[12] The parties through their solicitors subsequently negotiated settlements which led to the agreed terms as aforementioned. Due to the agreed terms, Suit 214 and Suit 170 were technically adjourned to enable the parties to take steps as per the agreed terms in order to achieve global settlement for both suits.

[13] It was later alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant had tried to change the agreed terms to th