The court affirmed that a defendant must seek leave to enter appearance post-judgment; failure to do so renders subsequent applications void, especially when there exists an admission of debt negating the limitation defense.

Introduction

[1] This is my grounds in dismissing the appeal by both Appellants (Defendants in the Sessions Court), Then Fook Kiong and Then Tai Hsin (both sued as a Co-Proprietor and Guarantors) trading under the name and style of HONGHUA L.F. BUILDERS ENTERPRISE [BNR No 105153] against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge, a decision other than a decision made after trial (Order 55 r 5 of Rules of Court 2012).

Brief Background Fact

[2] Based on the parties' submission, the brief background of facts are as follows:

(a) On 19 August 2021, the Respondent's Writ [Enclosure No 1] and Statement of Claim [Enclosure No 2] were filed in Court under the case number KCH- A52NCvC-62/8-2021.

(b) The Respondent's Advocates issued their covering letter dated 24 August 2021 to both Appellants to serve on both Appellants vide A.R Registered Post the said Writ [Enclosure No 1] and Statement of Claim.

(c) On the 6 September 2021 around 10.59am, the Respondent's Advocates received an email from hhlf2016 @gmail.com attaching a letter dated 1 September 2021 with the letterhead of HONGHUA L.F BUILDERS ENTERPRISE referring to the Respondent's Advocates letter dated 25 August 2021 (should be 24 August 2021). The said letter also quoted the identical case number KCH- A52NCvC-62/8-2021.

(d) Upon receiving the Appellants' email and letter dated 1 September 2021 (p 41 of ROA), the Respondent filed their Affidavit of Service dated 14 September 2021 (Enclosure No 3).

(e) After the 14 days period to file appearance has lapsed, the Respondent filed Certificate of Non-Appearance under Enclosure No 5 and 7.

(f) On 8 October 2021, the Court sealed the Judgment (Enclosure No 9).

(g) On 11 November 2021, the Respondent through its Advocates issued their Letter of Demand vide AR Registered Post demanding for Judgment Sum together with interest and costs to the 1st and 2nd Appellant with a copy of the Judgment (Enclosure No 9) attached.

(h) On 14 December 2023, the Respondent through its Advocates again issued their Letter of Demand vide AR Registered Post demanding for Judgment Sum together with interest and costs to the 1st and 2nd Appellants failing which the Respondent shall proceed to commence Bankruptcy Proceedings against the 1st and 2nd Appellants [see: Page 24 Record of Appeal].

(i) More than 2 years later, on 2 January 2024, the Appellants through its Advocates filed their Memorandum of Appearance (Enclosure No 10) (without leave from the Sessions Court).

(j) On 2 January 2024, the Appellants thereafter filed the following Notices of Application in relation to setting aside the Judgment in Default (Enclosure No 9):

(i) Notice of Application (Enclosure No 11) to set aside the Judgment in Default (Enclosure No 9) (without leave from the Sessions Court);

(ii) Notice of Application (Enclosure No 12) for extension of time be given to the Appellants to set aside the Judgment in Default (Enclosure No 9);

(iii) Notice of Application (Enclosure No 13) for stay of execution of the Judgment in Default (Enclosure No 9).

(iv) Notice of Application dated 19 February 2024 under encl 25 for Leave to be granted to the Appellants to enter late appearance.

[3] On the 7 June 2024, the learned Sessions Court Judge, Afidah Binti Abdul Rahman delivered her decision which was a decision other than a decision made after trial and decided that:

(a) The Appellants' Notice of Application dated 2 January 2024 under encl 11 to set aside the Judgment in default