Parties may be estopped from raising claims involved in a previously settled agreement, especially when evidence shows consistent acknowledgment of the debt, absent credible claims of duress or illegality.

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

Introduction

[1] Before the court is the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment pursuant to O 14 r 1 of the Rules of court 2012 (" ROC 2012") against the Defendants for the sum of RM1,250,000.00 together with interest and costs. The application is made under encl 7.

Background Facts

[2] The Plaintiff, D2D Bizhub Sdn Bhd., is a company incorporated in Malaysia. The First Defendant, Alpha Fintech Sdn Bhd., is also a company incorporated in Malaysia. The Second Defendant, Koh Chee Siong, is a director of the First Defendant.

[3] It is the Plaintiff's case that between May 2023 and July 2023, the First Defendant obtained and received a friendly loan amounting to RM1,250,000.00 from the Plaintiff. The Defendants dispute this and contend that they received funds from Geforce Hardware Wholesale, not from the Plaintiff. The Defendants further allege that they actually dealt with one "Zack Low" who they claim was from Vanta Credit Sdn Bhd, and not with the Plaintiff.

[4] On 11 December 2023, a Settlement Agreement was signed by the First Defendant and the Plaintiff. According to this document, the First Defendant acknowledged receiving a friendly loan of RM1,250,000.00 from the Plaintiff and agreed to repay the amount in 4 monthly instalments from 15 December 2023 to 15 April 2024. The first three instalments were to be RM300,000.00 each, with the final instalment being RM350,000.00.

[5] Under the Settlement Agreement, if the First Defendant failed to pay any instalment, it would be liable to pay late payment compensation at the rate of 18% per annum on the loan amount from the date the instalment was due until full settlement of the loan.

[6] A Letter of Guarantee dated 11 December 2023 was signed by the Second Defendant, whereby he agreed to indemnify the Plaintiff against losses, injuries, costs, and expenses incurred by the Plaintiff due to the First Defendant's default or failure to perform and/or comply with the Settlement Agreement. The Defendants now claim that this document was signed under duress.

[7] No monthly instalments were made under the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff, through its solicitor's letter dated 21 January 2024, terminated the Settlement Agreement and demanded payment of the amount stated in the agreement.

[8] The First Defendant sent letters dated 24 January 2024 and 6 February 2024 to the Plaintiff's solicitors requesting more time to make payment. These letters do not deny the existence of an obligation to pay the Plaintiff.

[9] Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a legal action against the Defendants through Civil Suit No: WA-22NCC-98-02/2024 ("Suit 98") in the Kuala Lumpur High court.

[10] The parties then exchanged correspondence through their solicitors, with the Plaintiff's solicitor sending a letter dated 19 April 2024 and the Defendants' solicitor responding with a letter dated 30 April 2024. These letters document a settlement arrangement with the following terms:

a) The Defendants would pay the Plaintiff RM1,250,000.