Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2443
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KOTA KINABALU
PIMPINAN JATI SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KK WATERFRONT HOTEL SDN BHD – Respondent
[Suit No: BKI-22NCvC-11/2-2023]
Amendments to pleadings can be permitted under the Civil Law Act if they do not change the character of the suit and arise from the same facts, facilitating justice while ensuring no substantial prejudice to the opposing party.
Headnote:(A) Civil Law Act, 1956 - Section 28(4)(a),(b) - Application for further amendments to Statement of Claim - The court allowed amendments to address outstanding rental claims and include double rental for holding over by the tenant, ruling that amendments would not change the character of the suit. (Paras 4, 10, 26)
(B) Amendment of pleadings - The principles regarding the allowance of amendments to pleadings, considering the bona fide nature of the application, potential prejudice, and whether the proposed amendments would alter the character of the suit. (Paras 10, 25)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, under a Tenancy Agreement, claimed outstanding rental payments from the Defendant for periods when the Defendant failed to pay rent while occupying the premises, despite attempts to settle. The application for amendment sought to clarify outstanding sums and claim double rental under the Civil Law Act following the alleged expiration of the tenancy.
Findings of Court:
The court found no tactical maneuver evident in the amendments, deeming them consistent with the original claim regarding outstanding rents and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff for the amendments.
Issues: The key issues were whether the amendments were made in good faith, caused undue prejudice to the Defendant, or altered the character of the suit significantly.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that amendments can be allowed as long as they do not result in injustice to the opposing party, provided they are made in good faith and arise from the same facts as the original cause of action.
Result: Application granted with costs in the cause.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial application details and appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of plaintiff's claim and proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. proposed amendments to claims. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. defendant's opposition to amendments. (Para 9 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. court's observations on amendment considerations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. clarification on tactical maneuvers in amendments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. nature of amendments and claims consistency. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. relevant legal precedents concerning rental claims. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
[Enclosure 58]
Introduction
[1] By encl 58, the Plaintiff applied to further amend their amended Writ and Re-Amended Statement of Claim. The Defendant opposed the application.
[2] On 22 January 2025, this Court allowed the application with costs in the cause.
[3] The Defendant has filed an appeal against the said decision.
The Plaintiff's Claim
[4] By Tenancy Agreement made on 2 February 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to let its premises known as Lots 2 & 3, Block B, Warisan Square, Kota Kinabalu ("the premises") for a term of ten years from 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2026 at the rate of RM45,000.00 a month.
[5] The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant owed them outstanding rentals from April 2020 to June 2022 and that despite attempts to settle the matter, the Defendant failed to settle the amount outstanding.
[6] The suit was initially commenced in the Sessions Court but was transferred to the High Court by an Order of the High Court dated 5 December 2022.
The Proposed Amendments
[7] Prior to the present application, the Statement of Claim has been amended twice. The present application was to further amend the Re-Amended Statement of Claim re-dated 21 September 2022.
[8] The proposed amendments were the following:
(i) To amend the total loss and damages from "RM374,382.00" to "RM364,382.00" at para 8;
(ii) To amend the particulars of the total outstanding sum under para 8 to reflect a payment on 20 April 2022 of RM10,000.00 and the balance arising therefrom on the same date of RM319,382.00, on 1 May 2022 of RM341,882.00, on 1 June 2022 of RM364,382.00 and the total of RM364,382.00;
(iii) To insert the following sub-paragraph 9.19:
"On 20 April 2022, the Defendant paid RM10,000.00 to the Plaintiff and the parties continued to negotiate until 30 June 2022. However, the negotiation failed. The Defendant had continued to occupy and hold over the said Premises but refused to pay rental. The Defendant had deprived the Plaintiff from the opportunity to rent the said Premises to another tenant. By reason thereof, the Plaintiff will rely on S 28(4)(a,(b) Civil Law Act 1956 to claim double rental from 1 July 2022 with the rate of RM90,000.00/month until the delivery of vacant possession of the said Premises to the Plaintiff";
(iv) To amend the total outstanding sum claimed from "RM374,382.00" to "RM364,382.00" in prayer (a);
(v) To insert the termination date in prayer (b) as "on 30 June 2022"; and
(vi) To add the following as prayer (ba):
"Double rental pursuant to s 28(4)(a),(b) Civil Law Act 1956 from 1 July 2022 at RM90,000.00/month until the delivery of vacant possession of the said Premises to the Plaintiff;"
The Defendant's Grounds For Opposing The Application
[9] The Defendant opposed the application on the following grounds:
(i) That there was inordinate delay in making the application;
(ii) That the application was made in bad faith and was prejudicial to the Defendant; and
(iii) That the proposed amendment to prayer (b) to include the date of termination on 30 June 2022 has changed the character of the suit completely.
This Court's Decision
[10] This Court had the following principles in mind when dealing with this application:
(i) That the Court will allow amendments if they cause no injustice to the other parties and in considering so, the Court is to ask itself (1) whether the application is bona fide; (2) whether the prejudice caused to the other side can be comp
