Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 MarsdenLR 3105

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MULTIMEDIA GLORY SYSTEMS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-21NCvC-76-06/2022]

Petitioner Advocates:Muhammad Mu'az Abdul Manaf,Mohd Nur Farhan Abd Rahim,Nur Khairunnisa Zainal Abidin ,Respondent Advocate: Shazreen Nadia Zulkipli,Noridayu Md,Kassim,Nurhaffiza Azizan

The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish claims on a balance of probabilities, and claims can be barred by limitations under applicable statutes.

Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Burden of Proof - Limitation Act 1953 - Public Authorities Protection Act 1948. - The Plaintiff, an IT service provider, claimed RM127,605,545.85 against the Government for alleged unpaid services across three contracts, asserting full performance. The Defendants denied liability, arguing incomplete work and that payments had been made. Court found Plaintiff did not fulfill contract terms, particularly failing to complete the First Contract and lacking proper evidence for claims. Additionally, the claim was ruled statute-barred under applicable laws. (Paras 4, 60, 72)

(B) Evidence and Credibility - Burden of Proof rests on the Plaintiff to demonstrate claims on a balance of probabilities; failure to provide credible and direct evidence resulted in dismissal. (Paras 11, 59)

(C) Legal Framework - The Limitation Act and the Public Authorities Protection Act set strict timeframes for filing claims; actions were time-barred due to delayed filing post final payment. (Paras 60-72)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff contended completion of contract obligations for services provided to the Government, totaling RM127,605,545.85, but faced contrary assertions regarding performance and statutory compliance, along with defenses of payments made and claims being time-barred. (Paras 1-8)

Findings of Court:
Plaintiff failed to prove completion of obligations under contracts. The claims were scrutinized under the limitation statutes with results affirming non-entitlement of relief. Dismissal included costs of RM80,000. (Paras 74, 75)

Issues: - Whether the Plaintiff completed contract obligations? - Were the Defendants liable for payments claimed? - Is the claim statute-barred? (Paras 9)

Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized the Plaintiff's burden to prove every aspect of its claim; lack of credible witnesses and documentary support led to ruling on both performance and timely action under law. (Paras 11, 60)

Result: Claim dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. overview of contractual dispute and its implications. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of contracts and plaintiff's claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. defendants' assertions in response to the plaintiff's claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. trial witness testimonies and evidence evaluation. (Para 9)
5. burden of proof principles and related judicial precedents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
6. assessment of plaintiff's compliance with the first contract. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. payment claims and validity under the second contract. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. analysis of the third contract and continuation of services. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
9. final settlements and evolving claims. (Para 37 , 38 , 39)
10. plaintiff's failure to establish clear claims. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
11. elements and failure of conspiracy claims. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
12. failure to prove allegations of fraud and misconduct. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
13. evaluation of witness credibility and reliability. (Para 57 , 58 , 59)
14. limitations and jurisdictional arguments. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
15. discussion of further limitations on tort claims. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
16. exploration of public authority protection and claim timelines. (Para 70 , 71 , 72)
17. final findings and outcome of the case. (Para 74)

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] This case revolves around a contractual dispute between the Plaintiff and the Government of Malaysia, along with its various government departments, ministries, and public officials, all of whom are cited as the Defendants. A total of 13 Defendants in this case. The Plaintiff, an information technology service provider specializing in biometric and immigration enforcement systems, alleges that it fulfilled its contractual obligations but has not received full payment for its services. The Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the Plaintiff failed to perform the contracts in question fully and that all payments due had been made.

[2] With claims amounting to RM127,605,545.85, the dispute is not merely financial but also raises questions regarding government accountability, contract enforcement, and procedural compliance. The credibility of the Plaintiff's claims is assessed to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties involved.

The Pleaded Case And Defences

[3] The Plaintiff entered into three contracts with the Defendants for the provision and maintenance of immigration-related systems The details of these contracts are as follows:

(a) The First Contract - KHEDN/JIM/15/2006:

- the duration of the First Contract was 24 months from 1 November 2006 to 31 October 2008.

- the scope of the First Contract was for the development of a Single Platform System for the Immigration Department.

- the Plaintiff was obligated to develop and deploy a unified immigration management system. It was also to provide training and technology transfer to government personnel. The Plaintiff was further to convert and migrate existing immigration data.

- the payments to the Plaintiff were to be made according to Schedule 13, upon milestone completion.

(b) The Second Contract - KHEDN/JIM/1/2008:

- this Second Contract overlapped the First Contract a little as it commenced on 15 May 2008 to 14 May 2010. It was also for 24 months.

- the scope of the Second Contract was the Biometric System Maintenance for managing illegal immigrants.

- the Plaintiff had agreed to maintain the biometric system at all designated immigration locations. It was to conduct preventive and remedial maintenance.

- the payment terms in cl 22.3 states that payments must be made within 30 days from receipt of invoice, delivery note, and acceptance certificate.

- the Third Contract was executed whilst the Second Contract was still effective - on 1 May 2009 to 30 April 2010. It was for 12 months.

- the scope of the Third Contract was for Network Maintenance for Immigration System.

- the Plaintiff was t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 MarsdenLR 3105

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURMULTIMEDIA GLORY SYSTEMS SDN BHD – AppellantVersusKERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS – Respondent[Civil Suit No: WA-21NCvC-76-06/2022]

The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish claims on a balance of probabilities, and claims can be barred by limitations under applicable statutes.

Cases Referred (8)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MULTIMEDIA GLORY SYSTEMS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-21NCvC-76-06/2022]