JUDGMENT

Akhtar Tahir J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff applied for summary judgmentagainst the Defendant under O 14 of the Rules of 2012 ("the Rules")whereas the Defendant applied to strike out the Plaintiff's claim under O 18 r 19 of the Rules.

[2] Both these provisions are reproduced here forease of reference:

1. Application by Plaintiff for summary judgment (O 14 r 1)

(1) Where in an action to which this rule appliesa statement of claim has been served on a defendant and that defendant hasentered an appearance in the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that thedefendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particularpart of such a claim, or has no defence to such a claim or part thereof exceptas to the amount of any damages claimed, apply to the Court for judgment against that defendant.

19. Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O 18 r 19)

(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order tobe struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in theaction, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that:

(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, asthe case may be;

(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

(c) it may prejudice,embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court ,

and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed orjudgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.

(2) No evidence shall be admissible on anapplication under subparagraph (1)(a).

(3) This rule shall, as far as applicable, applyto an originating summons as if it were a pleading.

Brief Facts

[3] The fact as pleaded by the Plaintiffs showed that the 2nd Plaintiff had filed a suit against the Defendant's husband Chairul Anhar an Indonesian National resulting the 2nd Plaintiff obtaining a High Court judgment against the said Chairul Anhar.

[4] On appeal to the Court of Appeal both parties agreed to a consent judgment whereby the said sums of money owed to the Plaintiffs was to be paidin 4 instalments beginning from 7 June 2018 and ending on 28 August 2019.

[5] However, Chairul Anhar failed to pay theentire sum as agreed and was declared bankrupt on 10 September 2019 on the application of the 2nd Plaintiff.

[6] On 3 May 2024 the 2nd Plaintiff was appointedCEO of the 1st Plaintiff and representing the 1st Plaintiff had met with theDefendant and Chairul Anhar and on representation made by both of them ona business project loaned the Defendant a sum of RM 1 million,

[7] The Defendant executed a friendly loan agreement for the repayment of the RM1 million. The Defendant also signed an undertaking to repay the sum of money owed by Chairul Anhar to the Plaintiff.

[8] The Defendant did not honour either of the agreements and hence this claim by the Plaintiff.

Defense

[9] In paragraph 12 of the Statement of Defense admits to owing the sum of RM1 million to the Plaintiff where the Defendant states that:

"Setakat kepada suatu tuntutan terhadap pnijman wang berjumlah RM1,000,000.00 Defendan menafikan peranggan- perrangan di keseluruhan perenggan-perenggan 14 hingga 19 penaytaan tuntutan dan meletakkan beban pembuktian yang ketat keatas plaintif-plaintif"

[10] On the undertaking to pay the sum owed by Chairul Anhar the Defendant contends that the agreement is void as it seeks to circumvent the fact that the Chairul Anhar is a bankrupt and therefore has no capacity to enter any undertaking to pay the agreed sum owed.

[11] The Defendant further contends that the undertaking to the payment of the sum owed by Chairul Anhar has been adjudicated with finality and cannot be re litigated under the principle of "Res Judicata".

Summary Judgment

[12] The pre-condition/considerations of applying for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules is that the Plaintiff has served a Statement of Claim to the Defendant and the Defendant has entered appearance. This has been done in this case.

[13] The Plaintiff has also filed an affidavit affirming t