JUDGMENT

Wong Kian Kheong JCA:

A. Background

[1] I shall refer to the parties as they were in the High Court .

[2] The third defendant (3rd Defendant) owned a car with the registration number KES 7337 (Car).

[3] At 6.58pm, 12 June 2020-

(1) the Car was driven by the 2nd Defendant;

(2) the 1st Defendant rode a motorcycle with the registration number KDW 7010 (Motorcycle); and

(3) the Car (driven by the 2nd Defendant) crashed into the Motorcycle (ridden by the 1st Defendant) (Incident). As a result of the Incident-

(a) the 1st Defendant suffered various injuries; and (b) the Motorcycle was damaged

(1st Defendant's Injuries/Loss).

[4] At 9.19pm, 12 June 2020, the 2nd Defendant had made a police report (Kuala Muda Traffic Report no 5349/20) which stated that the Incident took place at 6.58pm, 12 June 2020 (2nd Defendant's Police Report).

[5] The 1st Defendant made a police report on 26 June 2020 which stated that the Incident took place at about 6.58pm, 12 June 2020 (1st Defendant's Police Report).

[6] The plaintiff company (Plaintiff) is a "licensed takaful operator" as understood in s 2(1) of the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 (IFSA).

[7] At 7.31 pm, 12 June 2020 (after the Incident), the 3rd Defendant applied to the Plaintiff for a takaful certificate to be issued regarding the Car (Takaful Certificate). This is clear from-

(1) "Borang Pengesahan Skim Takaful Kenderaan Berinjin,, issued by the Plaintiff to the 3rd Defendant (Cover Note). The Cover Note expressly stated that the Takaful Certificate would commence at 7.31 pm, 12 June 2020; and

(2) para 4 of the 1st Affidavit affirmed on 21 July 2021 by the Plaintiffs Senior Manager, Encik Ruhaizad bin Hambari (Plaintiff's 1st Affidavit) had averred that the Takaful Certificate would begin at 7.31 pm, 12 June 2020. The Cover Note was exhibited as exh "RH-1" in the Plaintiff's 1st Affidavit.

[8] The Takaful Certificate was subsequently issued by the Plaintiff to the 3rd Defendant. The Schedule to the Takaful Certificate [Schedule (Takaful Certificate)] stated the Takaful Certificate would commence on 12 June 2020.

[9] The Plaintiff received a letter dated 21 August 2020 from the 1st Defendant's solicitors [1st Defendant's Letter (21 August 2020)]. The 1st Defendant's Letter (21 August 2020) gave notice under s 96(2)(a) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (RTA) of the 1st Defendant's proposed suit in respect of the 1st Defendant's Injuries/Loss (which arose from the Incident).

[10] On 9 December 2020, the 1st Defendant filed a suit against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the Magistrate's Court [1st Defendant's Suit (Magistrate's Court )]. In the 1st Defendant's Suit (Magistrate's Court ), the 1st Defendant claimed for damages from the 2nd and 3rd Defendants for the 1st Defendant's Injuries/Loss.

B. Proceedings in the High Court

[11] The Plaintiff filed this suit in the High Court against the 1st to the 3rd Defendants (Invalidation Suit). In the Invalidation Suit, the Plaintiff applied for, among others, the following three declarations (3 Declarations):

(1) a declaration that the Car had no protection under the Takaful Certificate at the time of the Incident (6.58pm, 12 June 2020);

(2) a declaration that the Takaful Certificate could not be enforced with regard to the Incident; and

(3) a declaration that the Plaintiff was not liable under s 96(1) RTA for any judgment obtained in the 1st Defendant's Suit (Magistrate's Court ).

[12] The 2nd and 3rd Defendants did not file any affidavit to oppose the Invalidation Suit. In fact, the 3rd Defendant, as the "takaful participant' [defined in s 2(1) IFSA as the person who has legal title to the Takaful Certificate], sent an email dated 2 July 2021 to the Plaintiff [3rd Defendant's Email (2 July 2021)] which requested the Plaintiff to reject the 1st Defendant's claim regarding the Incident [so as to enable the 3rd Defendant to claim for "A/CD" (No Claim Discount) of 55% in the 3rd Defendant's renewal of the Takaful Certificate].

[13] The 1st Defendant opposed