The validity of contractual extensions must adhere to specified mutual consent requirements, ensuring parties' rights are respected in extension terms.

[1]The Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant in 2017 for the execution of the off-street and on-street car park operations for the whole of Putrajaya using the payment system and electronic system of Parkbyphone.

[2]The appointment was stipulated to be for an initial period of three (3) years, with an optional extension clause for a further two (2) years. The exact words on clauses 2B(i)(d) and 2(B)(i)(e) of the Contract provides as follows:

“d) Tempoh Pelantikan ini adalah selama tiga (3) tahun dengan opsyen lanjutan selama dua (2) tahun dengan menggunakan terma dan syarat yang sama seperti yang terkandung di dalam surat ini..”

e) Tempoh lanjutan tamat tempoh lima (5) tahun pertama boleh dilaksanakan dengan tempoh serta terma dan syarat yang sama setelah mendapat persetujuan bersama di antara pihak PAPTT dan DTSB.”

[Exhibit “R1” to Plaintiff’s Affidavit-in-Support, Enclosure 4].

[3]By its letter dated 2 January 2020, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the Defendant will continue with the appointment until year 2022, i.e. 2 years after the first term of 3 years. Exhibit R3 to Plaintiff’s Affidavit-in-Support: Enclosure 4.

[4]On or about 13 January 2020 the Defendant served its letter dated 3 January 2020 on the Plaintiff stating as follows:

“ RE: NOTICE OF EXPIRY OF APPOINTMENT

We refer to Digital Tempo Sdn Bhd’s appointment as provider of the parking system known as Putrajaya Parkbyphone for a three (3) year term commencing 6^th February 2017 pursuant to our letter reference PAPTTIKEWIKONTRAKl46 JiI.1(4) dated 1dh July, 2017.

We wish to advise that we will not be exercising the option to extend the appointment and as such it will terminate on 5th February, 2017. Our decision is based on issues and incidences encountered during your term of appointment which, among others, included recurring and persistent customer complaints regarding the efficacy of your system at entry and exit points.

We thank you for your services and look forward to your kind cooperation in a smooth handover of the parking sites on the above termination date. “

(Exhibit “R2” to Enclosure 4: Plaintiff’s Affidavit-in-Support).

[5]By the Plaintiff’s solicitor’s letter dated 24 January 2020 (Exhibit “R7” to Plaintiff’s Affidavit-in-Support, Enclosure 4), the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to “cease and desist letter for pre-termination of contract”, and took the position that the Defendant’s letter dated 3 January 2020 constituted premature termination of the contract. The Plaintiff through this letter also gave notice of intention to commence legal proceedings for premature and wrongful termination. On behalf of the Plaintiff, the solicitors also stated as follows:

“We have our client’s instructions to state that paragraph 2(B)(i)(d) of your letter of appointment dated 10th July 2017 does not state that the option to extend the contract is to be exercised by your company. As such, our client has rightfully exercised the said option in their letter dated 02^nd January 2020.”

The Plaintiff also asked the Defendant to withdraw the letter dated 3^rd January 2020 and to honour the extended period of two (2) years.

[6]In reply thereto, the Defendant sent its letter dated 20 January 2020 to the Plaintiff in the following terms:

“RE : Your Letter Reference RKSI193812020 Dated 24.01.2020 We refer to the above letter that you wrote to us. We should appreciate if you would kindly advise your Client that our decision to not extend your Client’s appointment beyond the stated period of appointment of three (3) years (refer Clause (A)(d) of the SURAT TAWARAN DAN PELANTIKAN dated 10 July 2017) is