The court possesses inherent jurisdiction and statutory authority to correct clerical mistakes and accidental slips in orders at any time. Such corrections are an exception to the functus officio doctrine, and standing of a partnership is not extinguished by expired business registration.

JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

(Enclosure 17)

Introduction

[1] This is the appellant's application in Encl 17 to amend this Court's Consent Order dated 27 May 2018 ("the Consent Order") pursuant to O 20 r 11, O 42, O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012") and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

[2] The sole amendment sought is to correct the date of the Sessions Court's judgment referred to in the consent order from "5 September 2017" to "4 September 2017". No other amendment is sought.

Background

[3] The Appellant, Mail Magna (a partnership), filed a civil suit in the Johor Bahru Sessions Court against the respondent for repayment of a friendly loan. On 4 September 2017, the Sessions Court dismissed the appellant's claim. The Appellant appealed to this Court.

[4] On 27 May 2018, by consent of both parties before this Court, the Sessions Court's judgment was set aside subject to additional evidence being heard by the same Sessions Court Judge. Both counsel, Mr Pang Kong Seng for the appellant and Mr Amarjeet Singh a/l Mehar Singh for the respondent, were present.

[5] However, the Consent Order erroneously recorded the date of the Sessions Court's judgment as "5 September 2017" instead of "4 September 2017". This error was overlooked by both counsel and the Court's Registrar when the order was drafted and perfected.

[6] The Sessions Court Judge, Puan Sabariah Binti Atan, subsequently passed away. The parties then consented for the 1st Main Suit to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. A 2nd Main Suit was filed by the appellant's partners in 2022. The date error was only raised by the respondent's counsel in October 2025, during the trial of the 2nd Main Suit, after more than seven years.

Analysis

[7] The issues for determination are:

(a) whether the error in the consent order is a clerical mistake amenable to correction under the slip rule;

(b) whether the appellant has locus standi to bring this application; and

(c) whether the Consent Order has been frustrated or discharged.

[8] The Court analysis and findings are as follows:

(a) The Error Is A Clerical Mistake

[9] The evidence is overwhelming. The Sessions Court's judgment itself is dated 4 September 2017. The cause list confirms that the Sessions Court had a Court session on 4 September 2017 but not on 5 September 2017 for this case. Both counsel confirmed that no judgment dated 5 September 2017 exists. The Statement of Agreed Facts in the 2nd Main Suit expressly records at paras 7 and 9 that the judgment was dated 4 September 2017 and was set aside by consent on 27 May 2018.

[10] This is precisely the type of error that O 20 r 11 ROC 2012 is designed to correct. The provision permits the Court to correct clerical mistakes in judgments or orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, at any time. The Federal Court in Stone World Sdn Bhd v. Engareh (M) Sdn Bhd [2020] 5 MLRA 444; [2020] 12 MLJ 237; [2020] 9 CLJ 358; [2020] 7 AMR 233 confirmed that correction of clerical errors under the slip rule is a well-recognised exception to the functus officio doctrine.

[11] The English Court of Appeal in Thynne (Marchioness of Bath) v. Thynne (Marquess of Bath) [1955] 3 All ER 129, referred to by the appellant is directly on point. In that case, a decree nisi misstated the date