JUDGMENT

Wan Adnan bin Ismail J:

By the statement of claim dated 30 November 1983 the plaintiffs claim against the defendant:

(i) for the sum of RM362,851.69 (specified in paragraph l6 of the statement of claim) as damages suffered by the plaintiffs for wrongful seizure of the plaintiffs' gate valves on 5 November 1974; and (ii) for the sum of RM254,756.99 (specified in paragraph 19) being money paid under duress by the plaintiffs to the defendants as custom duties on gate valves which they allege were not dutiable.

By their defence dated 31 March 1984 the defendants say in paragraph 5 in respect of claim (1) above as follows:

5. With regard to paragraph 10 to 14 of the statement of claim the defendants aver that the said claim of the plaintiff is time-barred by virtue of s. 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 (Revised - 1978) in that the High Court in dismissing the appeal of the defendants on the 29 June 1979 ordered the return of the said goods to the plaintiff. The High Court on the said date did not make a further order for a stay of execution.

In respect of claim (ii) above the defendants say in paragraph 8 as follows:

8. The defendants further aver that the said claims in paragraph 19 of the statement of claim are time-barred by virtue of s. 16 of the Customs Act 1967 (Revised - 1980) .

On 1 October 1984 pursuant to the order of the Court dated 21 November 1984 the defendants amended their defence with the addition of a new paragraph - (which is not relevant for this appeal).

Pursuant to the order of the Court dated 2 August 1985 the plaintiffs amended their statement of claim to include a claim for "the sum of RM259,401.05 being the cost of the gate valves and globe valves."

The plaintiffs again amended their statement of claim pursuant to the order of the Court dated 10 October 1990 to include a claim for loss of profit amounting to RM192,590.35. But the character of the plaintiffs' claim had not changed.

The hearing started on 20 August 1990. At about 2.30 p.m. on the same day the Senior Federal Counsel applied for postponement to negotiate for a settlement. Since that date the hearing had been postponed a number of times to give time to the Senior Federal Counsel to obtain the necessary consent of the Treasury to the proposed settlement. The consent never came. The hearing was continued on l, 2, 22 and 23 October 1992. When hearing resumed on 25 November 1992 the Senior Federal Counsel made an oral application to make amendments to the defence. I did not allow her to make the application orally and directed her to make the application by way of summons-in-chambers. In the mean time the hearing continued and the plaintiffs would have closed their case if not for the intended application.

The summons-in-chambers (Enc. 61) was filed and heard on 28 November 1992.

The application was to add three paragraphs to the defence, mainly:

3. Paragraph 4 is denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof. The defendants further aver that the said gatevalves and glove-valves were at all material times classified under Tariff - Code No. 84.61-110.

8. Further and/or in the alternative the defendants aver that at all material times the said goods were court exhibits retained pending the final disposal of the matter therein.

12. Further, the defendants aver and say that the claims for the years from 1975 to 1978 are barred by virtue of s. 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 and the claims for the years 1978 to 1981 are barred by virtue of s. 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 (Revised 1978) .

I allowed the amendments in paragraphs 3 and 8 but refused the amendments in paragraph 12. Against this refusal the defendants now appeal.

In substance plaintiffs' claim is twofold. One is in respect of the alleged wrongful seizure of the plaintiffs' valves and the other for the return of money which the plaintiffs say they had paid under duress as customs duties on valves whi