JUDGMENT

Zulkefli Makinudin JCA:

Introduction

[1] The respondent ("the plaintiff in the court below") filed a claim against the appellant ("the defendant in the court below") for the sum of RM3,382,740.72 being the amount allegedly due to the respondent from the appellant in respect of goods sold and delivered by the respondent to the appellant at its project in Paka, Terengganu pursuant to a supply agreement dated 15 November 1966 entered into between the parties.

[2] The appellant thereafter filed an application by way of summons in chambers to strike out the respondent's writ and statement of claim under O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("the RHC") on the ground that the High Court at Kuala Terengganu does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's claim. The learned senior assistant registrar ("the SAR") dismissed with costs the appellant's application and ruled that the High Court at Kuala Terengganu has the jurisdiction to hear the respondent's claim.

[3] The learned judge of the High Court on appeal by the appellant to the judge-in-chambers against the decision of the SAR dismissed the appellant's appeal with costs and affirmed the decision of the SAR. The appellant now appeals before us against the said decision of the learned judge.

Contention Of The Parties

[4] In the court below and before us it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the High Court at Kuala Terengganu lacks the jurisdiction to hear the respondent's claim for the following reasons:

(i) the cause of action arose in Miri, Sarawak.

(ii) the registered addresses of both the appellant and respondent are in Miri, Sarawak.

(iii) the cause of action is based on the supply agreement entered into by the parties in Miri, Sarawak.

(iv) all the invoices of the respondent were issued and effected in Miri, Sarawak and sent to the appellant for payment there in Miri, Sarawak.

(v) all the witnesses for the appellant reside in Miri, Sarawak.

[5] It is the case of the appellant that the failure by the appellant to pay the amount as stated in the said invoices which constituted the alleged breach of the agreement on the part of the appellant, occurred in Miri, Sarawak. It is therefore contended for the appellant that the cause of action and the facts on which the proceedings are based have accrued and occurred in Miri, Sarawak. On the question of jurisdiction it was submitted for the appellant that the provision of s. 23(1)(a) and (c) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("the Act") applies in favour of the appellant. Thus, the High Court which should have the jurisdiction to hear this case is the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak.

[6] In disputing the appellant's application the respondent submitted that although the supply agreement upon which the basis of the claim is made was entered into by the parties in Miri, Sarawak, the said supply agreement however was for the supply of building materials by the respondent to the appellant for the appellant's project in Paka, Terengganu. Furthermore at the material time the appellant also had a business address at No. 743, Jalan Besar, Kg. Cacar Batu, 23100 Paka, Dungun, Terengganu. For the respondent it was pointed out that these facts were not disputed at all by the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Terengganu therefore has the jurisdiction to hear the respondent's claim by virtue of the provisions of s. 23(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.

Decision Of The Court On Appeal

[7] Having perused the grounds of judgment of the learned trial judge, we are of the considered view that the learned judge, after having considered all the relevant facts and the applicable law, had arrived at a correct decision. The learned judge had rightly stated that in order to decide whether or not the High Court in Kuala Terengganu has the jurisdiction, the court has to examine the provision of s. 23(1) of the Act which reads as follows:

Subject to the limitations