1. ) WAN MOHD AMINUDDIN BIN W.ISMAIL 2. ) ZU @ ZULKIFLI BIN MAMAT MOHD YUSRI BIN MD SAYOTI

1. ) WAN MOHD AMINUDDIN BIN W.ISMAIL 2. ) ZU @ ZULKIFLI BIN MAMAT MOHD YUSRI BIN MD SAYOTI

The appeal is dismissed because the Sessions Court properly exercised its discretion: the supporting affidavit was defective (sworn by solicitors), the applicants failed to explain and justify the delay or act bona fide, the proposed amendment would change the character of the defence and prejudice the plaintiff, and the coordinator's report was hearsay and unprovable, so leave to amend was rightly refused.

Citation
DA-12A-9-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/perayu: Wan Mohd Aminuddin bin Wan Ismail; Appellant/perayu: Zu@Zulkifli bin Mamat; Respondent/plaintiff: Mohd Yusri bin Md Sayoti
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 May 2022
Case Number
DA-12A-9-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Decision Refusing Application to Amend Statement of Defence / Appeal Against Interlocutory Decision on Amendment of Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Affidavit Validity, Hearsay Evidence, Delay and Prejudice, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Evidence Tort Motor Vehicle Accident Amendment of Pleadings Affidavit Validity Hearsay Evidence Delay and Prejudice Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wan Mohd Aminuddin bin Wan Ismail

Appellant/perayu

Zu@Zulkifli bin Mamat

Appellant/perayu

Mohd Yusri bin Md Sayoti

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court Decision Refusing Application to Amend Statement of Defence / Appeal Against Interlocutory Decision on Amendment of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court erred in refusing leave to amend the Statement of Defence under A.20 k.5 KKM 2012
  2. 2 Whether an affidavit sworn by counsel may validly support an interlocutory application where factual assertions are contentious
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the amendment was justified and bona fide

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Sessions Court properly exercised its discretion: the supporting affidavit was defective (sworn by solicitors), the applicants failed to explain and justify the delay or act bona fide, the proposed amendment would change the character of the defence and prejudice the plaintiff, and the coordinator's report was hearsay and unprovable, so leave to amend was rightly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent RM5,000.00 subject to taxation