MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD EFCO (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD EFCO (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

The Sessions Court erred in finding EFCO’s suit premature because there was no evidence clause 5b was amended to require certification by MRCB Builders’ CEO, payments were made without CEO certification and the certification requirement was waived by conduct; on rehearing EFCO proved the balance claim of RM 540,829.39 with contractual interest and the set-off of the RM 120,104 security deposit was valid; accordingly Appeal 50 is allowed and Appeal 52 dismissed.

Citation
WA-12BNCvC-52-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant in Appeal 50; Respondent in Appeal 52: EFCO (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd; Respondent in Appeal 50; Appellant in Appeal 52: MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 March 2024
Case Number
WA-12BNCvC-52-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Judgment on Appeals (rehearing)
Outcome
Appeal 50 allowed; Appeal 52 dismissed
Legal Topics
Prematurity of Suit, Condition Precedent, Waiver by Conduct, Set Off, Late Payment Interest, Certification Requirement, Quantum of Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Commercial Law Appeal Prematurity of Suit Condition Precedent Waiver by Conduct Set Off +3 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EFCO (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Appellant in Appeal 50; Respondent in Appeal 52

MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd

Respondent in Appeal 50; Appellant in Appeal 52

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Judgment on Appeals (rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EFCO’s suit was premature for lack of certification of invoices by MRCB CEO
  2. 2 If not premature, whether EFCO proved its claim for RM 540,829.39 and interest
  3. 3 Whether MRCB Builders’ counterclaim (refund of security deposit/unlawful set-off) is valid

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court erred in finding EFCO’s suit premature because there was no evidence clause 5b was amended to require certification by MRCB Builders’ CEO, payments were made without CEO certification and the certification requirement was waived by conduct; on rehearing EFCO proved the balance claim of RM 540,829.39 with contractual interest and the set-off of the RM 120,104 security deposit was valid; accordingly Appeal 50 is allowed and Appeal 52 dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal 50 allowed; Appeal 52 dismissed

Orders

  • Set aside the Sessions Court order dismissing EFCO’s suit
  • Allow prayers in EFCO’s Statement of Claim at paragraphs 24[i]–[iii] and award EFCO RM 540,829.39 with contractual interest as pleaded