1. ) SAAIM BIN SUNDARMAN 2. ) RABU BIN JANTAN 3. ) SHARI BIN AHAMAD 4. ) SUPIAN BIN BARDAN 5. ) CAHAYA BARU DEVELOPMENT BERHAD 1. ) ABDULLAH BIN AHMAD 2. ) FATIMAH BINTI MOIN 3. ) SADARIAH BINTI HJ ANG SUKRI 4. ) SULAIMAN BIN WASUKI 5. ) WA

1. ) SAAIM BIN SUNDARMAN 2. ) RABU BIN JANTAN 3. ) SHARI BIN AHAMAD 4. ) SUPIAN BIN BARDAN 5. ) CAHAYA BARU DEVELOPMENT BERHAD 1. ) ABDULLAH BIN AHMAD 2. ) FATIMAH BINTI MOIN 3. ) SADARIAH BINTI HJ ANG SUKRI 4. ) SULAIMAN BIN WASUKI 5. ) WA

Mispleading the specific rule in the extension application was a procedural irregularity, not a fatal defect; there was no evidence of substantial miscarriage of justice or irremediable prejudice to plaintiffs and defendants gave reasonable explanations for delay, therefore the court exercised its discretion under the Rules and allowed the extension of time.

Citation
JA-22NCC-100-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: SAAIM BIN SUNDARMAN; Plaintiff: RABU BIN JANTAN; Plaintiff: SHARI BIN AHAMAD; Plaintiff: SUPIAN BIN BARDAN; Plaintiff: CAHAYA BARU DEVELOPMENT BERHAD; Defendant: ABDULLAH BIN AHMAD; Defendant: FATIMAH BINTI MOIN; Defendant: SADARIAH BIN HJ ANG SUKRI; Defendant: SULAIMAN BIN WASUKI; Defendant: WAHAB BIN LATIF; Defendant: JURIAH @ JAHARAH BINTI ABU; Defendant: BECHIK BINTI PAGALA; Defendant: ALIPAH BINTI ALI; Defendant: AENEAH BINTI WASITO; Defendant: AHMAD BIN A. MANAN; Defendant: JURI BIN MARHABAN; Defendant: JUMAAT BIN OTHMAN; Defendant: PAING BIN SARPAN; Defendant: MOHD LASIM BIN KAMAR; Defendant: MAULANI BIN MAHON; Defendant: MASLAN BIN ALIMON; Defendant: MAZNAH BINTI HARON; Defendant: JUPERI BIN LOSO; Defendant: SARDI BIN MOKTAR; Defendant: KAMARIAH BINTI DYIAT; Defendant: ZAHARI BIN HASRAN; Defendant: ABD WAHAB BIN AHMAD; Defendant: SAURAH BINTI AWEE; Defendant: HALIMAH BINTI ELIAS; Defendant: SURI BINTI DASUKI; Defendant: AMINAH BINTI ESA; Defendant: HJ MOHD FAZILAH B. HJ MOHAMAD; Defendant: JAMALUDIN BIN JOHAR; Defendant: SALMIAH BINTI OSMAN; Defendant: JOMIRAH BINTI KASDAN; Defendant: MOHD SHAH BIN SHAHROON; Defendant: ABD RAMAN BIN SHAHADAN; Defendant: SULIMAN BIN ATAN; Defendant: RATIAH BINTI ABDULLAH; Defendant: RAPIAH BINTI AWANG; Defendant: MUNAH BINTI BUSTANI; Defendant: ZAINOL BIN TALIB; Defendant: HALIPAH BINTI AB RAHMAN; Defendant: MOHD SEEH BIN AHAMAD; Defendant: SAGIMAN BIN SIRON; Defendant: SOTERI @ SOTRI BIN HJ AHMAD; Defendant: ZAINAB BINTI ABDULLAH; Defendant: MOHAMED KASSIM BIN AHMAD; Defendant: ZAHRAH BINTI IBRAHIM; Defendant: JAMIL BIN ABD WAHAB; Defendant: KAMARIDIN BIN MD TOP; Defendant: BACHOK BIN DANAH; Defendant: MORNEY BIN ROSNI; Defendant: HASHIM BIN TUKIMAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 June 2022
Case Number
JA-22NCC-100-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Proceedings (interlocutory Applications for Injunctions) / Application for Extension of Time to File Replying Affidavits (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Non Compliance With Procedural Rules, Irregularity Vs Nullity, Interim Injunction
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Equity and Injunctions Extension of Time Non Compliance With Procedural Rules Irregularity Vs Nullity Interim Injunction

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAAIM BIN SUNDARMAN

Plaintiff

RABU BIN JANTAN

Plaintiff

SHARI BIN AHAMAD

Plaintiff

SUPIAN BIN BARDAN

Plaintiff

CAHAYA BARU DEVELOPMENT BERHAD

Plaintiff

ABDULLAH BIN AHMAD

Defendant

FATIMAH BINTI MOIN

Defendant

SADARIAH BIN HJ ANG SUKRI

Defendant

SULAIMAN BIN WASUKI

Defendant

WAHAB BIN LATIF

Defendant

JURIAH @ JAHARAH BINTI ABU

Defendant

BECHIK BINTI PAGALA

Defendant

ALIPAH BINTI ALI

Defendant

AENEAH BINTI WASITO

Defendant

AHMAD BIN A. MANAN

Defendant

JURI BIN MARHABAN

Defendant

JUMAAT BIN OTHMAN

Defendant

PAING BIN SARPAN

Defendant

MOHD LASIM BIN KAMAR

Defendant

MAULANI BIN MAHON

Defendant

MASLAN BIN ALIMON

Defendant

MAZNAH BINTI HARON

Defendant

JUPERI BIN LOSO

Defendant

SARDI BIN MOKTAR

Defendant

KAMARIAH BINTI DYIAT

Defendant

ZAHARI BIN HASRAN

Defendant

ABD WAHAB BIN AHMAD

Defendant

SAURAH BINTI AWEE

Defendant

HALIMAH BINTI ELIAS

Defendant

SURI BINTI DASUKI

Defendant

AMINAH BINTI ESA

Defendant

HJ MOHD FAZILAH B. HJ MOHAMAD

Defendant

JAMALUDIN BIN JOHAR

Defendant

SALMIAH BINTI OSMAN

Defendant

JOMIRAH BINTI KASDAN

Defendant

MOHD SHAH BIN SHAHROON

Defendant

ABD RAMAN BIN SHAHADAN

Defendant

SULIMAN BIN ATAN

Defendant

RATIAH BINTI ABDULLAH

Defendant

RAPIAH BINTI AWANG

Defendant

MUNAH BINTI BUSTANI

Defendant

ZAINOL BIN TALIB

Defendant

HALIPAH BINTI AB RAHMAN

Defendant

MOHD SEEH BIN AHAMAD

Defendant

SAGIMAN BIN SIRON

Defendant

SOTERI @ SOTRI BIN HJ AHMAD

Defendant

ZAINAB BINTI ABDULLAH

Defendant

MOHAMED KASSIM BIN AHMAD

Defendant

ZAHRAH BINTI IBRAHIM

Defendant

JAMIL BIN ABD WAHAB

Defendant

KAMARIDIN BIN MD TOP

Defendant

BACHOK BIN DANAH

Defendant

MORNEY BIN ROSNI

Defendant

HASHIM BIN TUKIMAN

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil Proceedings (interlocutory Applications for Injunctions) / Application for Extension of Time to File Replying Affidavits (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be granted an extension of time to file replying affidavits
  2. 2 Whether mispleading the specific rule in the application renders the application fatally defective
  3. 3 Whether the procedural irregularity caused irremediable prejudice or a substantial miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

Mispleading the specific rule in the extension application was a procedural irregularity, not a fatal defect; there was no evidence of substantial miscarriage of justice or irremediable prejudice to plaintiffs and defendants gave reasonable explanations for delay, therefore the court exercised its discretion under the Rules and allowed the extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Lamp. 34 (application for extension of time) allowed
  • Mispleading of the specific Rules of Court 2012 in the notice of application declared an irregularity and not fatal to the application