PMB TIJARI BERHAD v 1. ) HAMZA SUPPLY & SERVICES SDN BHD 2. ) HAMZA MOTORS SDN. BHD. 3. ) NIK IRUWAN BIN NIK IZANI 4. ) ZULKIFLY BIN MOHD ZAINAL

ba-22m-182-06-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 19 August 2025 • BA-22M-182-06/2024

Catchwords

Application for Summary Judgment- Defendants have no defence to the claim- indebtedness is clearly established on the documentary record- Defendants’ failure to file any Affidavit in Reply amounts to an admission of the facts- Defendants oppose the application- the claim is premature- Plaintiff is estopped from relying on the procedural default because of ongoing settlement negotiations between the parties- filing an Affidavit in Reply was unnecessary- the claim is premature and should be tested at trial with oral evidence- non-filing of the Affidavit is an irregularity under Order 2 rule 1 ROC 2012, not a nullity, and that the Court may cure it in the interest of justice under Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012- For estoppel to arise, there must be a clear and unequivocal representation or course of conduct which the other party relied upon to their detriment-it is unsupported by affidavit- without affidavit support, there is no admissible basis to find that the Plaintiff waived its procedural rights or is estopped from relying on the Defendants’ default-it is a bare assertion- the discretion to cure such non-compliance is exercised upon affidavit evidence explaining the default and showing a defence on the merits- Plaintiff has discharged its burden to show a prima facie case- Defendants, having filed no Affidavit in Reply, have failed to raise any bona fide triable issue on admissible evidence- the Defendants have no defence to the Plaintiff’s claim- the Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.

Practice Areas

Application for Summary Judgment- Defendants have no defence to the claim- indebtedness is clearly established on the documentary record- Defendants’ failure to file any Affidavit in Reply amounts to an admission of the facts- Defendants oppose the application- the claim is premature- Plaintiff is estopped from relying on the procedural default because of ongoing settlement negotiations between the parties- filing an Affidavit in Reply was unnecessary- the claim is premature and should be tested at trial with oral evidence- non-filing of the Affidavit is an irregularity under Order 2 rule 1 ROC 2012, not a nullity, and that the Court may cure it in the interest of justice under Order 92 rule 4 ROC 2012- For estoppel to arise, there must be a clear and unequivocal representation or course of conduct which the other party relied upon to their detriment-it is unsupported by affidavit- without affidavit support, there is no admissible basis to find that the Plaintiff waived its procedural rights or is estopped from relying on the Defendants’ default-it is a bare assertion- the discretion to cure such non-compliance is exercised upon affidavit evidence explaining the default and showing a defence on the merits- Plaintiff has discharged its burden to show a prima facie case- Defendants, having filed no Affidavit in Reply, have failed to raise any bona fide triable issue on admissible evidence- the Defendants have no defence to the Plaintiff’s claim- the Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.

Judges (1)

Parties (5)

Case Significance

PMB TIJARI BERHAD v 1. ) HAMZA SUPPLY & SERVICES SDN BHD 2. ) HAMZA MOTORS SD... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 19, 2025 (citation: ba-22m-182-06-2024). The case was decided by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran.

What was the outcome of PMB TIJARI BERHAD v 1. ) HAMZA SUPPLY & SERVICES SDN BHD 2. ) HAMZA MOTORS SD...?

PMB TIJARI BERHAD v 1. ) HAMZA SUPPLY & SERVICES SDN BHD 2. ) HAMZA MOTORS SD... is a High Court decision dated August 19, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran. See the full judgment for details.