1. ) JOHAN BIN RAMLI 2. ) NOR A'SHIKIN BINTI ABDULLAH v 1. ) AMEER BIN NOORDIN 2. ) NOR ASMAH BINTI HASHIM

Case Significance

Confirms that payment to a purchaser's solicitor who is not a jointly appointed true stakeholder does not discharge the purchaser's obligation to pay the vendor, and that a written acknowledgment of a debt — including by WhatsApp — can start a fresh limitation period under the Limitation Act 1953.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 for the balance of a purchase price. The plaintiffs, the vendors under a sale and purchase agreement dated 2 October 2015, claimed the outstanding balance of RM760,000, contending that the purchasers had enjoyed vacant possession and had had the property transferred and registered in the first defendant's name since March 2016, yet had failed to pay the balance, so that the claim was a plain debt suitable for summary judgment. The defendants resisted, arguing that the claim was statute-barred under section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953, that the purchase monies had been paid to the second defendant, who was said to have acted as a stakeholder under the agreement, and that the first defendant had thereby discharged his obligation and could not be made to pay again. The Court held against the defendants on each point. It found that the second defendant was not a true stakeholder — a genuine stakeholder requiring, among other things, a joint appointment by both parties — so that payment to her was payment to an agent of the purchaser and did not discharge the first defendant's obligation to the vendors; the risk of the agent's default fell on the purchaser. On limitation, the Court held that a written acknowledgment of the debt, made through a WhatsApp message in 2019, amounted to an acknowledgment within sections 26 and 27 of the Limitation Act 1953 that started a fresh limitation period, so that the claim was within time. Finding no bona fide triable issue and only a shadowy defence unsupported by the contemporaneous documents, the Court allowed the application and entered summary judgment against the first defendant for RM760,000, with interest at 8% per annum from January 2016 until settlement and costs.