1. ) Muhammad Halim Al-Hafiz Bin Ramli 2. ) Siti Mazrizan Binti Tohid 3. ) Nurul Ain Binti Siuti 4. ) Zurlia Binti Siuti 5. ) Siti Aisah Binti Mohd Tahir v 1. ) Suhaimi Bin Sabilan 2. ) Hanita & Co. 3. ) Muhibina Sdn Bhd

Case Significance

Illustrates the limits of the power to allow late amendments under Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012, and the principle that an amendment replacing one factual case with a contradictory one — forgery giving way to undue influence or duress — changes the character of the pleading and will be refused.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Jamhirah Ali J, concerns an interlocutory application by the first defendant for leave to amend his statement of defence under Aturan 20 kaedah 5 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012). The underlying suit was brought by five plaintiffs against three defendants — an individual first defendant, a firm sued as such, and a company — concerning land and the validity of transfer documents. The third defendant objected to the amendment, while the plaintiffs did not.

The governing questions were whether the application to amend had been made in good faith, whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the other parties, and whether it would change the character and nature of the defence. The Court scrutinised the substance of the proposed change. The original defence had asserted forgery — that the signatures on the transfer documents were not those of the first defendant. The proposed amendment sought to replace that position entirely with a case that the signatures were indeed his, but had been obtained through undue influence or duress.

Applying the principles in Yamaha Motor, the Court held that this was a fundamental and inconsistent change: a party cannot sustain two irreconcilable positions, and to substitute a plea that the signatures were procured by undue influence or duress for a plea that they were forgeries would transform the defence into one of a completely different nature. The proposed amendment therefore could not be allowed. The Court dismissed the first defendant's application to amend the statement of defence, with costs of RM6,000. The judgment is a useful illustration of the limits of the court's power to allow late amendments under Order 20 rule 5, and of the principle that an amendment which replaces one factual case with a contradictory one — here, forgery giving way to undue influence or duress — changes the character of the pleading and will be refused.