MANAF BIN BEDO v LADANG RAKYAT TRENGGANU SDN BHD

ta-12bncvc-3-06-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 27 January 2026 • TA-12BNCvC-3-06/2025 • 14 min read
12 cases cited (0 SG, 12 foreign)

Outcome

For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff’s appeal is hereby dismissed with costs. The decision of the learned SCJ dated 12 June 2025 is affirmed. The Plaintiff shall pay costs of this appeal to the Defendant, which is fixed at RM6,000.00.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ta-12bncvc-3-06-2025). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Limitation – Cause of action – Accrual date – Contract – Promise to pay incentive – Plaintiff informed of Board's approval in 2010 – Whether breach occurred when payment not made after obligation arose – Whether discovery of subsequent Board minutes refusing payment extended limitation period – Limitation Act 1953, s 6(1)(a) Contract – Formation – Conditional promise – Board resolution allocating incentive subject to achieving "break-even" target – Whether subsequent resolution recording "allocation" of funds created unconditional obligation – Distinction between "diperuntukkan" (allocated) and "dibayar" (to be paid) – Condition precedent – Incentive conditional upon achieving financial target by specified date – Condition not fulfilled – Whether enforceable obligation arose Evidence – Documentary evidence – Board minutes – Whether oral testimony could override contemporaneous documents – Minutes of 2009 and 2010 meetings – Conjunctive reading required – Plaintiff's own witness conceding under cross-examination that allocation was subject to prior condition – Effect of admission Contract – Privity of contract – Resolution benefiting defined class – Plaintiff seeking to enforce resolution for exclusive personal benefit – Whether doctrine of privity applicable – Distinction between enforcing group right and converting to personal right Appeal – Appellate intervention – Principles – Trial judge's findings of fact – Whether plainly wrong or lacking judicial appreciation of evidence – UEM Group Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2010] 9 CLJ 785 (FC) followed

Practice Areas

Contract Limitation Evidence

Judges (1)

Yusrin Faidz bin Yusoff Delivered

Counsel (4)

Nordin Kassim & Aziz Firm Rafaei & Co. Firm Mohd Hazwan Bin Hamidun Counsel Appellant Muhamad Nasrul Syahmi Bin Mohd Ariffin Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

LADANG RAKYAT TRENGGANU Sdn Bhd Respondent Manaf bin Bedo Appellant

Statutes Cited

Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)

Cases Cited (12)

MY (12)
[1979] 1 MLJ 182 [1989] 2 MLJ 202 [1996] 1 MLJ 45 [2006] 1 MLJ 601 [2008] 1 MLJ 743 [2010] 9 CLJ 785 [2012] 7 MLJ 825 [2015] 6 MLJ 1 [2017] 3 MLJ 244 [2020] 12 MLJ 67 [2024] 3 MLJ 544 [2024] 5 MLJ 897

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ta-12bncvc-3-06-2025)