PUTRAJAYA (Jan 19): Tycoon Tan Sri Halim Saad withdrew his appeal in the Federal Court yesterday over having to pay RM2.5 million to businessman Chan Yok Peng, who earlier gave him a friendly loan.
The withdrawal was confirmed by Federal Court deputy registrar Nurul Husna Awang, who informed that a notice of discontinuance of the appeal had been filed.
The hearing of Halim's appeal was scheduled for today before the apex court.
Chan's lawyer Muhammad Syafiq Amani Md Sabri, when contacted by theedgemarkets.com today, also confirmed the withdrawal of the appeal by Halim.
"Hence, he has to pay the amount as directed by the Court of Appeal (COA)," the lawyer said.
It was reported on Nov 20 that a three-member bench had directed Halim to pay the amount as one of them, Justice Datuk S Nantha Balan, found that the tycoon's failure in not appealing over a summary judgement that was entered on him was detrimental.
The COA in its judgement also ordered Halim to pay RM10,000 costs in dismissing his appeal to set aside the summary judgement as the court found there was no error in law in the High Court's decision.
The case is over an unpaid loan of RM2.5 million that Halim took from Chan. Halim took the “friendly loan” of RM3 million from Chan in November 2014 as he was in need of funds, which Halim, the former Renong Bhd chairman, acknowledged through a note dated Nov 13, 2014.
Halim only repaid RM500,000 to Chan, and the payment was made via a cheque which Halim issued through his company Cekal Teguh Sdn Bhd in March 2015. Halim has almost a 99% stake in Cekal Teguh.
Chan complained of the RM2.5 million that remained unpaid and this resulted in him sending a letter dated Oct 19, 2018 to Halim's office at Mid Valley, asking the latter to pay within 14 days of the date of the letter.
As there was no response, Chan's lawyers sent a notice of demand on Dec 4, 2018 for payment of the balance of RM2.5 million within 14 days. There was, however, still no response, resulting in Chan filing the writ against Halim on Jan 23, 2019.
Halim in March 2019 in his defence statement acknowledged taking the loan but claimed to have paid the full amount in cash and asked that Chan's claim be set aside. In reply, in that same month, Chan said besides the RM500,000, he had not received any other payments.
On May 3, 2019, Chan applied for a summary judgement to be entered on Halim for the unpaid loan, while Halim filed an affidavit opposing the application on May 23, 2019, where he maintained that the remaining amount of RM2.5 million had been paid in full via cash and shares in a public-listed company on Bursa Malaysia.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court entered into a summary judgement on July 12, 2019 against Halim, and directed him to pay the RM2.5 million to Chan, as the court claimed Halim's affidavit was “an afterthought and he did not come with clean hands”.
Justice Nantha Balan in the COA, in his written judgement, said for reasons which were inexplicable and unfathomable, Halim did not appeal against the summary judgement dated July 12 last year in the appellate court but chose to amend his statement of defence to claim that if the RM3 million loan he took existed, it was between Tekad Mulia Sdn Bhd and his own Cekal Teguh.
“I (Halim) have agreed to guarantee payment by Cekal Teguh to Tekad Mulia, and entered an agreement with Chan for the purchase of 40 million shares in Sumatec Resources Bhd, a company which I control.”
Halim's defence seemed to show he was not the borrower, but it was a loan between Tekad Mulia, where Chan is a director and shareholder, and Cekal Mulia, Justice Nantha Balan wrote.
The COA judge said Halim should have appealed against the summary judgement in the appellate court but had not done so to possibly adduce fresh evidence.
“It was obvious enough that by July 11, 2019, Halim was already seized of the so-called information pertaining to the alleged loan between Tekad Mulia and Cekal Teguh. But as it turned out, he waited almost two months before filing it. The delay was baffling.
“The non-response to the documents was fatal. Being a person of business, Halim could not have been unaware of the grave implications for himself by not responding to and repudiating the contents of both the letters dated Oct 19, 2018 and Dec 4, 2018,” he said.