Gulam Wawasan Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors

Appellant(s): Gulam Wawasan Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s):

• Kerajaan Malaysia
• Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan
• Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara
• Dato' Sri Haji Mohammad Bin Mentek, Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan
• Ismail Bin Mokhtar, Ketua Eksekutif Solid Waste And Public Cleansing Management Corporation
• Solid Waste And Public Cleansing Management Corpor

• YA Dato' Collin Lawrence Sequerah
• YA Dato Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab
• YA Datuk Dr Shahnaz Binti Sulaiman

• The appellant was awarded a contract by DBKL for footway cleaning services in 2005, which was subsequently extended.
• Following the enactment of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672) in 2011, the appellant's contract was novated from DBKL to a new concessionaire, Alam Flora Sdn Bhd (AFSB).
• Despite the novation and subsequent appeals to various government entities, including the Prime Minister, the appellant's payment rate for services remained at the 2005 level, unlike other contractors who received price increases.

• Whether the First Respondent was liable under Section 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 and/or quantum meruit for unjust enrichment, despite the absence of direct contractual privity with the appellant.
• Whether the respondents engaged in unfair discrimination against the appellant under Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution by denying a price increase granted to other contractors.
• Whether the Fourth Respondent, a senior public officer, committed the tort of misfeasance or nonfeasance in public office by allegedly failing to table the appellant's price increase to the Cabinet.

• The Court dismissed the claim under Section 71/quantum meruit, holding that no privity of contract existed between the appellant and the First to Fourth Respondents, and a valid, fully compensated contract with AFSB precluded such a claim.
• The discrimination claim under Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution failed as the Court found the dispute to be a matter of private contract law between the appellant and AFSB, not public law discrimination by the state.
• The misfeasance claim against the Fourth Respondent was rejected, as the appellant failed to prove malicious intent or reckless indifference to harm, with the Fourth Respondent's actions being consistent with legal procedures and the Concession Agreement.