Woman, 3 guarantors ordered to repay RM857,000 in study loans to Mara

 High Court says the sessions court made no manifest error and that Mara's claim was filed within the legal time limit.

The High Court in Sungai Petani has upheld judgment entered by a lower court for RM857,000 in Mara’s favour against a woman and her three guarantors. (Facebook pic)

PETALING JAYA:

The High Court in Sungai Petani has dismissed an appeal by a woman and her three guarantors against a sessions court ruling ordering them to repay RM857,000 in education loans to Majlis Amanah Rakyat (Mara).

Judicial Commissioner Darmafikri Abu Adam said he found no merit in the grounds of appeal and saw no reason to interfere with the trial court’s decision.

“The sessions court’s findings were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and disclosed no manifest error,” he said in a written judgment released last week.

He also held that Mara’s claim was not barred by the Limitation Act 1953, as the action had been filed within the prescribed period.

The appellants were ordered to pay RM10,000 in costs.Siti Norbaya Ahmad Nor, 45, received the first Mara loan in 2011 to pursue a master’s degree at the University of Manchester, and a second loan in 2013 for a PhD programme at the University of Cambridge.

Her three family members — Siti Zaliha Ahmad Nor, Siti Farhana Ahmad Nor and Jamilah Long — acted as guarantors for both loans.

Mara initiated legal proceedings after alleging that Siti Norbaya had failed to repay the loans.

The appellants contended that she had completed her Master’s degree within the stipulated period and argued that Mara’s claim under the 2011 loan agreement was barred by the Limitation Act 1953.

In his judgment, Darmafikri said the terms of a contract are binding on its parties, and the courts must give effect to the clear intentions of the parties as expressed in those terms.

Applying those principles, he found that Clause 4.6 of Mara’s 2013 offer letter and Clause 3.1(a) of the 2013 loan agreement clearly required Siti Norbaya to complete her PhD studies within four years.

In a letter dated Feb 15, 2017, Siti Norbaya acknowledged that she was unable to complete her doctorate within the sponsorship period and was granted an extension until August 2017. However, she still failed to complete her studies.

“The court finds that her failure to complete her studies within four years and seven months constituted a breach of contract.

“Accordingly, the plaintiff (Mara) is entitled to claim repayment of the entire loan amount pursuant to Clause 3.5 of the 2013 loan agreement,” he said.

Darmafikri said the parties’ intention was clear from the outset, and that Siti Norbaya cannot adopt a different interpretation of the agreement to avoid her repayment obligations.

“Although she claimed to have obtained ‘reinstatement’ status from the university, that matter does not involve or bind Mara,” he said.

Darmafikri further noted that the sessions court had found that Siti Norbaya had not completed her PhD studies by the date of trial and was therefore liable to repay the entire loan amount under the 2013 loan agreement.

On the limitation issue, Darmafikri ruled that Mara had the contractual discretion to determine when repayment became due, and had postponed it while she continued her studies under the second loan arrangement.

Consequently, he said, the suit filed in 2022 remained within the statutory limitation period.

Lawyer Nik Nur Amirah Nik Nuzul appeared for the appellants, while Anis Amirah Amran represented Mara. - Mkini