Koh Siak Poo v Sayang Plantation Bhd [2002] 1 MLJ 65:
The authorities cited above made it clear that the parties must confine their case within the perimeter of their pleadings. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claim by the respondent was for the payment of RM633,000 under the settlement as stated in para 11 of the statement of claim. The respondent had ample opportunity to amend the statement of claim but the respondent chose not to do it. The learned trial judge found as a matter of fact that there was no agreement in respect of a settlement between the parties. The claim by the respondent should have been dismissed. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned judge had erred when he substituted the claim for money had and received for a claim to enforce a settlement. From the authorities I have cited earlier the learned judge could not do the substitution.
