02/06/2026
OPPOSITION TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 13 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ADOPTED IN KOLON GLOBAL CORPORATION v PIPES INDUSTRIES COMPANY
BY DICKSON ABRAHAM MATURO ESQ.
1. The decision in Kolon Global Corporation v Pipes Industries Company Limited is bad in law and should not be followed insofar as it holds that section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code is merely declaratory, and that failure to undertake bona fide steps before instituting proceedings has no jurisdictional consequence.
2. Parliament introduced section 13 as part of the legislative policy aimed at reducing unnecessary litigation and promoting amicable settlement of disputes before resorting to judicial proceedings. The use of mandatory language in section 13(1), requiring parties to take bona fide steps to resolve disputes prior to commencing proceedings, demonstrates a legislative intention to impose a condition precedent to litigation rather than a mere procedural guideline.
3. The learned Judge erred in concluding that because section 13 does not expressly prescribe a sanction for non-compliance, no consequence follows. It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that where a statute creates a mandatory obligation intended to achieve a specific public purpose, compliance may be implied as a prerequisite even in the absence of an express penalty. Courts routinely infer legal consequences from mandatory statutory requirements where such consequences are necessary to give effect to legislative intent.
4. The interpretation adopted in Kolon Global Corporation effectively renders section 13 redundant. If a party may institute proceedings without taking bona fide steps and suffer no procedural consequence, then the statutory requirement becomes meaningless. Parliament is presumed not to legislate in vain. Every provision of a statute must be given effective meaning and practical operation.
5. The Court further erred in relying on principles of access to justice to negate the mandatory requirement under section 13. Access to justice is not absolute and may lawfully be regulated by procedural conditions imposed by statute. Numerous statutory requirements, including limitation periods, mandatory notices and exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, operate as lawful preconditions to litigation without offending constitutional principles.
6. The concern expressed by the Court regarding possible limitation consequences cannot justify disregarding the clear wording and purpose of section 13. Where Parliament has imposed a mandatory pre-litigation obligation, courts are bound to enforce it. Any perceived hardship resulting from the statutory scheme is a matter for legislative amendment rather than judicial rewriting of the provision.
7. Furthermore, the existence of court-annexed mediation under the Civil Procedure Code does not render section 13 superfluous. The two mechanisms operate at different stages. Section 13 promotes dispute resolution before the commencement of proceedings, while court-annexed mediation operates after proceedings have already been instituted. The provisions are complementary rather than inconsistent.
8. It is the better interpretation of section 13 that bona fide steps towards amicable settlement constitute a mandatory pre-condition to the institution of civil proceedings. A plaintiff who commences proceedings without complying with that requirement files a premature suit liable to be struck out or stayed until compliance is demonstrated.
9. Accordingly, I URGE Courts to decline to follow the reasoning in Kolon Global Corporation v Pipes Industries Company Limited and instead adopt the line of authorities holding that compliance with section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code is mandatory and a condition precedent to the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction.