RITMA HEBAT SDN BHD Kesutra Sdn Bhd

RITMA HEBAT SDN BHD Kesutra Sdn Bhd

The Ritma-Kesutra contract was a sham and, alternatively, void for want of consideration; therefore the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction under CIPAA to adjudicate Kesutra's payment claim, and the adjudication decision was set aside; enforcement was dismissed and no costs awarded to successful applicant given consensual participation in sham transaction.

Citation
BA-24C-64-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (os BA 24 C 64 09/2021); Defendant (os BA 24 C 86 12 2021): Ritma Hebat Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (os BA 24 C 64 09/2021); Plaintiff (os BA 24 C 86 12 2021): Kesutra Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 April 2022
Case Number
BA-24C-64-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under CIPAA (setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Judgment on Originating Summonses
Outcome
Adjudication decision set aside; Enforcement originating summons dismissed; No order as to costs; No stay ordered.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under CIPAA, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Enforcement of Adjudication Decision, Stay of Enforcement, Sham Contract, Consideration Under Contracts Act, Natural Justice in Adjudication
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Contract Law Evidence Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Under CIPAA Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Enforcement of Adjudication Decision Stay of Enforcement +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ritma Hebat Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff (os BA 24 C 64 09/2021); Defendant (os BA 24 C 86 12 2021)

Kesutra Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant (os BA 24 C 64 09/2021); Plaintiff (os BA 24 C 86 12 2021)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under CIPAA (setting Aside and Enforcement of Adjudication Decision) / Judgment on Originating Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between Ritma and Kesutra was genuine or a sham
  2. 2 Whether the High Court may consider extrinsic evidence to determine genuineness
  3. 3 Whether the contract was supported by consideration under s2(d) and therefore not void under s26 Contracts Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Ritma-Kesutra contract was a sham and, alternatively, void for want of consideration; therefore the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction under CIPAA to adjudicate Kesutra's payment claim, and the adjudication decision was set aside; enforcement was dismissed and no costs awarded to successful applicant given consensual participation in sham transaction.

Court Disposition

Adjudication decision set aside; Enforcement originating summons dismissed; No order as to costs; No stay ordered.

Orders

  • Adjudication Decision (Kesutra v Ritma dated 1.8.2021) is set aside.
  • Enforcement Originating Summons (Kesutra v Ritma) is dismissed.