MOHD KAMAL BIN SULAIMAN SUHERMAN BIN RASHID

MOHD KAMAL BIN SULAIMAN SUHERMAN BIN RASHID

The High Court held the 8 April 2004 agreement void because its object would defeat provisions of the National Land Code and was opposed to public policy; accordingly the agreement was unlawful under sections 24(b) and 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950 and could not be enforced, so the Sessions Court's declaration of a valid binding sale and award for breach were set aside.

Citation
BA-12BNCvC-61-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Mohd Kamal bin Sulaiman; Respondent/plaintiff: Suherman bin Rashid
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 July 2024
Case Number
BA-12BNCvC-61-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract/property) / High Court Decision on Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Agreement Uncertainty, Validity and Enforceability of Sale and Purchase Agreements, Section 24 and 30 Contracts Act 1950, Consent and Locus Under National Land Code Ss433 A/433 B, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law National Land Code Civil Procedure Public Policy Agreement Uncertainty Validity and Enforceability of Sale and Purchase Agreements Section 24 and 30 Contracts Act 1950 +2 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Kamal bin Sulaiman

Appellant/defendant

Suherman bin Rashid

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract/property) / High Court Decision on Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties' 8 April 2004 agreement constituted a valid sale and purchase agreement or a rental/unenforceable agreement
  2. 2 Whether the agreement is void for uncertainty under section 30 of the Contracts Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether the agreement is unlawful or defeats provisions of the National Land Code and is therefore void under section 24(b) and 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the 8 April 2004 agreement void because its object would defeat provisions of the National Land Code and was opposed to public policy; accordingly the agreement was unlawful under sections 24(b) and 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950 and could not be enforced, so the Sessions Court's declaration of a valid binding sale and award for breach were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment set aside

Orders

  • Declaration that the 8 April 2004 agreement is void and unenforceable
  • Set aside the Sessions Court’s declaration that the Defendant breached the Agreement