PIK KHIM DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. JITU ENIGMA SDN. BHD.

PIK KHIM DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. JITU ENIGMA SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff failed to prove its case on the balance of probabilities because the alleged friendly loan and key documents remained as identification-only and hearsay (originals and makers not produced), unpleaded facts cannot be relied upon, an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950 was warranted, and the Defendant satisfactorily proved the SPAs and that RM145,000 payments were down payments with outstanding purchase sums; therefore the claim for ownership and specific performance was dismissed.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-517-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: PIK KHIM DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.; Respondent/defendant: JITU ENIGMA SDN. BHD.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 October 2022
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-517-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Admissibility of Documents, Hearsay Evidence, Pleadings, Burden of Proof, Directors' Resolution, Adverse Inference
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Evidence Law Civil Procedure Insolvency/liquidation Breach of Contract Specific Performance Admissibility of Documents +5 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PIK KHIM DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Appellant/plaintiff

JITU ENIGMA SDN. BHD.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff proved entitlement to transfer/ownership of Lot 22 and Lot 23
  2. 2 Whether a collateral contract existed based on a purported RM2,000,000 friendly loan and undertakings
  3. 3 Admissibility of documents marked for identification only and hearsay issues

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove its case on the balance of probabilities because the alleged friendly loan and key documents remained as identification-only and hearsay (originals and makers not produced), unpleaded facts cannot be relied upon, an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950 was warranted, and the Defendant satisfactorily proved the SPAs and that RM145,000 payments were down payments with outstanding purchase sums; therefore the claim for ownership and specific performance was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed with costs of RM40,000.00