KESUTRA SDN BHD RITMA HEBAT SDN BHD

KESUTRA SDN BHD RITMA HEBAT SDN BHD

The adjudication decision was set aside because the court found the Ritma-Kesutra contract to be a sham and, in any event, void for want of consideration under s26 Contracts Act 1950; therefore the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction under CIPAA to decide Kesutra’s payment claim and the enforcement application must be dismissed. The court also held ss91-92 Evidence Act do not preclude use of extrinsic evidence to reach that conclusion.

Citation
BA-24C-86-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (in OS BA 24 C 64 09/2021); Defendant (in OS BA 24 C 86 12/2021): Ritma Hebat Sdn. Bhd. (Co. No.: 646348-H); Plaintiff (in OS BA 24 C 86 12/2021); Defendant (in OS BA 24 C 64 09/2021): Kesutra Sdn. Bhd. (Co. No.: 778704-M)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 April 2022
Case Number
BA-24C-86-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (cipaa) / Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Adjudication decision set aside; Enforcement application dismissed; No order as to costs; No order made on stay application.
Legal Topics
CIPAA Adjudication and Enforcement, Setting Aside Adjudication Decision, Sham Contract, Consideration (contracts Act), Use of Extrinsic Evidence, Stay of Enforcement
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law CIPAA Adjudication and Enforcement Setting Aside Adjudication Decision Sham Contract Consideration (contracts Act) +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ritma Hebat Sdn. Bhd. (Co. No.: 646348-H)

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

Kesutra Sdn. Bhd. (Co. No.: 778704-M)

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

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (cipaa) / Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged construction contract between Ritma and Kesutra was genuine or a sham
  2. 2 Whether ss 91 and 92 Evidence Act bar consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine sham
  3. 3 Whether the contract is void for want of consideration under s 26 Contracts Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudication decision was set aside because the court found the Ritma-Kesutra contract to be a sham and, in any event, void for want of consideration under s26 Contracts Act 1950; therefore the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction under CIPAA to decide Kesutra’s payment claim and the enforcement application must be dismissed. The court also held ss91-92 Evidence Act do not preclude use of extrinsic evidence to reach that conclusion.

Court Disposition

Adjudication decision set aside; Enforcement application dismissed; No order as to costs; No order made on stay application.

Orders

  • Ritma’s Amended Originating Summons allowed and the Adjudication Decision in favour of Kesutra is set aside.
  • Originating Summons by Kesutra for leave to enforce the adjudication decision is dismissed.