ARIF BIN AWANG ZULFAIZAL BIN ABU BAKAR @ SUKRI

ARIF BIN AWANG ZULFAIZAL BIN ABU BAKAR @ SUKRI

The Court held the Surat Akuan Bersumpah dated 23.9.2020 was legally binding; the defendant failed to prove duress or any vitiating factor and did not particularise allegations as required by the rules; part payments and conduct amounted to admission of the debt; the alleged oral extension lacked documentary or independent corroboration and was rejected; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to recover the outstanding RM750,000 with interest and costs.

Citation
TA-B52NCvC-4-05/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
PLAINTIF: Arif bin Awang; DEFENDAN: Zulfaizal bin Abu Bakar @ Sukri
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 May 2025
Case Number
TA-B52NCvC-4-05/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Debt/contract Dispute / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Judgment entered for the Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Sworn Statement, Breach of Payment Obligation, Admission by Part Payment, Summary Judgment and Pleading Requirements
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Debt Civil Procedure Enforceability of Sworn Statement Breach of Payment Obligation Admission by Part Payment Summary Judgment and Pleading Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arif bin Awang

PLAINTIF

Zulfaizal bin Abu Bakar @ Sukri

DEFENDAN

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Debt/contract Dispute / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Surat Akuan Bersumpah (sworn statement) is legally binding
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached the payment obligation and is liable for the outstanding RM750,000
  3. 3 Whether alleged oral extension of time is admissible and defeats the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the Surat Akuan Bersumpah dated 23.9.2020 was legally binding; the defendant failed to prove duress or any vitiating factor and did not particularise allegations as required by the rules; part payments and conduct amounted to admission of the debt; the alleged oral extension lacked documentary or independent corroboration and was rejected; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to recover the outstanding RM750,000 with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Judgment entered for the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim allowed as prayed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Statement of Claim.
  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff RM750,000.00.