MOHAMAD AIRIL BIN MUSTAFA LEALI 1. ) MUHAMMAD TARMIZI BIN AB WAHAB 2. ) Jabatan Penjara Malaysia (JPM) 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

MOHAMAD AIRIL BIN MUSTAFA LEALI 1. ) MUHAMMAD TARMIZI BIN AB WAHAB 2. ) Jabatan Penjara Malaysia (JPM) 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof; his account was uncorroborated, inconsistent with vehicle damage and injury patterns, and he failed to call the IO whose investigation supported the defendant; IO evidence was admissible and the defendant's version was inherently more probable; accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Citation
NA-11ANCvC-4-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Mohamad Airil bin Mustafa Leali; Respondent/defendant: Muhammad Tarmizi bin Ab. Wahab; Respondent/defendant: Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penjara Malaysia; Respondent/defendant: Kerajaan Malaysia
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 April 2024
Case Number
NA-11ANCvC-4-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / Appeal Judgment From Magistrate Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Magistrate's decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Onus of Proof, Adverse Inference Under S114(g) Evidence Act 1950, Hearsay, Credibility Assessment, Motor Vehicle Collision
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Evidence Civil Procedure Negligence Onus of Proof Adverse Inference Under S114(g) Evidence Act 1950 Hearsay Credibility Assessment +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamad Airil bin Mustafa Leali

Appellant/plaintiff

Muhammad Tarmizi bin Ab. Wahab

Respondent/defendant

Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penjara Malaysia

Respondent/defendant

Kerajaan Malaysia

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort Negligence) / Appeal Judgment From Magistrate Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proving negligence by the defendant
  2. 2 Admissibility and weight of the Investigating Officer's (IO) evidence and whether it is hearsay
  3. 3 Whether an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950 arises from plaintiff's failure to call the IO

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof; his account was uncorroborated, inconsistent with vehicle damage and injury patterns, and he failed to call the IO whose investigation supported the defendant; IO evidence was admissible and the defendant's version was inherently more probable; accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Magistrate's decision affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Decision of Magistrate dated 11/8/2023 affirmed