Lailatul Shima Binti Daud Azman Bin Haron

Lailatul Shima Binti Daud Azman Bin Haron

The Tenancy Agreement was the sole written contract between parties; the Sessions Court properly applied s92 Evidence Act 1950 and relevant authorities to reject inconsistent oral evidence that payments were purchase installments; there was no misdirection or failure to consider evidence by the trial judge; thus the Respondent was entitled to relief and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
BA-12BNCVC-95-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Lailatul Shima binti Daud; Respondent/plaintiff: Azman bin Haron
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Case Number
BA-12BNCVC-95-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sessions Court Concerning Possession of Immovable Property Under Specific Relief / Appeal After Full Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court judgment affirmed; Respondent's claim allowed and Appellant's counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Recovery of Possession, Section 7 Specific Relief Act 1950, Parol Evidence / S92 Evidence Act 1950, Holding Over, Assessment of Appellate Interference
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Tenancy Law Recovery of Possession Section 7 Specific Relief Act 1950 Parol Evidence / S92 Evidence 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lailatul Shima binti Daud

Appellant/defendant

Azman bin Haron

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sessions Court Concerning Possession of Immovable Property Under Specific Relief / Appeal After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant was lawfully entitled to possession
  2. 2 Whether payments made were part of a sale/purchase or rent
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Court erred in assessing and preferring evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Tenancy Agreement was the sole written contract between parties; the Sessions Court properly applied s92 Evidence Act 1950 and relevant authorities to reject inconsistent oral evidence that payments were purchase installments; there was no misdirection or failure to consider evidence by the trial judge; thus the Respondent was entitled to relief and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court judgment affirmed; Respondent's claim allowed and Appellant's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM4,000.00 to Respondent
  • Respondent's claim for possession allowed; Appellant's counterclaim dismissed on merits