ZAINON BINTI NOODIN (K/P : 610802-11-5036) 1. ) DWIPROFIL (M) SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 233178-P) 2. ) RABUAN BIN SULAIMAN (NO. K/P : 530729-01-5839) 3. ) ZANARIAH BINTI YUSOF (NO. K/P : 610104-01-6540)

ZAINON BINTI NOODIN (K/P : 610802-11-5036) 1. ) DWIPROFIL (M) SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 233178-P) 2. ) RABUAN BIN SULAIMAN (NO. K/P : 530729-01-5839) 3. ) ZANARIAH BINTI YUSOF (NO. K/P : 610104-01-6540)

The court found no fraudulent misrepresentation; the plaintiff either knew or ought to have known of the subdivision and new titles; the plaintiff failed to complete within the contractual time (time being of the essence) and loan refusals were for financial reasons; therefore the agreement was not void ab initio and defendants validly terminated and were entitled to forfeit the deposit.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-159-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Zainon binti Noordin; 1st Respondent/defendant: Dwiprofil (M) Sdn Bhd; 2nd Respondent/defendant: Rabuan bin Sulaiman; 3rd Respondent/defendant: Zanariah binti Yusof
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 November 2021
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-159-03/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Condition Precedent, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Forfeiture of Deposit, Declaration of Void Ab Initio, Failure to Complete
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Misrepresentation Civil Procedure Equity Sale of Land Condition Precedent Fraudulent Misrepresentation +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zainon binti Noordin

Appellant/plaintiff

Dwiprofil (M) Sdn Bhd

1st Respondent/defendant

Rabuan bin Sulaiman

2nd Respondent/defendant

Zanariah binti Yusof

3rd Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale and purchase agreement dated 18.3.2015 was void ab initio
  2. 2 Whether a condition precedent existed and was or was not satisfied
  3. 3 Whether defendants committed fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment regarding land subdivision and acquisition

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no fraudulent misrepresentation; the plaintiff either knew or ought to have known of the subdivision and new titles; the plaintiff failed to complete within the contractual time (time being of the essence) and loan refusals were for financial reasons; therefore the agreement was not void ab initio and defendants validly terminated and were entitled to forfeit the deposit.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to pay costs of RM15000.00 to the respondents subject to taxation.