USAINI BIN OMAR (NO. K/P : 710113-08-5159) NIK HAMDAN BIN NIK YUSOFF (NO. K/P : 500710-03-5111)

USAINI BIN OMAR (NO. K/P : 710113-08-5159) NIK HAMDAN BIN NIK YUSOFF (NO. K/P : 500710-03-5111)

Service of the sealed notice was sufficiently timely and any procedural irregularity was curable; the appellant was not a party to the Memorandum of Agreement and lacked privity and locus to sue the respondent; appellant failed to produce documentary evidence to show a bona fide cause of action; on the preponderance of affidavit material the claim was plainly unsustainable and striking out under O.18 r.19 was warranted, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
BA-12ANCVC-110-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Usaini bin Omar; Respondent/defendant: Nik Hamdan bin Nik Yusoff
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 August 2020
Case Number
BA-12ANCVC-110-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Striking Out Order / High Court Appeal From Sessions Court Interlocutory Striking Out Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court allowing Defendant's striking out application affirmed.
Legal Topics
Striking Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 ROC, Privity of Contract, Locus Standi, Service of Process (order 32 R3), Overriding Objective and Curative Powers (order 1 a and Order 2 R1), Abuse of Process
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Property Law Civil Litigation Striking Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 ROC Privity of Contract Locus Standi Service of Process (order 32 R3) +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Usaini bin Omar

Appellant/plaintiff

Nik Hamdan bin Nik Yusoff

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Striking Out Order / High Court Appeal From Sessions Court Interlocutory Striking Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the Notice of Application complied with Order 32 r3 and caused prejudice
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was privy to the Memorandum of Agreement and had locus standi to sue
  3. 3 Whether the Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action or was plainly unsustainable

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the sealed notice was sufficiently timely and any procedural irregularity was curable; the appellant was not a party to the Memorandum of Agreement and lacked privity and locus to sue the respondent; appellant failed to produce documentary evidence to show a bona fide cause of action; on the preponderance of affidavit material the claim was plainly unsustainable and striking out under O.18 r.19 was warranted, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court allowing Defendant's striking out application affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Striking out of Plaintiff's writ and statement of claim affirmed