SYARIFAH NADZRAH BINTI S ALI SALIM BIN MOHAMOD SHAFIE

SYARIFAH NADZRAH BINTI S ALI SALIM BIN MOHAMOD SHAFIE

Appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent occupied the unit from August 2018 to December 2020 or that any tenancy existed; evidence cited (utility bills, police reports, witness statements about lights) was insufficient to establish occupation; absent proof of tenancy section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act double-rent provision and claim under section 71 of the Contract Act do not apply; matters concerning matrimonial property to be determined in Syariah court. Appeal dismissed and lower court decision upheld.

Citation
WA-11BNCvC-67-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Syarifah Nadzrah binti S Ali; Respondent / Defendant: Salim bin Mahamad Shafie
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 April 2023
Case Number
WA-11BNCvC-67-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Decision (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Magistrate’s Court dated 16.11.2022 upheld.
Legal Topics
Tenancy and Rent, Burden of Proof, Matrimonial Home / Harta Sepencarian, Double Rent Under Section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act, Section 71 Contract Act Claim
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Family Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Tenancy and Rent Burden of Proof Matrimonial Home / Harta Sepencarian +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Syarifah Nadzrah binti S Ali

Appellant / Plaintiff

Salim bin Mahamad Shafie

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Decision (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant or his family occupied the unit from August 2018 to December 2020
  2. 2 Whether defendant must pay rent for the period August 2018 to December 2020 after plaintiff vacated
  3. 3 Whether defendant must pay rent from January 2021 after divorce

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent occupied the unit from August 2018 to December 2020 or that any tenancy existed; evidence cited (utility bills, police reports, witness statements about lights) was insufficient to establish occupation; absent proof of tenancy section 28(4)(a) Civil Law Act double-rent provision and claim under section 71 of the Contract Act do not apply; matters concerning matrimonial property to be determined in Syariah court. Appeal dismissed and lower court decision upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Magistrate’s Court dated 16.11.2022 upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid by appellant subject to allocatur