JEMAIN BIN SAKAT 1. ) MOHD SAHRUL NIZAM 2. ) AHMAD GULAM AB GHAFAR 3. ) WAGIMIN NGABEN

JEMAIN BIN SAKAT 1. ) MOHD SAHRUL NIZAM 2. ) AHMAD GULAM AB GHAFAR 3. ) WAGIMIN NGABEN

On the balance of probabilities Plaintiff failed to prove the agreements were intended as business capital or contained sufficiently certain terms; contemporaneous bank documents and lack of supporting witness (bank officer) undermined Plaintiff's case; agreements were void for uncertainty under s30 Contract Act 1950; claim therefore dismissed.

Citation
BJ-A72NCvC-21-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jemain bin Sakat; Defendant First: Mohd Sahrul Nizam; Defendant Second: Ahmad Gulam Ab Ghafar; Defendant Third: Wagimin Ngaben
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 January 2024
Case Number
BJ-A72NCvC-21-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Civil Writ of Summons / Judgment (magistrate's Court)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed on the balance of probabilities
Legal Topics
Validity of Contract, Uncertainty Section 30 Contract Act 1950, Burden of Proof Section 101 Evidence Act 1950, Presumption for Failure to Call Witness Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950, Quantum Meruit Section 71 Contract Act 1950, Pleadings and Limitation of Relief
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Evidence Civil Procedure Restitution/quantum Meruit Validity of Contract Uncertainty Section 30 Contract Act 1950 Burden of Proof Section 101 Evidence Act 1950 Presumption for Failure to Call Witness Section 114(g) 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jemain bin Sakat

Plaintiff

Mohd Sahrul Nizam

Defendant First

Ahmad Gulam Ab Ghafar

Defendant Second

Wagimin Ngaben

Defendant Third

Procedural Posture

Civil Writ of Summons / Judgment (magistrate's Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the true purpose of the signed agreements was business capital for gold trading as pleaded by the Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the agreements are void for uncertainty under Section 30 of the Contract Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether Defendant First is liable to repay RM52,000.00 to the Plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities Plaintiff failed to prove the agreements were intended as business capital or contained sufficiently certain terms; contemporaneous bank documents and lack of supporting witness (bank officer) undermined Plaintiff's case; agreements were void for uncertainty under s30 Contract Act 1950; claim therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed on the balance of probabilities

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim against Defendant First and Defendant Second is dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Defendants on scale pursuant to Order 59 Rule 23 KKM 2012