Poh Kee 1. ) CHIN KIM YANG 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah dan Daerah 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Johor
The written sale agreement and subsequent transfer were a sham masking an unlicensed moneylending transaction; the monthly payments were interest, the moneylending was unlicensed and therefore unlawful and unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act 1951 (s16(1) and related provisions); accordingly the sale and transfers are void and the land registry must restore title to the plaintiffs' prior position; ancillary equitable and monetary relief follows as ordered.
- Citation
- JB-22NCvC-50-07/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff (joint Administrator for Estate of Ng Seok Ten @ Ng Hon): Poh Kee; Plaintiff (joint Administrator for Estate of Ng Seok Ten @ Ng Hon): Poh Hock Ming; Defendant First (purchaser): Chim Kim Yang; Defendant Second (district Land Administrator): Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Muar; Defendant Third (state Government Principal of Defendant Second): Kerajaan Negeri Johor
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 6 April 2022
- Case Number
- JB-22NCvC-50-07/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit (high Court) / Judgment (trial Concluded)
- Outcome
- Writ of summons allowed; sale agreement and transfers declared void and orders made to restore original title; costs awarded
- Legal Topics
- Sham Transaction, Illegal Moneylending, Void Transfer, Injunction, Indefeasibility Exceptions, Extrinsic Evidence to Contradict Document
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Poh Kee
Plaintiff (joint Administrator for Estate of Ng Seok Ten @ Ng Hon)
Poh Hock Ming
Plaintiff (joint Administrator for Estate of Ng Seok Ten @ Ng Hon)
Chim Kim Yang
Defendant First (purchaser)
Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Muar
Defendant Second (district Land Administrator)
Kerajaan Negeri Johor
Defendant Third (state Government Principal of Defendant Second)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (high Court) / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 25.03.2015 sale agreement was a sham concealing an unlicensed loan (illegal moneylending)
- 2 Whether the sale agreement and subsequent transfers (including Form 14A and transfer on 27.03.2017) are valid and enforceable
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs breached contract and whether defendants are entitled to damages or other relief
Ratio Decidendi
The written sale agreement and subsequent transfer were a sham masking an unlicensed moneylending transaction; the monthly payments were interest, the moneylending was unlicensed and therefore unlawful and unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act 1951 (s16(1) and related provisions); accordingly the sale and transfers are void and the land registry must restore title to the plaintiffs' prior position; ancillary equitable and monetary relief follows as ordered.
Court Disposition
Writ of summons allowed; sale agreement and transfers declared void and orders made to restore original title; costs awarded
Orders
- Declaration that the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 25.03.2015 is void, null and of no legal effect
- Declaration that Form 14A / memorandum of transfer dated 11.10.2016 and instruments used to effect transfer on 27.03.2017 (Per.No.1229/2017) are void ab initio
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment