MA JOSEPH CAPITAL SDN BHD 1. ) PANNIRSELVAM A/L MANNAR 2. ) UZINANI BINTI MOHD SANI (kedua-duanya beramal sebagai Tetuan Nurliny, Pannir Mannar & Co, Peguambela & Peguamcara) 3. ) EI KIAN SEONG

MA JOSEPH CAPITAL SDN BHD 1. ) PANNIRSELVAM A/L MANNAR 2. ) UZINANI BINTI MOHD SANI (kedua-duanya beramal sebagai Tetuan Nurliny, Pannir Mannar & Co, Peguambela & Peguamcara) 3. ) EI KIAN SEONG

Viewing the totality of circumstantial evidence (undisputed deduction pattern consistent with interest, retention of possession, absence of signed LOPs by purchasers, single legal representation, fabrication indicators), the 16 SPAs were sham devices to effect illegal moneylending by unlicensed lenders; under the Moneylenders Act 1951 such agreements are void and unenforceable, the appellant is a protected borrower (not in pari delicto), the High Court was plainly wrong to find transactions genuine, hence appeals are allowed, SPAs declared void and issue of damages remitted to High Court.

Citation
B-02(NCvC)(W)-994-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff (lead Appeal): MA JOSEPH CAPITAL SDN BHD; Appellant/plaintiff: AJ KASTURI SDN BHD; 1st Respondent/defendant: PANNIRSELVAM A/L MANNAR; 2nd Respondent/defendant: UZINANI BINTI MOHD SANI; Respondent/defendant: EI KIAN SEONG; Respondent/defendant/other Respondent: NG SEE HUA; Respondent/defendant/other Respondent: LEE PENG KOON; Respondent/defendant/other Respondent: LEE LEONG HUAT; Respondent/defendant/other Respondent: NG SOON TEAM / ENG SOON TEAM; Respondent/defendant/other Respondent: TEH HOCK CHUN; Respondent/defendant/other Respondent: KHOO SAY POOW; Respondent/defendant/other Respondent: ABLE DYNAMIC TRADING SDN BHD; Appellant's Representative / Witness: ANTHONY RAJ A/L AYAKARAM JOSEPH; Named Defendant in Related Suit: KASTURI DEVI A/P SINNIAH
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 August 2025
Case Number
B-02(NCvC)(W)-994-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From High Court (mahkamah Tinggi) / Appellate Decision Judgment Allowing Appeals and Remitting Issue of Damages to High Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court decision of 31 May 2024 set aside; 16 SPAs declared sham and void as illegal moneylending transactions; issue of damages remitted to High Court; respondents' counterclaims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sham Transactions, Illegal Moneylending, In Pari Delicto / Ex Turpi Causa, Class Protection Statutes, Document Fabrication, Option to Purchase, Plainly Wrong Appellate Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Moneylenders Act 1951 Civil Procedure Evidence Law Sham Transactions Illegal Moneylending In Pari Delicto / Ex Turpi Causa +4 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MA JOSEPH CAPITAL SDN BHD

Appellant/plaintiff (lead Appeal)

AJ KASTURI SDN BHD

Appellant/plaintiff

PANNIRSELVAM A/L MANNAR

1st Respondent/defendant

UZINANI BINTI MOHD SANI

2nd Respondent/defendant

EI KIAN SEONG

Respondent/defendant

NG SEE HUA

Respondent/defendant/other Respondent

LEE PENG KOON

Respondent/defendant/other Respondent

LEE LEONG HUAT

Respondent/defendant/other Respondent

NG SOON TEAM / ENG SOON TEAM

Respondent/defendant/other Respondent

TEH HOCK CHUN

Respondent/defendant/other Respondent

KHOO SAY POOW

Respondent/defendant/other Respondent

ABLE DYNAMIC TRADING SDN BHD

Respondent/defendant/other Respondent

ANTHONY RAJ A/L AYAKARAM JOSEPH

Appellant's Representative / Witness

KASTURI DEVI A/P SINNIAH

Named Defendant in Related Suit

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From High Court (mahkamah Tinggi) / Appellate Decision Judgment Allowing Appeals and Remitting Issue of Damages to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 16 SPAs were genuine sales or shams disguising illegal moneylending
  2. 2 Whether unlicensed moneylending renders the transactions void and unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act 1951
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is barred by in pari delicto or ex turpi causa non oritur actio

Ratio Decidendi

Viewing the totality of circumstantial evidence (undisputed deduction pattern consistent with interest, retention of possession, absence of signed LOPs by purchasers, single legal representation, fabrication indicators), the 16 SPAs were sham devices to effect illegal moneylending by unlicensed lenders; under the Moneylenders Act 1951 such agreements are void and unenforceable, the appellant is a protected borrower (not in pari delicto), the High Court was plainly wrong to find transactions genuine, hence appeals are allowed, SPAs declared void and issue of damages remitted to High Court.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court decision of 31 May 2024 set aside; 16 SPAs declared sham and void as illegal moneylending transactions; issue of damages remitted to High Court; respondents' counterclaims dismissed.

Orders

  • Allow appeals B-02(NCvC)(W)-994-06/2024, B-02(NCvC)(W)-995-06/2024 and B-02(NCvC)(W)-1000-06/2024
  • Set aside the High Court decision dated 31 May 2024