YONG THIEN YEW 1. ) LIM CHEE HOW 2. ) SYARIKAT LIM KIAM HOON (DIDAKWA SEBAGAI FIRMA)

YONG THIEN YEW 1. ) LIM CHEE HOW 2. ) SYARIKAT LIM KIAM HOON (DIDAKWA SEBAGAI FIRMA)

On the evidence the Court found the Plaintiff paid the full purchase price supported by contemporaneous documents; the Agreement, SPA and Form 14A reflected the parties' intention; the First Defendant failed to discharge the burden to prove duress or non est factum and omitted a material witness, so the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance and the sum of RM8,726.10 with interest plus removal of the caveat and execution of transfer forms.

Citation
KB-22NCvC-8-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: YONG THIEN YEW; 1st Defendant: LIM CHEE HOW; 2nd Defendant: SYARIKAT LIM KIAM HOON
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 October 2025
Case Number
KB-22NCvC-8-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff: specific performance granted; monetary relief awarded; caveat to be removed and documents to be executed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Caveat, Burden of Proof, Non Est Factum, Duress, Nominal Defendant, Repayment Dispute
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Equity Evidence Specific Performance Sale and Purchase Agreement Caveat Burden of Proof +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YONG THIEN YEW

Plaintiff

LIM CHEE HOW

1st Defendant

SYARIKAT LIM KIAM HOON

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plaintiff paid the full purchase price of the Properties
  2. 2 Whether the Agreement, SPA and Form 14A were validly executed and reflected parties' intention
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant signed under duress or could invoke non est factum

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Court found the Plaintiff paid the full purchase price supported by contemporaneous documents; the Agreement, SPA and Form 14A reflected the parties' intention; the First Defendant failed to discharge the burden to prove duress or non est factum and omitted a material witness, so the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance and the sum of RM8,726.10 with interest plus removal of the caveat and execution of transfer forms.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff: specific performance granted; monetary relief awarded; caveat to be removed and documents to be executed

Orders

  • Within 14 days of service of the sealed judgment the First Defendant shall execute the Form 14A and the forms for removal of his private caveat at his solicitors Messrs Y.C. Wong, failing which the Senior Assistant Registrar shall do the needful
  • The First Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the sum of RM8,726.10 with interest thereon at 5% per annum from the date of judgment