Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of photographic evidence

Legal area

Court

8 Jul 2025

[ ] MOHAMAD IKHRAM BIN MOHAMAD RUSLI

Citation

DA-61-1-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-61-1-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The prosecution failed to prove possession and knowledge of the firearm and ammunition by the accused beyond reasonable doubt because the vehicle was not registered to the accused, there was no convincing evidence of exclusive control, critical investigative gaps and procedural defects in seizure and photographic documentation undermined SP3's solitary testimony, and there was no forensic linkage or independent corroboration; consequently no prima facie case existed and the accused must be discharged.
18 Apr 2025

1. ) MOHAMAD NORAZRI BIN OTHMAN 2. ) NURUL SHUHADA BINTI ABDUL RAFAR 1. ) PROJEK LEBUHRAYA USAHASAMA BERHAD (PLUS) 2. ) UEM EDGENTA PROPEL BERHAD

Citation

MC-A73KJ-413-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-A73KJ-413-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the presence of a cone at the accident site plausible given the FIR, PLUS patrol/GPS report and the time gap after cones were placed for a prior breakdown; Defendants breached their duty to keep the highway free of hazards and failed to prove they took reasonable steps to detect and remove the cone; the First Plaintiff was contributorily negligent for using the emergency lane/being insufficiently cautious, and liability was apportioned 60% to the First Plaintiff and 40% to the Defendants (20% each); damages were awarded accordingly.
26 Feb 2025

1. ) JABATAN KERJA RAYA NEGERI SELANGOR 2. ) JABATAN KERJA RAYA DAERAH PETALING JAYA 1. ) SULAIMAN BIN MOHAMED 2. ) JURUMART SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-12B-103-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-103-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants were liable for negligence for failing to maintain the public road (including omissions); photographic evidence was admissible on proper identification; statutory immunity under the Government Proceedings Act 1956 does not bar negligence claims in road maintenance; delegation to a contractor does not absolve the State; the third party contractor was contractually obliged to perform inspections and pothole repairs and must fully indemnify the defendants; the trial court's apportionment of contributory negligence (plaintiff 40%) and assessment of damages were not disturbed.

Malaysia Case Law

[ ] MOHAMAD IKHRAM BIN MOHAMAD RUSLI

1. ) MOHAMAD NORAZRI BIN OTHMAN 2. ) NURUL SHUHADA BINTI ABDUL RAFAR 1. ) PROJEK LEBUHRAYA USAHASAMA BERHAD (PLUS) 2. ) UEM EDGENTA PROPEL BERHAD

1. ) JABATAN KERJA RAYA NEGERI SELANGOR 2. ) JABATAN KERJA RAYA DAERAH PETALING JAYA 1. ) SULAIMAN BIN MOHAMED 2. ) JURUMART SDN. BHD.