Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Affidavit formalities

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

YEO GEOK HUAT berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya GH YEO ENTERPRISE 1. ) BLACKSTONE MINING SDN. BHD. 2. ) SHI XIAO JIN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-470-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-470-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The transfer application was dismissed because the closest nexus of the cause of action (failure to pay an acknowledged debt) was Kuala Lumpur where the Plaintiff operates and where payment was due; the Defendants failed to provide particulars demonstrating a stronger connection to Kuantan or material on the merits to shift the burden; inconvenience to witnesses/documents did not outweigh the Plaintiff’s choice of forum given technological means and absence of parallel proceedings, therefore Order 57 factors favored maintaining the suit in Kuala Lumpur.
15 Oct 2025

MOHD FAKRUNIZAM BIN IBRAHIM 1. ) TETUAN HANIF ABDUL RAHMAN & ASSOC. (DIDAKWA SEBAGAI SEBUAH FIRMA) 2. ) RANHILL UTILITIES BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-612-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-612-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving forgery; the court accepted that the defendant was appointed (oral appointment supported by correspondence and conduct) and found the expert handwriting evidence inconclusive due to the plaintiff's inconsistent signatures, therefore dismissing the claim and awarding costs and defendant's claimed legal fees.
28 Jul 2025

CIP GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) RENQUI DONGTAI IMPORT & EXPORT TRADE CO LTD 2. ) SITC CONTAINERS LINES MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) KMTC LINE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 4. ) HEUNG-A (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the plaintiff's strike‑out application because the procedural defects in the intervenors' affidavits were curable, the intervenors provided a reasonable explanation (overseas deponents and subsequent consular affirmation), no prejudice to the plaintiff was shown, and the court exercised its discretion under Order 32 r 13(2)(d), Order 1A and inherent jurisdiction (Order 92 r 4) to resolve the matter on the merits rather than on technical non‑compliance; costs awarded in the cause.
28 Jul 2025

CIP GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) RENQUI DONGTAI IMPORT & EXPORT TRADE CO LTD 2. ) SITC CONTAINERS LINES MALAYSIA SDN BHD 3. ) KMTC LINE (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 4. ) HEUNG-A (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-98-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the plaintiff's strike out application because the solicitors gave a reasonable explanation for filing the solicitors' affidavit and the deponents later properly affirmed their affidavits before a consular officer; the irregularities did not cause prejudice and were either cured or within the Court's discretion to remedy under Order 32 r 13 and Order 1A RoC 2012; accordingly the affidavits were accepted and the strike out failed.
25 Jun 2025

MFORCE BIKE HOLDINGS SDN. BHD NUR ATIKAH BINTI AZWAR

Citation

WA-23CY-21-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23CY-21-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant (Defendant) failed to establish a prima facie case of contempt: allegations were speculative, unsupported by solid probative evidence (signature/IC issues and intitulement discrepancy were not proved to vitiate affidavits), therefore leave to commence committal was refused and the ex parte application (Enclosure 75) was dismissed with costs.
8 May 2025

Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah 1. ) Hannah Kam Zhen Yi 2. ) Messrs. Thomas Philip

Citation

WA-23NCvC-114-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-114-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that even if there was a technical non‑compliance with O.41 r 1(4), no substantial miscarriage of justice or prejudice was occasioned; therefore the affidavit should not be expunged and the Plaintiff's application to reject the affidavit (Encl.29) was dismissed with costs. Technical non-compliance alone is insufficient to deny admissibility of an affidavit where justice is served by admitting it.
23 Aug 2024

YAYASAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN PINNACLE HOMES SP SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-896-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-896-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment on the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed because genuine triable issues exist as to whether the payments were made on the plaintiff's behalf or voluntarily/as advances by the defendant (including discrepancies in documentary evidence such as payment by Terra Mirus and invoices addressed to the defendant, and the issuance/retraction of a cheque for RM822,905.37), and the affidavit jurat defect was a technical irregularity that caused no prejudice; these factual disputes require oral testimony at trial and cannot be resolved on summary proceedings.
24 Jun 2024

TRI PACIFIC ENGINEERING SDN BHD KL ECO CITY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-15-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-15-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found that at the time the valid s30 request was received by the defendant the only sum due or payable to the main contractor in respect of the plaintiff was the retention sum of RM998,653.66 which the defendant paid; subsequent Settlement Agreement and Final Certificate demonstrated the net payable position was RM87,916.92; therefore the defendant was not liable to pay the plaintiff the claimed balance of RM192,970.76 and the plaintiff's application was dismissed.
23 May 2023

Wire & Wireless Sdn Bhd 1. ) Mohd Taib Bin Hassan 2. ) Mohd Effendi Bin Mohd Taib 3. ) Mohd Ezizul Bin Mohd Taib

Citation

BA-22NCvC-335-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-335-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service of the writ complied with the parties' contractual mode and the Rules; the simultaneous filing of the certificate of non-appearance and affidavits satisfied Order 13 r.7 and the administrative sequence/encolure numbers are immaterial; the default judgment was therefore regular; defendants failed to demonstrate a defence on the merits; application to set aside is dismissed, though the court held the 30-day rule is not absolute and courts retain discretion to extend time in appropriate cases.
2 Feb 2023

CARLVIN BRAN VINCENT SAM KAH LOK

Citation

JA-A53KJ-56-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A53KJ-56-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application dismissed because it was filed after plaintiff had closed his case and after hearings had commenced (inordinate delay constituting abuse of process), the supporting affidavit was irregular and defective as it contained contested factual assertions sworn by the solicitor rather than the defendant with direct knowledge, and the defendant had prior knowledge of the alleged oil spill such that no valid excuse for delay was shown; accordingly leave to issue the third party notice was refused and affidavit struck out.