Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assessment of evidence

Legal area

Court

18 Feb 2025

MOHD FARID BIN MOHAMED SANGIDO 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHANG AI NEE 3. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG

Citation

WA-22NCC-547-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-547-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Investment Agreement was unambiguous and obliged the First Defendant to repay the RM1,000,000 principal and pay the agreed 15% per annum targeted return at maturity independently of the company's profitability; the Agreement was not an unlawful moneylending transaction; the Second and Third Defendants executed enforceable guarantees and are jointly and severally liable for sums due; the Defendants' counterclaim is dismissed.
13 Dec 2022

1. ) MOHD NAJIB BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) ABU NIDAL BIN ROMLAN 1. ) Mohd Firdaus @ Omar Bin Mohd Yusof 2. ) Mohd Idros Bin Salleh mendakwa sebagai pentadbir harta pusaka 3. ) Muhamad Ashraaf Bin Md Shariff

Citation

PA-12B-50-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12B-50-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Sessions Court Judge was not 'plainly wrong'; on the totality of evidence (investigating officer's findings, consistent witness testimony of respondents, photographs, sketch plan and damage patterns) it was inherently probable that Najib encroached into the common path causing the collisions; therefore the Sessions Court's finding of 100% liability against Najib is upheld and the appeal dismissed.
4 Apr 2022

1. ) ABD LATIF BIN AHMAD 2. ) Abd Latif Bin Ahmad (Wakil Diri Kepada Harta Pusaka Mendiang Ahmad Bin Thahir (No. Kp: 391012-10-5055 Si Mati) TAN KIM SAN

Citation

BA-11B-28-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11B-28-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court found an appealable error in the magistrate's apportionment: evidence and probabilities showed the plaintiff was substantially to blame. The court set aside the magistrate's 90/10 apportionment and substituted a 70/30 apportionment (plaintiff 70% liable, D1 30% liable) but declined to disturb the quantum of damages awarded.
10 Feb 2022

BA-22NCvC-275-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-275-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-275-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of contemporaneous documents and witness evidence the SPA of 10.1.2013 was a sham used to disguise an interest-bearing loan; the Settlement Agreement of 19.11.2014 flowed from that illegal SPA and is tainted; the Defendant carried on unlicensed moneylending and obtained Sessions Court judgment by relying on documents and representations that masked the illegality; accordingly the Sessions Court judgment was set aside and the Defendant is not entitled to the RM450,000 claimed under the settlement; monetary losses lie where they fall and each party bears own costs.
27 Jul 2020

Alan Soh Heng Liang

Citation

B-05(M)-397-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-397-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court found the conviction unsafe because the trial judge failed to consider the defence and relevant defence evidence (including evidence of another arrested person with similar packages), there were credible doubts about the appellant's knowledge of the drugs and gaps in the chain of custody, while the date error in the charge was curable under sections 156 and 422 CPC; therefore the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Malaysia Case Law

MOHD FARID BIN MOHAMED SANGIDO 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHANG AI NEE 3. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG

1. ) MOHD NAJIB BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) ABU NIDAL BIN ROMLAN 1. ) Mohd Firdaus @ Omar Bin Mohd Yusof 2. ) Mohd Idros Bin Salleh mendakwa sebagai pentadbir harta pusaka 3. ) Muhamad Ashraaf Bin Md Shariff

1. ) ABD LATIF BIN AHMAD 2. ) Abd Latif Bin Ahmad (Wakil Diri Kepada Harta Pusaka Mendiang Ahmad Bin Thahir (No. Kp: 391012-10-5055 Si Mati) TAN KIM SAN

BA-22NCvC-275-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Alan Soh Heng Liang