Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Lease

  • 13 May 2025

    TCM MINING SDN BHD NAAM SDN BHD

    Citation
    KA-24NCvC-185-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    KA-24NCvC-185-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The application is dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to prove a right to possession on the balance of probabilities: the Plaintiff did not produce documentary proof that the lands had been de-classified from Malay reserve status nor proof that the Plaintiff was a Malay company as required by the lease, failed to register the lease within the requisite period, and suppressed material evidence allowing an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act; additionally the declaratory relief involved rights of LADA and the non-joinder was fatal, therefore the trespass claim could not succeed.

  • 22 Sept 2024

    LIM ENG HOE TAI FOO HIN

    Citation
    JA-11B-7-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-11B-7-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court upheld the magistrate's findings that the written tenancy agreements were sham/‘olok-olok’ documents not intended to create binding rental obligations (purpose was to facilitate local authority signboard approval); the magistrate properly accepted and relied on the consistent evidence of the drafting solicitor and there was no sufficient evidence of misrepresentation or fraud by the respondent nor basis for aggravated or exemplary damages; accordingly both appeals were dismissed and the magistrate's decision was affirmed.

  • 27 Nov 2023

    Daneeswaran a/l Nagappan Kiruba Raja A/l S.m. Kanagamany (Mej (R) Dr.)

    Citation
    BA-12A-94-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-12A-94-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The High Court held that the Respondent/Plaintiff proved he was the lawful lessee under lease agreements and continuing rental payments; the Appellant/Defendant failed to prove any licence, consent or lawful title to occupy; the Appellant is a trespasser/squatter; the Sessions Court correctly applied law and O.89 ROC 2012 is the proper mode for summary possession against squatters; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment is upheld with costs RM6,000.