Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nemo dat quod non habet

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2025

Blue Valley Plantation Berhad 1. ) Ganesan a/l Ramasamy 2. ) Balakrishnan A/l Kaliannan 3. ) Phylon Range Sdn Bhd

Citation

AA-22NCvC-50-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-50-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities, the Form 32A and letter relied upon by Ganesan did not effect a registered transfer and there was no evidence of consideration or shareholder treatment; Balakrishnan's entire holding of 97,000 shares was validly transferred and registered to Pylon Range in 1996; therefore the 1996 and 2013 consent orders were obtained on a false assumption or mistake and/or fraud, must be set aside, and restitution (return of land and RM267,397.14 with interest) and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
26 Aug 2025

GANAESH RAU A/L B.A.RAMARAU 1. ) BHASKAR A/L NADARAJAN 2. ) PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR

Citation

BA-22NCvC-487-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-487-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 1st SPA was unenforceable because at the time D1 had no proprietary title to transfer (only an offer/option), therefore nemo dat applied and the contract was void and unenforceable; fraud was not proven on the balance of probabilities; D2, being a stranger and constrained by state resettlement policy, cannot be ordered to sell; having received RM40,000 under a contract later held void, D1 must restitute the sum with interest under s.66 Contracts Act 1950.
14 Jul 2022

1. ) SAM PAK SANG 2. ) Lai Wing Ping 3. ) Loke Heng Kwong 4. ) Yee Lian Guey 1. ) Lai Wing Ping 2. ) Loke Heng Kwong 3. ) YEE SHIAO WEI 4. ) Tang Chee Kien 5. ) MOHD AZMAN BIN GHAZALI 6. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAN JAJAHAN GUA MUSANG 7. ) PENDAFT

Citation

DA-21NCvC-12-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCvC-12-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the 6/2/2013 Sale & Purchase Agreement and the contemporaneous Power of Attorney (P5) were valid and binding; plaintiffs having paid full price became beneficial owners (vendor a bare trustee); the later Power of Attorney (P19) and the Form14A/transfer (P9/Perserahan 208/2016) were invalid/insufficient; Defendants 3 and 4 failed to establish bona fide purchaser protection under s340 NLC; public officers (Def5-7) acted negligently in assessing stamp duty and registering an insufficient instrument; remedies including declarations, cancellation of the registered transfer, damages (to…
7 Mar 2022

Malayan Produce Company Sendirian Berhad 1. ) Landbanq Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi) 2. ) YUSHIN KOGYO (M) SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-798-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-798-07/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the balance of probabilities the appellant proved the existence of the 1976 SPA and full payment such that Landbanq became a bare trustee; consequently Landbanq (and ORL acting for it) lacked capacity to sell the properties and the sale and transfer to D2 was void ab initio; D2 as immediate purchaser is not protected by indefeasibility under s340 NLC and the High Court decision was set aside.
28 Feb 2022

Mohd Affandi Bin Ahmad 1. ) PEMBANGUNAN TANAH DAN PERUMAHAN SDN. BHD 2. ) Q-DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 3. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-190-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-190-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiffs proved that their predecessors paid the full purchase price and took possession, making the First Defendant a bare/constructive trustee of Lots 430, 97, 607 and 716; because the Second Defendant failed to prove it was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration the Second Defendant's registered title to Lots 97 and 716 is defeasible and set aside; consequently charges in favour of the Third Defendant (which derived title through the Second Defendant) are also set aside; Plaintiffs' claim not statute-barred by Limitation Act s.22 and laches d…
28 Feb 2022

Mohd Affandi Bin Ahmad 1. ) PEMBANGUNAN TANAH DAN PERUMAHAN SDN. BHD 2. ) Q-DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 3. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-190-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-190-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiffs proved that predecessors paid full purchase price and were in possession, rendering the First Defendant a bare/constructive trustee; therefore the First Defendant's registered title was defeasible under s.340(4)(b) NLC; the Second Defendant failed to prove it was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and thus its title to Lots 97 and 716 is set aside; charges in favour of the Third Defendant deriving from the Second Defendant are likewise defeasible; contemporaneous ledgers and receipts were admissible and credible under Evidence Act p…
14 Jul 2021

Rokiah binti Amat 1. ) Pembangunan Tanah dan Perumahan Sdn Bhd 2. ) Syed Husain bin Junid

Citation

NO. J-02(NCVC)(W)-1586-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

NO. J-02(NCVC)(W)-1586-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal allowed in part: appellant had locus standi via ex parte substitution and evidence supported that 1st respondent acknowledged deceased's proprietary interest and took steps to effect transfer such that a constructive trust and estoppel arose against 1st respondent; cause of action was for recovery of land and within 12-year limitation; documents and oral admissions of 2nd respondent supported findings against 1st respondent; however claim against 2nd respondent dismissed because he had no beneficial interest and nemo dat applied; reliefs are limited by subsequent registered transfer of…
14 Jul 2021

Rokiah binti Amat 1. Pembangunan Tanah dan Perumahan Sdn Bhd 2. Syed Husain bin Junid

Citation

J-02(NCvC)(W)-1586-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

J-02(NCvC)(W)-1586-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Substitution under Order 15 r.7(1) was valid; on the facts appellant proved on balance that the SPA was valid, full purchase price was paid and purchaser entered possession; the 2nd respondent had contractual obligation under clause 4 to procure/ensure title was registered to purchaser and breached that obligation when individual title was registered in the 1st respondent's name; equitable proprietary interest arose in favour of purchaser and both respondents held the property on trust such that specific performance/transfer reliefs in paragraph 23(1) and (2) are warranted; cause of action ac…
6 May 2021

1. RAZAK BIN OTHMAN 2. TAN CHEE LEP MAHADI BIN KONENG

Citation

JB-22NCVC-72-12/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCVC-72-12/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted the signed SPA described a sale of 1.2868 hectare (not the full 1.5505 hectare on the title) and found credible evidence that the earlier owner sold a 0.193 hectare parcel to the defendant for RM10,000 and intended to exclude that portion from the SPA; by nemo dat the first plaintiff could not transfer a portion they did not own; accordingly the plaintiffs' claim for possession was dismissed and the court ordered vesting and registration of the 0.193 hectare in the defendant pursuant to section 420 National Land Code.
28 Apr 2021

1. Md Datar Bin Md Dais 2. Asmah Binti Ab Gani [Kedua-duanya beralamat untuk penyampaian KM 30, Jalan Semin, Batu Gajah Pasir, 77300 Merlimau, Melaka] 1. Mohd Harisan Bin Samad No. 38, Kampung Parit Timin, Paya Kepong, 84900 Tangkak, Johor.

Citation

JB-24NCVC-316-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-24NCVC-316-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the earlier registered interest in HS(M)343 Lot 484 vested the plaintiffs with priority; the later issuance and registration of HS(M)1200 PTD 4374 to defendant 1 was void because the State Authority could not validly alienate land already alienated to another; first in time prevails and indefeasibility cannot protect a title obtained in breach of statutory limitations on the State's power. Consequently the PTD 4374 registration is declared invalid and must be cancelled, a resurvey must be conducted and final title issued to the plaintiffs, defendant 1 is restrained from entry a…