Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Option to purchase

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2026

MAGESWARAN A/L NADARAJAH 1. ) SARASVATHY A/P ANTHONY DASS 2. ) LAKSHMANAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed: OTP is a bona fide option/sale contract and its liquidated damages clause is pre-agreed compensation, not 'interest' under the Moneylenders Act 1951; Appellant's loans were interest-free personal loans and he is not an unlicensed moneylender; Session Court erred in relying on hearsay evidence of D1 and in applying presumptions under s.10A Act 400; consequentially the Session Court judgment is set aside and Appellant awarded principal amounts, contractual sums and interest at 5% p.a., with costs.
8 Oct 2025

YAP KET ONG 1. ) NABILA BINTI SHAMSUDDIN 2. ) MIZAN GLOBAL RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD

Citation

JA-24NCvC-1503-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-1503-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because there were material disputes of fact concerning compliance with the OTP which require oral evidence and cross‑examination at a full trial by writ; the caveat issue was moot after the defendant withdrew the caveat; and the damages claim is fact‑intensive and cannot be decided on affidavit in originating summons proceedings.
21 Aug 2025

AJ KASTURI SDN BHD 1. ) PANNIRSELVAM A/L MANNAR 2. ) UZINANI BINTI MOHD SANI 3. ) NG SEE HUA 4. ) NG SOON TEAM 5. ) TEE JEN TONG 6. ) ABLE DYNAMIC TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1000-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1000-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The court concluded that the cumulative weight of suspicious circumstances (deduction at source consistent with interest, retention of possession, unsigned and fabricated LOPs, patterned quarterly transactions, and single legal representation) established the SPAs were sham devices to disguise illegal moneylending by unlicensed lenders; under the Moneylenders Act 1951 and contract law such arrangements are void and unenforceable; because the Act protects borrowers the Appellants are not in pari delicto and may recover; the High Court's contrary factual findings were plainly wrong, so the appe…
21 Aug 2025

MA JOSEPH CAPITAL SDN BHD 1. ) PANNIRSELVAM A/L MANNAR 2. ) UZINANI BINTI MOHD SANI (kedua-duanya beramal sebagai Tetuan Nurliny, Pannir Mannar & Co, Peguambela & Peguamcara) 3. ) EI KIAN SEONG

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-994-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-994-06/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Viewing the totality of circumstantial evidence (undisputed deduction pattern consistent with interest, retention of possession, absence of signed LOPs by purchasers, single legal representation, fabrication indicators), the 16 SPAs were sham devices to effect illegal moneylending by unlicensed lenders; under the Moneylenders Act 1951 such agreements are void and unenforceable, the appellant is a protected borrower (not in pari delicto), the High Court was plainly wrong to find transactions genuine, hence appeals are allowed, SPAs declared void and issue of damages remitted to High Court.
10 Dec 2024

1. ) HO XIN NIE 2. ) BERNICE HO XIN HUI 1. ) LUMI HOSPITALITY SDN BHD 2. ) MAYFAIR VENTURES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCvC-277-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-277-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SPA, read as a whole, deliberately and unambiguously excluded specific performance for the plaintiffs by clause 11.1; plaintiffs' claim for the full balance purchase price as special damages is unsustainable while they retain beneficial ownership because the Principal Agreements remain in force and the 2nd Defendant remained bare trustee; clause 6(g) of the Tenancy Agreement is a conditional option discharged by the SPA and does not create an independent enforceable obligation on the 1st Defendant.
23 Oct 2024

1. ) TAN KA KEN 2. ) TAN KAR ENG CHAN FOR HENG

Citation

CB-22NCvC-6-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCvC-6-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 07.06.2016 agreement was valid and binding; defendant's plea of non est factum failed because the agreement was prepared by solicitors and explanations were given and the defendant did not prove lack of consent or that he took all reasonable precautions; although there were delays in payment, the loan was ultimately paid in full by 17.09.2021 so there was no continuing default permitting plaintiffs to exercise the contractual option; therefore plaintiffs' claim to purchase defendant's 1/4 share was dismissed; defendant's counterclaim for partition under s142 and for release/redemption of…
31 May 2024

MA JOSEPH CAPITAL SDN BHD 1. ) PANNIRSELVAM A/L MANNAR 2. ) UZINANI BINTI MOHD SANI (kedua-duanya beramal sebagai Tetuan Nurliny, Pannir Mannar & Co, Peguambela & Peguamcara) 3. ) EI KIAN SEONG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-502-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-502-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence and authorities the court found the 16 transactions to be genuine sale and purchase transactions with valid Options to Purchase; the plaintiffs' claims framed under criminal provisions of the Moneylending Act 1951 and disciplinary provisions of the Legal Profession Act 1976 were misconceived and not enforceable in civil proceedings; plaintiffs failed to prove payments were loans or interest; adverse inference was drawn for failure to call key witnesses; accordingly plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and defendants' counterclaims were allowed with costs and interest while damage…
31 May 2024

AJ KASTURI SDN BHD 1. ) PANNIRSELVAM A/L MANNAR 2. ) UZINANI BINTI MOHD SANI 3. ) NG SEE HUA 4. ) LEE PENG KOON 5. ) LEE LEONG HUAT 6. ) NG SOON TEAM 7. ) TEH HOCK CHUN 8. ) KHOO SAY POOW 9. ) EI KIAN SEONG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-494-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-494-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiffs failed to prove the 16 transactions were sham moneylending arrangements; key allegations relied on criminal provisions and professional disciplinary provisions not enforceable by civil declarations; documentary and conduct evidence established existence of valid Options to Purchase and genuine sale transactions; adverse inference for failure to call material witnesses did not alter outcome; therefore plaintiffs' claims dismissed and purchasers' counterclaims allowed with costs and interest.
31 May 2024

AJ KASTURI SDN BHD 1. ) PANNIRSELVAM A/L MANNAR 2. ) UZINANI BINTI MOHD SANI 3. ) NG SEE HUA 4. ) NG SOON TEAM 5. ) KHOO SAY POOW 6. ) TEE JEN TONG 7. ) ABLE DYNAMIC TRADING SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-514-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-514-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the facts and applying established principles, the court found the 16 transactions to be genuine sale and purchase transactions with an Option to Purchase; the Plaintiffs failed to prove the transactions were sham moneylending or that the First Defendant acted as an agent in unlicensed moneylending; statutory criminal provisions and disciplinary allegations were not matters for civil adjudication here; accordingly Plaintiffs’ claims dismissed and Purchasers’ counterclaims allowed with costs and interest, damages disallowed.
3 Jan 2024

PANG CHOW HUAT 1. ) CHUA LING HONG 2. ) CHUA LING LEE

Citation

JA-A54-3-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A54-3-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the defendants did not comply with the OTP terms when they forfeited the earnest deposit; the 30 working day period did not commence in the manner defendants asserted because SPA signing required finalisation of terms and receipt of documents; forfeiture therefore breached the OTP and amounted to unjust enrichment, entitling plaintiff to restitution, interest and costs.