Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parol evidence rule (s91/s92 evidence act)

Legal area

Court

6 Dec 2023

Finfixer Marketing Sdn Bhd Caroline Bintang Kanyan

Citation

WA-A74-1195-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A74-1195-04/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The written PJB and GSOBB, supported by secondary evidence and the title registration (5.4.2022), were conclusive under s91 Evidence Act: the tenancy and buy‑back option periods ran from registration and expired 4.4.2023, therefore occupation was rent‑free for the disputed period and no rent arrears existed; because a writ of distress under s5 Distress Act presupposes unpaid rent, the application for a writ of distress failed and must be dismissed; additionally the applicant failed to disclose material documents and the application exhibited lack of good faith, justifying costs against the ap…
21 Dec 2021

1. ) MUHAMMAD FITRI BIN SAAD 2. ) EDDY SAIFUIAN BIN HAMZAH 3. ) MOHD ZAMBRI BIN AHMAD

Citation

RA-45A-5-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

RA-45A-5-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Material contradictions between the arresting officer's oral evidence and contemporaneous documentary exhibits (search/seizure forms and sketch) as to where and when the drugs were found defeated the prosecution's ability to prove prima facie that the accused had possession (control/care/knowledge). Under ss91–92 Evidence Act oral evidence cannot be used to vary written records; accordingly prosecution failed to establish the possession element required for s39B offences and the accused were properly acquitted at the close of the prosecution under s180 CPC.

Malaysia Case Law

Finfixer Marketing Sdn Bhd Caroline Bintang Kanyan

1. ) MUHAMMAD FITRI BIN SAAD 2. ) EDDY SAIFUIAN BIN HAMZAH 3. ) MOHD ZAMBRI BIN AHMAD