Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retrial

Legal area

Court

30 May 2025

ZAKI BIN HAJI HASSAN 1. ) A & A SOLUTIONS 2. ) NURSHARRINI BINTI SHAARI 3. ) ALIFF BIN KHAIRI 4. ) SOLEHA BINTI YAHYA

Citation

PB-B52NCvC-18-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

PB-B52NCvC-18-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court allowed the plaintiff’s application only insofar as prayers (3) and (4) to recall Defendant Third (SD1) for limited further cross-examination and re-examination because SD1 had only been released temporarily and his examination-in-chief/rebuttal was incomplete; all other prayers were refused because the application was filed late after written submissions and decision date was set, amounted to an abuse of process and would cause prejudice that could not be remedied by costs; costs of the application ordered in the cause to be borne by the plaintiff.
11 Mar 2024

MOHD SALWAN BIN AB AZIZ

Citation

AB-42JSKS(A)-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

AB-42JSKS(A)-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Non-compliance with s.402A CPC and failure to observe ss.159/162 CPC when charges were amended, together with improper impeachment procedure and inadequate appraisal of defence evidence, rendered the Sessions Court convictions unsafe; appellate interference warranted and retrial ordered before a different judge.
6 Apr 2023

AMBANK (M) BERHAD HERMIE BIN MD. TAHIR

Citation

WA-12BM-1-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BM-1-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was partially allowed and a retrial ordered because the trial judge committed a grievous procedural error by deciding liability and dismissing the claim solely for absence of a Certificate of Indebtedness without first resolving the preliminary issue of the Appellant's locus standi and without considering material documents that were pleaded but not before the trial court; while absence of the certificate is fatal in principle, dismissal without determining locus standi and without the complete record required retrial.
5 Oct 2022

Chang Yih Chong Modular Construction Technology Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-10-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-10-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court judge failed to scrutinise the evidence, omitted material factual findings (including ignoring independent witnesses and issues of ownership and set-off), producing a miscarriage of justice; an appellate court without the Respondent's consent should not make additional findings on credibility; accordingly the Sessions Court decision is set aside and a retrial before a different Sessions Court Judge is ordered, with liberty for the Defendant to amend defence and/or add counterclaim within three weeks and costs to the Defendant in the retrial.
18 Feb 2022

PENDAKWARAYA MOK CHEE CHONG

Citation

WA-41H-32-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-41H-32-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Omission of the essential ingredient that the property 'may be reasonably suspected of being stolen or fraudulently obtained' rendered the charge defective; a plea of guilty to such a defective charge is no plea; conviction and sentence were set aside and a retrial on a proper charge was ordered under s316(b)(i) CPC.
19 Nov 2021

1. POON TUCK HING [adalah pemilik tunggal dan berniaga atas nama dan gaya LUCKY TRADING CO] 2. LUCKY TRADING CO 3. MUHAMMAD FAIZAL BIN ABU BAKAR 1. WONG WAI MUN 2. ONG KONG NYOK 3. LIM LIH LIH 4. LIEW MIN KONG [Plantif Pertama, kedua, ketig

Citation

CB-12B-4-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-12B-4-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Sessions Court's decision was procedurally flawed because it adjudicated the case on plaintiff evidence alone without any adequate record or justification that the defendants had elected not to call witnesses; that failure breached principles of a fair hearing and required setting aside the judgment and remitting the matter for rehearing to allow defendant evidence to be heard.
24 Mar 2021

Khairil Azraf bin Mohd Sedek 1. Letchumy a/p Krishnan 2. Beulaah a/p Ramesh

Citation

BA-12B-92-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-92-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court judgment was set aside and a retrial ordered because there were no grounds of judgment and the notes of proceedings were scanty and incomplete, depriving the appellate court of the proper and adequate record of oral evidence necessary to make reliable factual findings on liability and contributory negligence; therefore a retrial before another Sessions Court judge was required.
24 Mar 2021

Letchumy a/p Krishnan Khairil Azraf bin Mohd Sedek

Citation

BA-12B-24-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-24-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court judgment was set aside and a retrial ordered because there were no written grounds of judgment and the notes of proceedings were scanty and incomplete, depriving the appellate court of the material necessary to make reliable findings of fact on liability or quantum.
23 Nov 2020

TEO CHEE KONG (NO.KP: 650127-12-5041)

Citation

S-06A-8-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

S-06A-8-01/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court misdirected itself by granting a Conditional Forfeiture Order prior to issuance and gazettement of the Third Party Notice in breach of the procedural scheme of Sections 56 and 61 AMLATFPUAA; the Conditional Forfeiture Order and the order for issuance of Third Party Notice dated 13 December 2017 are set aside and the matter is remitted for rehearing before a different High Court Judge.
30 Sept 2020

REKHA D/O MUNISAMY (I/C NO: 781128-10-5210) 1. ORTUS EXPERT WHITE SDN BHD (COMPANY NO :951378-H) 2. GURDEV SINGH S/O JAGJIT SINGH (NO K/P: 870630-56-5495)

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1257-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1257-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the High Court was not functus officio because the striking out order had not been perfected and therefore could be revisited; the Plaintiffs proved libel but failed to prove malicious falsehood for lack of malice and special damage; the High Court erred in unfairly preventing the Defendant from calling witnesses (discretion under O.34 should have been exercised consistently and not to the Defendant's prejudice); the Plaintiffs failed to translate the alleged defamatory statements into Bahasa Melayu as required for pleadings; and, in the interests of justice a retrial of the Pl…