Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stare decisis

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2026

CHAN AH MOI

Citation

JA-44-15-02/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-44-15-02/2026 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the applicant is charged under s.39B(1) DDA which, by s.39B(2), is punishable by death or imprisonment for life (and therefore falls within offences punishable with death or imprisonment exceeding five years), s.41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 operates to prohibit grant of bail; the specific prohibition in s.41B prevails over the general bail power in s.388 CPC and binding precedents mandate refusal of bail.
4 Mar 2026

ETIQA GENERAL TAKAFUL BERHAD 1. ) LAU LAY SEANG 2. ) KHOO BAN HENG

Citation

PA-24NCvC-545-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-545-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the takaful certificate only commenced at 10:38am on 1.8.2019 when issued/paid; because the accident occurred at 9:45am before commencement of risk the certificate was unenforceable for that accident and no insurance contract was in force, therefore the Applicant is not liable; the decision follows the Federal Court authority in Pacific & Orient v Hameed Jagubar and statutory assumption-of-risk provisions in IFSA 2013.
10 Dec 2025

1. ) LIM YOKE KEE 2. ) CHAN SOO CHEE PREMA BONANZA SDN. BHD. PIHAK KETIGA DICADANGKAN 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN 3. ) PENGAWAL KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN 4. ) KHAIRUL AZHAR (NIK)

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-52-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-52-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Order 14A application allowed: the 54-month EOT was valid and existed prior to the SPA and was incorporated into the SPA; cause of action for LAD accrued on breach at execution of SPA so the six-year limitation expired before plaintiffs sued; challenge to EOT is an administrative law matter requiring judicial review and cannot be collateralized in this civil suit; LAD is to be computed from SPA date and stops at issuance of vacant possession notice; plaintiffs' claim was time-barred and premature, justifying dismissal under Order 14A.
4 Nov 2025

EXCELENTE AMIGOS SDN BHD MAH SING PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-24-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-24-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Contemporaneous evidence established that delay was caused by TNB's incomplete external electrical infrastructure works beyond the Vendor's control; the Architect's opinion, the Engineer's certifications and the Defendant's notices collectively satisfied Clauses 15.1 and 20.2 of the SPA; the Defendant discharged the burden of proving force majeure and the Sessions Court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's LAD claim was correct.
1 Jul 2025

AMIR HARIRI BIN ABD HADI [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

06(RJ)-1-08/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

RJ
Case number

06(RJ)-1-08/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Subsection 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 is a disproportionate and discriminatory legislative measure that, when read with subsection 9(1), effectively operates as a prohibition on the right to organise peaceful assemblies and therefore violates Article 10(1)(b) read with Article 10(2)(b) and Article 8(1); subsection 9(5) is declared unconstitutional and struck down; the Court of Appeal decision in Yuneswaran is overruled to the extent it upheld subsection 9(5).
19 Jun 2025

1. ) SIS FORUM (MALAYSIA) 2. ) XXXX 1. ) XXXX 2. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Citation

01(f)-23-09/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-23-09/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that a gazetted state fatwa is legally binding on Muslims under the state enactment but is limited by the State List (Item 1) and the Federal Constitution: (i) a corporation cannot be a 'person professing the religion of Islam' under Item 1, so the fatwa cannot validly apply to the first appellant (a company limited by guarantee); (ii) paragraphs of the fatwa that purport to authorise confiscation of publications and to direct a federal agency (MCMC/SKMM) to block social media are beyond the Selangor legislature's competence and therefore invalid; (iii) paragraph direct…
22 Jan 2025

Icon City Development Sdn. Bhd. (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI SIERRA PENINSULAR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD) Ros Azlin Bin Sabawi

Citation

BA-11BNCvC-21-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11BNCvC-21-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 42‑month period for delivery of vacant possession runs from the date the developer obtained the conversion and first building plan approvals (2.8.2012), vacant possession is deemed taken upon expiry of 14 days from the VP notice (15.9.2016), the defendant was delayed (226 days) and liable for LAD; the Magistrate's findings were not vitiated and the appeal is dismissed, the decision follows binding Court of Appeal authority.
22 Jan 2025

Icon City Development Sdn. Bhd. (DAHULU DIKENALI SEBAGAI SIERRA PENINSULAR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD) 1. ) Philip Anthony a/l M Irdiahsamy 2. ) Annie a/p Joseph 3. ) Tan Kai Boon 4. ) Soo Huey Chiun 5. ) Lee Gim Hee 6. ) Tan Chin Poh 7. ) Lai Wai

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-7-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-7-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 42-calendar-month period for delivery of vacant possession starts from the date the developer obtained the conversion approval and the first building plan approval (the Period of Approval) as defined in Clause 35A and Section 10 Schedule A; subsequent amendments to building plans do not reset the commencement date, and purchasers are deemed to have taken vacant possession upon expiry of 14 days from the VP notice, entitling them to LAD accordingly. The appeal court affirmed the session court's interpretation and followed binding Court of Appeal authority.
21 Jan 2025

XXXX 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Renganathan Ravindranath Ponniah 3. ) SHARONJIT KAUR A/P SARAWAN SINGH (beramal di Tetuan Iqbal Hakim Sia & Voo)

Citation

WA-22NCVC-135-03/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-135-03/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the 2nd Defendant's application because it was bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Soo Boon Siong which requires an express finding that the injunction ought not to have been granted before ordering an assessment of damages; absent such a finding, assessment cannot be ordered.
21 Jan 2025

[ ] XXXX

Citation

CB-45B-1-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-45B-1-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that although the Court of Appeal established a prima facie case for murder, the trial court must evaluate defence evidence to determine whether reasonable doubt arises; on the evidence (spontaneous brawl, no weapons, mutual chaotic physical exchanges, absence of premeditation or undue advantage, defendants aged 13) Exception 4 to s300 applies, reducing the offence to culpable homicide punishable under s304(a). SUHAKAM submissions were helpful but non‑binding; psychiatric treatment received in custody was not material. Accordingly the court convicted both defendants of culpable…