Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wrongful detention

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2024

Long Kee Piling Works Sdn Bhd Chang Kian Chiang

Citation

JA-B53-7-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-B53-7-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to prove the claimed daily loss rate and special damages with supporting documents or requisite oral evidence, therefore the court rejected the quantified claims but awarded reasonable nominal damages for loss of use (RM20,000) and for wrongful detention (RM10,000), with interest at 5% per annum from the date of the order until full settlement; no further costs for this assessment were ordered as costs had already been awarded in the earlier judgment.
27 Dec 2023

MUHAMMAD AIMAN HAKIM BIN ANUAR 1. ) ANUAR BIN KADER 2. ) MOHD HAIRUL BIN HAJI MOHD SALLEH 3. ) PENOLONG KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM [PENGUATKUASAAN] 4. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

BA-21NCvC-66-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-66-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove unlawful detention of the containers and goods for the period pleaded; prior proceedings determined the relevant detention issues and the judgment debt was paid, plaintiff was not owner of the containers, plaintiff failed to prove loss causally connected to the alleged detention and allowing the claim would result in unjust enrichment; accordingly the claim is dismissed with costs.
14 Jul 2023

MUHAMMAD AIMAN HAKIM BIN ANUAR 1. ) ANUAR BIN KADER 2. ) MOHD HAIRUL BIN HAJI MOHD SALLEH 3. ) PENOLONG KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM [PENGUATKUASAAN] 4. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

B-01(IM)(NCvC)-824-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-01(IM)(NCvC)-824-11/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the issues were not pure questions of law because material and disputed facts existed (possession and ownership of containers, transfer to Commercial Fraud Unit, payment of earlier judgment), therefore Order 14A/Order 33 summary procedure was inappropriate and the matter requires a full trial; no error of law or misdirection by the High Court was demonstrated.
25 Jan 2023

BULLION DELTA SDN BHD 1. ) Hasrul Najib bin Hasim 2. ) Pengarah Kastam (Siasatan) 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

BA-22NCvC-355-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-355-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 128 of the Customs Act 1967 does not impose an obligation on Customs or on the Director-General to refer a claimant's application to a Magistrate within one calendar month from the date of the claimant's claim; the Director-General's power to direct referral is discretionary. Therefore the failure or delay to refer the plaintiff's claim within one month did not render the seizure wrongful or unlawful; the plaintiff was held to be the statutory 'owner' but was not entitled to damages because the seizure was lawful; claim dismissed and costs awarded.
13 Jan 2022

Azhani Bin Marlan @ Abd Halim 1. ) Sarjan Mohd Termizi Bin Zulkopli 2. ) Koperal Azizul 3. ) ASP Asmadi bin Hussin (Ketua Bahagian Siatatan Trafik, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Sabak Bernam) 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

BL-12A-18-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12A-18-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal fails because the appellant's pleadings did not disclose necessary material facts to support claims of unlawful detention, malicious prosecution or statutory breaches; malicious prosecution lacked the required element of proceedings terminating in the appellant's favour; no pleaded particulars of damage from statutory breaches; the claim was plainly unsustainable and an abuse of process warranting dismissal under Order 18 r.19 Rules of Court 2012.
24 Aug 2021

ORITEAM SDN BHD 1. ) Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM) 2. ) XXXX 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

CA-21NCvC-3-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-21NCvC-3-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff, as owner of the cargo, had standing; initial seizure (07.02.2019) was lawful, but after JMG Kuantan’s report on 14.02.2019 confirming the cargo was iron ore, defendants had no reasonable basis to continue detention to 28.02.2019; SPRM’s correspondence did not constitute a statutory seizure or notice sufficient to lawfully prolong detention; accordingly defendants were liable under s132 Customs Act 1967 for wrongful detention and must pay damages and costs awarded by the court.
25 Mar 2021

ZAIDAH BINTI ISMAIL (NO K.P: 640603-05-5306) 1. INSPEKTOR RABIATUL ADAWIAYAH BINTI MOHD NOOR (G/21047) 2. KETUA POLIS DAERAH KUALA TERENGGANU 3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

T-01(NCVC)(W)-108-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

T-01(NCVC)(W)-108-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the arrest and detention of the 1st Plaintiff were unlawful because the FIR did not disclose an offence under s.13 ATIPSOM against her, she was a legal worker with valid permits, there was no reasonable suspicion or credible information to justify her arrest or extended remand and the remand applications lacked requisite justification; accordingly the High Court order holding liability and awarding damages is upheld in part, para (b) set aside and Appeal No.108 allowed while Appeal No.748 was dismissed.
7 Nov 2019

VIKRAM SINGH KATHURASEN A/L MUNIANDY 1. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) PENGARAH JABATAN SIASATAN JENAYAH NARKOTIK DSP CHIA AIK CHIN 4. ) DSP ANUAR BIN MD AZALI 5. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-21NCVC-12-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCVC-12-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's writ and statement of claim were plainly and obviously unsustainable: he failed to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest/detention by habeas corpus or judicial review (required to attack detention under the statutory scheme), lacked pleaded capacity to sue on behalf of his child, and should have sought judicial review for termination; accordingly the claims were frivolous/vexatious or an abuse of process and were struck out with costs.