Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference for non‑production

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2025

MOHD MUSNIZAM BIN MUSA

Citation

J-05(SH)-650-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

J-05(SH)-650-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

For Rayuan No.650 the Court allowed the appeal because material, internal contradictions in the prosecution witness (SP4) testimony about which motorcycle/basket contained the drugs, combined with the prosecution's failure to call a material co‑detainee witness (Muhamad Fakhriy), justified drawing an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act and created reasonable doubt; convictions for the three charges arising from the roadside arrest were therefore unsafe and quashed. For Rayuan No.9 the Court dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence (appellant directing officers to the ap…
29 Jul 2024

1. ) FERI WAHAB 2. ) RIKI HASBALAH

Citation

KA-45A-10-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-10-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although there was admissible evidence tending to prove possession and knowledge (visual observation of packages thrown, accused alone on boat, and conduct), the prosecution failed to establish the precise arrest coordinates pleaded because it did not produce the GPS image and the 'Peta Lokasi Tangkapan' that it admitted existed; that failure, together with reasonable doubt arising from timing/distance arguments, warranted invocation of s114(g) and resulted in no prima facie case on the jurisdictional element — therefore the accused were discharged without being called to plead.
20 May 2022

XXXX XXXX

Citation

21NCVC-5-01/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

21NCVC-5-01/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

2nd Defendant (land office) owed statutory and common law duties to maintain accurate register and search results; it breached those duties by allowing the creation/entry of a non‑genuine/erroneous Grant 27889 and by failing to produce critical documents, justifying an adverse inference; as a consequence the cancellation performed was wrongful and the court restored the Plaintiff as registered proprietor and ordered cancellation of the competing title; large claimed economic losses were too remote and not recoverable, but costs were awarded to Plaintiff.
30 Sept 2021

DINIYARIF BIN FAIRUS ‘SHABA (1) JAAFAR BIN ABU (2) SITI MORNI BINTI AB RAHMAN (3) TAKAFUL IKHLAS BERHAD (4) ARIVANAN A/L PERIASAMY

Citation

S2 – BK – B53KJ – 74 – 03/ 2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

S2 – BK – B53KJ – 74 – 03/ 2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved the involvement of Myvi NCR 7474 and that the first defendant, while emerging from a minor road, failed to give way in breach of r.3(2)(b) and caused the collision; the second defendant as registered owner and the third defendant as insurer are liable (vicarious/insurance liability); the fourth defendant was not shown to be involved; plaintiff awarded damages and costs with specified interest.
22 Feb 2021

1. CHANDRAMOGAN A/L MANOGARAN 2. LIAN HOE TRANSPORT SERVICE SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 438099-W) 1. KONG WAI SENG 2. HAIRUDDIN BIN KASIM 3. TRIUMPH ALLIANCE SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 522986-X)

Citation

JB-12B-6-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-12B-6-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of evidence including the sketch plan and photographs the Plaintiff's version was inherently more probable; the 1st Defendant exited/encroached from the RnR feeder lane and bore primary fault; liability was apportioned 80% to the 1st Defendant (2nd Defendant vicariously liable), 10% to the 3rd Defendant (4th vicariously liable) for failing to stop, and 10% contributory by the Plaintiff; the Sessions Court's assessment of quantum and interest was correct and is affirmed.
28 Feb 2020

MUHAMAD AZLAN FADZI BIN MOHD ANUAR RAGUNATHAN A/L VEERAPAN

Citation

A53KJ-734-11/2015 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

A53KJ-734-11/2015 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim because the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a collision with the 1st defendant occurred; the material allegation of collision was absent from the first police report and pleaded facts and therefore treated as an afterthought, the plaintiff's in‑court case materially deviated from pleaded facts, the plaintiff and investigating officer were found not credible, and the chemist report was insufficient to establish liability.

Malaysia Case Law

MOHD MUSNIZAM BIN MUSA

1. ) FERI WAHAB 2. ) RIKI HASBALAH

XXXX XXXX

DINIYARIF BIN FAIRUS ‘SHABA (1) JAAFAR BIN ABU (2) SITI MORNI BINTI AB RAHMAN (3) TAKAFUL IKHLAS BERHAD (4) ARIVANAN A/L PERIASAMY

1. CHANDRAMOGAN A/L MANOGARAN 2. LIAN HOE TRANSPORT SERVICE SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 438099-W) 1. KONG WAI SENG 2. HAIRUDDIN BIN KASIM 3. TRIUMPH ALLIANCE SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 522986-X)

MUHAMAD AZLAN FADZI BIN MOHD ANUAR RAGUNATHAN A/L VEERAPAN