Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference s114 evidence act 1950

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2025

MOHD NAJID BIN HASAN

Citation

KA-45A-23-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-45A-23-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution's primary witness (SP3) was found unreliable and his inconsistent testimony about how the source located the house and identified the accused, together with the failure to seize and inspect an available mobile phone and absence of forensic links, destroyed the prosecution narrative and raised a reasonable doubt; because the prosecution failed to call or account for the source and critical evidence, it was unsafe to require the accused to make a defence and the accused must be acquitted.
16 Jun 2022

UTUSAN MELAYU (MALAYSIA) BERHAD MALAYSIAN-GERMAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-89-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-89-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the article together with the plaintiff's promotional image sufficiently referred to the plaintiff; defendants failed to adduce any evidence to establish justification, fair comment or qualified privilege and thus cannot avail those defenses; adverse inferences were drawn under s114 Evidence Act due to defendants' failure to call witnesses; leave under s451 Companies Act 2016 given retrospectively does not invalidate the earlier trial; accordingly the appellant's challenge failed and the lower court judgment was affirmed with costs.
7 Jun 2022

MEGATECH M&E ENGINEERING SERI MUTIARA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C-89-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-89-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused to invoke inherent jurisdiction under O92 r4 when O18 r19 RC expressly governs strike-out; the originating summonses were not plain and obvious candidates for striking out because s30 CIPAA creates a statutory cause of action. Prior High Court findings affirmed by the Court of Appeal that lifted the corporate veil and identified Brecon and Seri Mutiara as Axisjaya’s principals produced issue estoppel that barred defendants from denying principal status. Defendants failed to discharge the evidential burden under s106 EA to show no sums were due or payable at the time of deman…
16 Nov 2021

KHAIRUL IKHWAN BIN MUHAMAD KASIM [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

B-05(M)-279-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-279-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Viewing the incident as a single transaction, the court found the firearm was discharged while the appellant was committing robbery; credible eyewitness identification and ballistic evidence linked the recovered revolver to the shooting; failure to call Najmi did not justify an adverse inference because firearm ownership was not material to identity of shooter and the prosecution offered the witness to the defence; conduct of the appellant in leading police to the weapon was admissible (s8) even if parts of recorded statements were inadmissible (s27); therefore the conviction and death senten…

Malaysia Case Law

MOHD NAJID BIN HASAN

UTUSAN MELAYU (MALAYSIA) BERHAD MALAYSIAN-GERMAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

MEGATECH M&E ENGINEERING SERI MUTIARA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

KHAIRUL IKHWAN BIN MUHAMAD KASIM [Jabatan Peguam Negara]