Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Burden of proof

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

OMAR HAMZAH BIN KHALIT

Citation

DI-62JS-1-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DI-62JS-1-03/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court convicted because forensic evidence (P25) established accused's semen on the victim's clothing and medical evidence (P9) showed a fresh hymen tear consistent with recent penetration; notwithstanding some inconsistencies in witness statements, the totality of forensic and medical evidence and the inability of the defence to raise reasonable doubt led the court to find the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and to reject the alibi/denial.
13 Apr 2026

1. ) D Sanmuganathan A/l Thramalingam (Menuntut Sebagai Bapa Dan Tangungan Yang Sah Kepada Piraveen Kumar A/l D Sanmuganathan( Simati) 2. ) Thanaletchumy A/p Subramani (Menuntut Sebagai Ibu Dan Tanggungan Yang Sah Kepada Piraveen Kumar A/l

Citation

BD-A53KJ-27-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BD-A53KJ-27-02/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities plaintiffs failed to prove defendants were negligent; contemporaneous police investigation, scene evidence and chemical analysis established the deceased was intoxicated, riding a high-powered motorcycle without a valid licence and not wearing a helmet, and the physical evidence showed impact consistent with the motorcycle entering the lorrys path; loss of dependency was not proved by cogent evidence; accordingly claim dismissed but limited special damages under s7(3) allowed based on proved receipts.
13 Apr 2026

1. ) N2N CONNECT BERHAD 2. ) NGN CONNECTION SDN BHD 3. ) N2N GLOBAL SOLUTIONS SDN BHD 4. ) HERMES BOS SDN BHD 5. ) NETINFINIUM SOLUTIONS SDN BHD 1. ) CHUA TIONG HOONG 2. ) AHMAD ASHRAF BIN AZMAN 3. ) SHYAM SUNDAR RAYUDU 4. ) WONG VOON FUI 5

Citation

WA-22IP-16-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-16-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that it has inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 r 4 ROC 2012 to set aside or regulate a Notice to Produce issued under s.66 Evidence Act 1950 where the notice is abusive, oppressive or disproportionate; applying that principle, the Court upheld the NTP insofar as it related to the 1,634 specifically identified Annexure A items (relevant and within defendants' custody/power) but struck out the omnibus demand for "all documents and/or materials" as overbroad and encroaching on discovery. The substantive burden of proof remains with the Plaintiffs.
12 Apr 2026

ABDUL AZIZ B MUSTAFFA

Citation

DA-62JSK-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-62JSK-9-04/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution proved the elements of the amended charge under s376(3): credible, consistent testimony of the child victim corroborated by medical and investigative evidence established penetration, lack of consent and prohibited familial relationship; defence amounted to uncorroborated denial and failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence under s376(3) are justified.
10 Apr 2026

SUNSTAR RESOURCES ENTERPRISE NAZRI TILES GALLERY & HARDWARE SDN. BHD.

Citation

AJ-A72NCC-60-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AJ-A72NCC-60-06/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintif satisfied Order 14 prerequisites and established a prima facie case by contemporaneous documents (delivery orders, invoices, statements) and conduct; Defendan failed to produce evidence of any bona fide triable issue or third‑party transaction; burden therefore shifted to Defendan and summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff.
2 Apr 2026

SALAMAH BINTI NORDIN 1. ) A.MOHD.RAHMAT BIN A.DARWIS 2. ) TRIUMPH ALLIANCE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-A53KJ-459-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-A53KJ-459-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove collision and negligence due to inconsistent pleadings on time, absence of independent witnesses, and chemical report showing no contact; accordingly the claim is dismissed, though the court proceeded to quantify certain heads of damage for reasons recorded.
1 Apr 2026

MOHD NASHARUDDIN BIN MD DESA

Citation

KB-45A-12-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KB-45A-12-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the accused's defence was a mere denial and an afterthought; ignorance simpliciter is insufficient to undermine proven findings of possession and knowledge, therefore the defence failed to create reasonable doubt.
30 Mar 2026

CELCOMDIGI MOBILE SDN BHD KHOO KAH GENG

Citation

AJ-A72NCC-72-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AJ-A72NCC-72-08/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff's contemporaneous transaction records (Exhibit A-2) proved the defendant's liability for unpaid customer payments totaling RM74,024.00; the defendant failed to adduce substantive evidence to rebut those records or raise a bona fide triable issue, therefore summary judgment was appropriate and entered for the plaintiff with interest and costs.
30 Mar 2026

SOM BOON LAONGKEOW A/L TONG

Citation

RA-83D-127-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

RA-83D-127-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved identity and quantity of the drug by credible chemical analysis and maintained chain of custody; factual circumstances (open container containing packets found directly in front of accused while he sat alone, observation by police, lack of evidence of others' access) established control and knowledge. Defence was a bare denial which failed to raise reasonable doubt. Accordingly, court convicted the accused under Section 12(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 punishable under Section 39A(1).
9 Mar 2026

1. ) Haziq Hakimi Bin Hussin 2. ) Mohamed Al Qudaish Bin Abdul Jabbar 1. ) Kerajaan Negeri Johor 2. ) Ketua Jurutera Jabatan Kerja Raya Daerah Johor Bahru 3. ) Teto Engineering Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

JA-12B-65-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-65-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellants failed to prove existence of a pothole or road defect at the material time and the evidence supports the finding that the accident was caused by the first appellant's own negligence; therefore there is no basis to hold the state or concessionaire liable and the Sessions Court's decision is correct and must be affirmed.