Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forgery of signature

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2025

JOSHUA NARENDRAN KULWANT 1. ) DEVA RAJ SUNDRAM 2. ) RAMESH YUM & CO 3. ) RAMESH N.P CHANDRAN 4. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-21NCvC-36-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-36-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the Deceased lacked capacity and did not leave hospital on 11.7.2018, the signature on the Power of Attorney was forged by the 1st Defendant, the Commissioner of Oaths attestation was defective and material witness was not produced (adverse inference), therefore the Power of Attorney and the subsequent transfer are invalid and void under s340 National Land Code 1965 and reliefs including restitution of title, rental, exemplary damages, interest and costs are warranted.
18 Jun 2025

CHOONG SOON FOO TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Citation

WA-11BNCvC-7-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11BNCvC-7-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court admitted the fresh evidence because it could not reasonably have been obtained for use at the magistrate trial, the evidence was credible and potentially determinative on the identity/forgery issue, and the magistrate erred in failing to consider the insufficiency of the plaintiff's proof that the appellant personally opened the account; accordingly the magistrate's decision was set aside and the appeal allowed.
16 Jun 2025

Krisia Binti Aris Palilah 1. ) Zaiton Binti Ahmad 2. ) Muhammad Hasrullah Bin Roslan 3. ) Ong Li Hoon 4. ) Pembinaan Yokriskon Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCC-582-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-582-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Forgery was not proven because the plaintiff bore the onus and failed to call a handwriting expert; contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and witness testimony established execution of the share transfer; evidence showed plaintiff held shares as nominee for Naxus and payment of capital was by Naxus; execution and lodging of the transfer divested the plaintiff of shareholder rights and estopped her from convening or chairing the EGM; consequently the appointment at the EGM was invalid and the suit was dismissed with costs.
6 Mar 2025

GLENN FAUSTINN ASIDAZ Selvi @ Kupamah A/p Subramaniam (Disaman dalam kapasiti Pentadbir dan Pemegang Amanah Harta Pusaka Sundarasamy A/L Arockiasamy (No.K/P: 601022-08-6719/ 6068728)( si mati)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-507-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-507-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found, on the balance of probabilities and supported by comparisons with admitted genuine signatures and the defendant's own admissions, that signatures on the transfer documents were not the deceased's and were forged; conversely the will dated 11.8.2004 was validly executed and proved by attesting witness Ganesan and by the defendant's admission as to the testator's signature. Consequently the transfer(s) were void for fraud/forgery, the earlier grant of administration to Selvi was cancelled, and probate and declaration of sole executor/beneficiary were granted to Glenn with orders to…
6 Jan 2025

Ramesh Sivaraj A/l Rajasingham Chelliah Sithamparanathan a/l Nadarajah

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-21-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-21-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff discharged the initial burden by producing the original signed Agreement and supporting documentary and contemporaneous evidence of remittances; the onus then shifted to the Defendant to prove forgery which he failed to discharge, and the trial Judge properly exercised discretion in refusing the late forensic handwriting application; therefore there was no error of law or fact warranting appellate interference and the Sessions Court judgment was affirmed.
13 Dec 2024

DESIREE ROSELYN D'COSTA 1. ) KALAI SELVAN A/L SUPRAMANIAM 2. ) METRO ASIAJAYA SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-197-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-197-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff proved she was allotted 750,000 shares for RM582,442.60 and that those shares were later transferred to the First Defendant without her consent or consideration; the First Defendant failed to produce or authenticate transfer documents and an adverse inference was drawn; the Plaintiff also proved she advanced RM335,000.00 under executed loan agreements which were unpaid; accordingly those sums are recoverable with interest and costs.
29 Nov 2024

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) 1. ) UNI PLATINUM SDN BHD 2. ) NAZERIHAN BIN SENAWI 3. ) NYUN LAI SIAM 4. ) CHEW YEONG PIAU 5. ) HENG ZOEY

Citation

WA-A72NCC-5119-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCC-5119-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Although the court accepted on balance of probabilities that D5 signed the guarantee, was present for signing (supported by biometric verification, witness testimony and handwriting expert opinion) and that there was no convincing proof of forgery, the Plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence that a notice of demand was sent or received by D5. Because service of a demand is a pre-requisite to enforce a guarantor's liability for an on-demand facility, the Plaintiff's claim against D5 was premature and must be dismissed; costs RM5,000 awarded to the Defendants.
31 Jul 2024

Mohd Zawawi bin Taib Mulberry Paper Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-12BNCC-15-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCC-15-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court's factual findings that the letter of guarantee existed and was signed by the Appellant were supported by contemporaneous evidence and credible witness testimony; the Appellant failed to prove forgery on the balance of probabilities (no police report, inconsistent and comparable signatures); issues not raised at trial regarding validity and formal defects could not be properly considered on appeal; therefore the trial judgment was not plainly wrong and must be affirmed.
29 Feb 2024

OTHMAN BIN MARZUKI 1. ) LOYANG EKUITI SDN BHD 2. ) BEH THING THING

Citation

PA-22NCvC-27-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-27-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove forgery on a balance of probabilities because the handwriting expert’s report was unreliable (no originals and unverified specimens) and recorded conversations did not constitute admissions; further, Plaintiff discovered any alleged forgery while still a director and failed to act to protect the company (breach of fiduciary duty and estoppel including his resignation letter), thus precluding his claim; the company’s counterclaim for libel succeeds because the statutory declaration was defamatory, not justified or privileged, and general damages of RM50,000 are approp…
17 Mar 2023

1. ) TANG AH LIK @ TAN TEIK YOUNG 2. ) TAN AH LEK @ TAN TIEK HOO 3. ) TAN TEIK LIANG 4. ) TAN TEK LENG 5. ) TAN TEIK CHIANG 6. ) TAN POH HENG TAN AH BA

Citation

PA-22NCvC-102-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-102-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the 2003 Agreement was forged; credible oral evidence from witnesses who attested to signing outweighed the expert's findings, and plaintiffs also failed to join the owners of sold lots as parties; therefore their claims fail and are dismissed with costs.