Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hearsay rule

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2026

Kemajuan Tally Sdn Bhd Efektif Permai Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-A52NCC-154-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-154-01/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities Plaintiff failed to prove a contract with Defendant or reliable proof of delivery: material documents were of doubtful authenticity or created retrospectively, Plaintiff failed to call makers/receiving witnesses, and SD2's sworn admissions that he ordered the goods and was the debtor (and issued cheques) established that liability lay with the sub‑contractor; therefore Plaintiff's claim against Defendant is dismissed.
5 Jun 2025

LIVE CAPITAL SDN. BHD. PIONEER CONGLOMERATE SDN. BHD.

Citation

02(f)-65-11/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-65-11/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

A disputed document marked as exhibit does not automatically render its contents proven; the party relying on the document must first establish a prima facie case by properly proving authenticity (usually by calling the maker or satisfying section 73A conditions) before any evidential burden can shift; absent such proof the contents remain hearsay and the lower court was correct to dismiss the respondent's claim. The Court of Appeal was wrong to treat marked exhibits as determinative without proof of authenticity.
25 Nov 2024

1. ) PAN YAN NEE 2. ) ABDUL HALIM LIM BIN ABDULLAH Kamarul Idzam Bin Abd Aziz

Citation

BA-12B-25-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-25-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the Sessions Court's factfinding relied on hearsay evidence of the police officer regarding the Appellants' statements, the appeal is dismissed and the Sessions Court's finding of 100% liability is affirmed because on the probabilities the Appellants' stopped and obstructive vehicle caused the collision and the Appellants failed to give evidence such that the Plaintiff's account is to be presumed and an adverse inference drawn, justifying full liability.
8 Mar 2024

Loh Meng Chin Timbalan

Citation

PB-42(Ors)-1-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

Ors
Case number

PB-42(Ors)-1-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Affidavits sworn by the investigator and Deputy Public Prosecutor were admissible under s41A and relevant rules; on the balance of probabilities the court was satisfied the RM28,150 was connected to an offence under s17(b) MACC Act and the appellant failed to rebut that case, therefore the Sessions Court forfeiture order was correctly made and should be affirmed.
17 Aug 2023

MOHAMAD FAUZI BIN CHEK

Citation

JA-82D-55-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-82D-55-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove ownership/identity of the urine sample and the evidential chain because the original investigating officer who received and handled the sample was deceased and his oral evidence was absent; the successor's reliance on the original officer's diary amounted to inadmissible hearsay absent reliance on a statutory exception, so no prima facie case under s15(1)(a) DDA 1952 was established and the accused was acquitted.
31 Jan 2023

MOHD ELMY ARIF BIN HAMID

Citation

BA-45-8-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45-8-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted prosecution evidence that the accused had custody/control of the quarters and knowledge of the speaker box containing drugs; no credible evidence established third‑party placement or lawful explanation; statutory presumptions under s37(da) applied for Cannabis and Methamphetamine due to weight thresholds, resulting in conviction for trafficking and mandatory death on those counts; remaining counts convicted with concurrent custodial sentences as appropriate.
24 Aug 2020

ALI BABA CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORTATION SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 1117102-A) RUHANIBABA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 413971-A)

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-3-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-3-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to prove a joint site inspection or that Musa was the defendant's authorised representative; key evidence relied upon by the plaintiff was hearsay and not the best evidence; contemporaneous documents supported the defendant's position and showed deliveries equated to 228,072 m³ with payments calculated on 80% of loads; the plaintiff retained the burden and did not discharge it, therefore the sessions court's finding of overpayment recoverable under s73 Contracts Act 1950 was correct and the appeal must be dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

Kemajuan Tally Sdn Bhd Efektif Permai Sdn Bhd

LIVE CAPITAL SDN. BHD. PIONEER CONGLOMERATE SDN. BHD.

1. ) PAN YAN NEE 2. ) ABDUL HALIM LIM BIN ABDULLAH Kamarul Idzam Bin Abd Aziz

Loh Meng Chin Timbalan

MOHAMAD FAUZI BIN CHEK

MOHD ELMY ARIF BIN HAMID

ALI BABA CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORTATION SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 1117102-A) RUHANIBABA ENTERPRISE SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 413971-A)