Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Onus of proof

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2026

1. ) FAZILAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 2. ) HAMDI BIN ABU BAKAR 3. ) HAMNAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 4. ) HUSNI BIN ABU BAKAR 5. ) HUSNIZA BINTI ABU BAKAR 6. ) NOR AZMAN BIN ABU BAKAR 7. ) NOR ZARINA BINTI ABU BAKAR 8. ) SITI ZABEDAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 9. ) WARD

Citation

KA-A72-12-10/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KA-A72-12-10/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiffs proved on the balance of probabilities that they are registered co-owners of GM2986 Lot1777 (P2) and hold an indefeasible title under the National Land Code; defendant failed to prove any legal right to occupy or any exception to indefeasibility; plaintiffs entitled to immediate vacant possession, right to re-enter and to recover costs RM4,500.
4 Nov 2025

MUHAMAD NORAZLI BIN AZMAN 1. ) SUBRAMONI A/L RAMASAMY 2. ) HARISRITARAN A/L RAMESH PENCELAH PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD

Citation

BE-A73KJ-23-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BE-A73KJ-23-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's account corroborated by the investigating officer and documentary evidence; defendants failed to rebut; Defendant 2 was 100% negligent causing the collision and plaintiff's claim succeeded; damages awarded as per medical reports and Compendium, with interest and costs as directed.
1 Oct 2025

YONMING AUTO & INDUSTRIAL PARTS (ALOR STAR) SDN. BHD LEONG BENG WEI PIHAK KETIGA WONG POH KEONG

Citation

KA-A72NCvC-223-08/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KA-A72NCvC-223-08/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held the present claim was essentially the same cause of action as previously adjudicated in KA-A72NCC-125-11/2021 which was dismissed and affirmed on appeal; accordingly res judicata applies and, in any event, Plaintiff failed to prove loss on the balance of probabilities; therefore Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs as per the court scale.
26 Sept 2025

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

Citation

JA-B51KJ-1-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-B51KJ-1-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiffs failed to prove existence of a pothole/lopak air at the material time and failed to prove defendants breached any duty to maintain the road; the credible evidence establishes the accident resulted from the plaintiffs' own negligent driving (inexperience and excessive speed in wet conditions); claim is therefore dismissed with costs.
19 Sept 2025

1. ) MAWARNI BINTI ABDUL HAMID 2. ) AHMAD ZULIKHTAR BIN MOHD DAHARI (berniaga atas nama dan gaya PEMBINAAN ZULMA (JM0572364-P)) 1. ) SURESH A/L DORASAMY 2. ) PARTIBAN A/L DORASAMY 3. ) DORASAMY A/L NALAYA 4. ) SARASWATHY A/P KARUPPAN (berni

Citation

JA-A72NCvC-1203-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCvC-1203-11/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiffs discharged the legal burden by adducing signed invoices, delivery order references and credible witness testimony that the documents were delivered and acknowledged; defendants failed to produce contemporaneous police reports, weighbridge receipts or credible documentary evidence and did not attend to give evidence, therefore defendants failed to rebut the plaintiffs on the balance of probabilities; court treated the invoices and delivery orders as sufficient written evidence of the debt and awarded judgment to plaintiffs.
2 Sept 2025

MOHAMAD EZZAT BIN MOHAMAD ISMAIL KAMARUL ZAMAN BIN KADER MAIDIN

Citation

KA-A77-5-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KA-A77-5-04/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities to show both causation and the precise quantum of loss (RM3,142.20); absence of detailed calculations, supporting invoices/payments and failure to tender the contractor quotation as exhibit rendered the claimed amount unproven; claim therefore dismissed with costs under Rule 93.
12 Jun 2025

SELIA SELENGGARA SELATAN SDN.BHD. 1. ) NUR HANA BINTI ISMAIL 2. ) IMAM BAYDOWI BIN SUMARDI

Citation

JA-12A-10-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12A-10-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found special circumstances: the appeal is bona fide and raises serious issues; respondents failed to produce documentary proof that the judgment sum was paid out; immediate enforcement risked rendering the appeal nugatory; accordingly a preservation order and stay of execution were necessary to preserve the status quo pending disposal of the appeal, and the funds in respondents' solicitor client account were restrained.
3 Jun 2025

CHE HASMIDI BIN CHE HASSAN

Citation

BA-45-55-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45-55-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either accused had exclusive control, custody or knowledge of the drugs found; material ambiguities existed as to the precise location of seizure, chain of custody was defective and investigatory omissions (missing phone analysis, absence of police report/CCTV, unexplained handling of exhibits) cumulatively raised reasonable doubt and successfully rebutted the presumption under section 37(d) ADB; accordingly accused are acquitted of the specified charges.
23 Apr 2025

1. ) SPEED LOGISTICS SDN. BHD. 2. ) RAVICHANDRAN A/L KANAGARATHNAM WONG YOON HOI

Citation

BA-11B-26-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11B-26-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no palpable error in the magistrate's findings: contemporaneous documents (police report, investigation decision and payment of summons), defendant's pleaded admissions that the lorry moved and struck the parked car, and uncontested evidence of the adjuster satisfied the plaintiff's burden on liability and quantum; substitute investigating officer evidence and public documents were admissible; accordingly the magistrate's decision finding 100% liability was upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs.
19 Feb 2025

1. ) XXXX 2. ) Mohamad Faezuddin Bin Ismail Muhamad Mustaqim Bin Zulkeflee

Citation

DA-12B-37-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12B-37-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Trial court's apportionment was set aside because plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus to prove defendant's negligence; silent evidence (oil trail location, vehicle damage patterns, positions on sketch) favored the defendant's version that collision occurred in defendant's lane and did not support plaintiffs' accounts, therefore defendant was held not liable and third parties bore no liability to defendant.