Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ownership dispute

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2025

BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA SAVILLE @ CHERAS DATO YASMEEN BINTI HAJI MUHAMAD SHARIFF

Citation

WA-22NCvC-391-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-391-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the discovery application because the documents sought were not necessary under Order 24 r 8 for the fair disposal of the action; the plaintiff bears the burden of proving ownership and cannot shift that burden via discovery; the joint venture agreement was not in the defendant's possession and ordering production would be an impermissible fishing expedition and oppressive.
18 Sept 2025

SMART TECH INNOVATIVE SDN BHD PENCELAH ANCALA MEGAH SDN. BHD.

Citation

DI-A54-6-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DI-A54-6-03/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The proposed intervener lacked locus standi because it produced no evidence of ownership, tenancy or proprietary interest in the goods which the applicant proved by documentary evidence; intervention was therefore properly dismissed and costs awarded to the applicant (global RM3000).
16 May 2025

JAILAILA BAKI BIN ABDUL HAMID

Citation

BF-83RS-39-11/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BF-83RS-39-11/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution failed to prove ownership and dishonest intention required for an offence under s380 because the jewellery was subject to an ongoing harta sepencarian dispute (not exclusive to complainant), the accused had a bona fide claim and accepted partial payment (RM8,000), and the residence was linked to the accused; accordingly no prima facie case was made out and the accused was acquitted and discharged.
3 Jan 2025

PAKIAM A/P KULAN SARADHA A/P KANNAN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-441-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-441-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved ownership and credible narrative; Defendant failed to prove a valid chain of title from Krishnan, failed to call or account for key witnesses or documentary proof of payment, and failed to rebut Plaintiff's title; consequently Defendant is a trespasser and must vacate, remove structures, pay nominal damages, interest and costs.
27 Jun 2023

RUSMINAH BINTI ABDUL HAMID 1. ) T KIARA GREEN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 2. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR 3. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAN GALIAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR 4. ) SENI NUSANTARA LAND SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-21NCvC-57-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-57-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her late grandmother was the registered proprietor or that the 1996 transfer involved fraud or forgery (different identity numbers; no original title produced; no evidence linking identities). Even if fraud existed, the 4th Defendant is a bona fide subsequent purchaser for value without notice and holds an indefeasible title under s340(3) NLC. Accordingly Plaintiff's claims fail and are dismissed with costs.
14 Sept 2022

NG BOO ABA @ NG HOOI HONG TAN BOON PING PENCELAH 1. ) TAN GEIT KIANG 2. ) TAN WEI FAN

Citation

KB-A52-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KB-A52-3-03/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application to strike out was dismissed because the ownership and locus standi issues are serious questions requiring full trial; the claims were not on the face of it frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, and certain supporting affidavits were inadmissible but that did not justify striking out the entire claim.
7 Sept 2022

1. ) ETERNAL WELLNESS SDN. BHD. 2. ) ETERNAL CLINIC SDN. BHD. 1. ) DERRICK NG KENG LIN 2. ) ONG GAIK THIANG 3. ) GO MAXIMONT SDN. BHD.

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(A)-2337-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(A)-2337-12/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On the evidence the appellants proved ownership of the listed goods on the balance of probabilities via contemporaneous invoices/delivery records and no evidence was adduced to rebut forgery allegations; the respondents' ancillary arguments and related suit did not negate appellants' right to immediate possession; therefore the High Court's dismissal was set aside and a mandatory injunction was granted against R3 to compel return of the goods within the extended timeframe.
20 Jun 2022

1. ) SUHAIMI BIN HASHIM 2. ) HAZIMAH BINTI CHIK 3. ) PLATINUM MAISON SDN BHD 1. ) SITI MAISHARAH BINTI ALIAS 2. ) MOHD FAUZLEEYAZID BIN ZAIN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-56-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-56-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that defendants' contemporaneous documentary evidence (SSM searches, loan agreements, mortgage/form 16A and title registered in the company name) sufficiently demonstrated that the plaintiffs had not disclosed a reasonable cause of action and that the claims were frivolous or an abuse of process; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under Order 18 r19 to strike out the plaintiffs' claim and to dismiss the plaintiffs' interlocutory application to examine defendants, and discharged the interim injunction.
26 Jan 2022

JATICON SDN BHD LIM YEE BOON

Citation

WA-22NCVC-470-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-470-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the contemporaneous Board Resolution, Appointment Letter, payment records and credible witness evidence established the BMW was purchased for and remained a company asset held for use by Lim as director; there was no donative intent by OSY to transfer beneficial ownership to Lim. For the condominium, the Trust Deed and surrounding evidence showed Lim was to pay the purchase price and service the loan; she failed to do so and failed to prove ownership. Consequently Jaticon was entitled to the purchase price as damages in lieu where the car could not be returned…
29 Sept 2021

MOHAMED HANAN BIN MOHAMMED ALI (NRIC NO: 870210-14-5355) [Trade under name and style BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA DAMANSARA FORESTA (Serial No: 0373) MATRIX FITNESS TECHNOLOGY (Business no: SA 0408182-T)]

Citation

WA-11ANCvC-40-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11ANCvC-40-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Magistrate erred in striking out the claim because there are triable issues of ownership and contract, the pleading errors were curable and did not cause prejudice under Order 1A, the Hire Purchase Act did not apply to the transaction, and the matters should be determined at trial; appeal allowed and case remitted for trial with costs awarded to Appellant.