Datasets:

izardy

/

malaysia-kehakiman-ejudgement

like 1

AA-42JSKH-2-01/2023

PERAYU MASRI BIN MUSA RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya

Appeal on Sentencing - test for an appeal against a sentence must demonstrate that the trial judge erred by imposing a sentence that does not comply with valid sentencing principles or imposed a sentence that manifestly excessive. Sentencing - court should prioritize public interest, deterrence, rehabilitation, and tailor punishment to each case and the criminal - High Court only revises lower court sentences if they are inadequate, excessive, illegal, or improperly based on the facts or law, not just due to differing views - court typically avoids interfering trial court sentences unless strongly justified, focusing on

13/12/2023

YA Tuan Moses Susayan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4a1c0500-2207-47d1-aacd-a2d0f88c0a89&Inline=true

GOJ Masri bin Musa V PP (FINAL).pdf 1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH 5 IN THE STATE OF PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-1-01/2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-2-01/2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-3-01/2023 10 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: AA-42JSKH-4-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-2-01/2022 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-3-01/2022 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-4-01/2022 15 Mahkamah Sesyen Teluk Intan No.: AC-62JSK-5-01/2022) BETWEEN MASRI BIN MUSA 20 (NRIC. NO: 731101-08-5541) ... APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT 25 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT [1]. This case came up on an appeal from the Sessions Court Teluk Intan, only on sentencing. This court has heard the appeal and delivered its 30 decision on 6 October 2023. The Appellant/Accused not being satisfied with the decision instructed the prison authority to appeal on 13/12/2023 09:48:39 AA-42JSKH-2-01/2023 Kand. 32 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 the decision to reduce on the sentencing. Hence, my grounds for the said decision. 35 Background Facts [2]. The Appellant/Accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on 7 charges under three (3) different cases. They are as follows: (charges are cited in the original text):- 40 1st Case No. :(AC-62JSK-2-01/2022) 1st Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN NOVEMBER 45 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 3.00 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS (50 name and National Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH 55 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment from the date of arrest on 25 June 2021 and (1) 60 stroke of caning. 2nd Charge HUJUNG BULAN NOVEMBER 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAH MALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR 65 PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect 70 her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 75 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning and the sentence to run consecutively. 3rd Charge 80 AWAL BULAN DISEMBER 2016 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAH MALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK 85 TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( name and National Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN 90 KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 354 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning. 95 2nd Case No.: (AC-62JSK-3-01/2022) 4th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN MEI 2017 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 4 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA 100 DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MENGGUNAKAN KEKERASAN JENAYAH KE ATAS ( al Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her 105 identity) DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MENCABUL KEHORMATANNYA DENGAN CARA MERABA KEMALUANNYA MENGGUNAKAN JARI. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 354 110 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and (1) stroke of caning and the sentence to run consecutively after case AC-62JSK-2-01/2022. 3rd Case No.: (AC-62JSK-4-01/2022) 115 5th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN MEI 2017 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 4 PETANG, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH 120 HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN SUMBANG MAHRAM DENGAN (vict Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity). YANG MANA OLEH KERANA PERHUBUNGAN KAMU DENGANNYA ADALAH TIDAK DIBENARKAN DI BAWAH UNDANG-125 UNDANG, HUKUM AGAMA YANG TERPAKAI KEPADA KAMU UNTUK BERKAHWIN DENGANNYA. OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH 130 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 12 years imprisonment and Six (6) strokes of caning and the sentence to run separately from the case AC-62JSK-2-01/2022 and AC- 62JSK-3-01/2022. 135 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 4th Case No.: (AC-62JSK-5-01/2022) 6th Charge 3 MEI 2018 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH 140 KURANG 12.00 TENGAHMALAM SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR KEDUA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN AMANG SEKSUAL DENGAN CARA MENYENTUH KEMALUAN 145 ( deliberately deleted to protect her identity). OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 14(a) ATAS KESALAHAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP KANAK- KANAK 2017 DAN DIBACA BERSAMA SEKSYEN 16(1) AKTA YANG 150 Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years imprisonment and 1 stroke of caning. Additionally, under Section 16(1) of the Sexual Offenses Against Children Act 2017, 1 year 155 imprisonment and 2 strokes of caning. There is also a provision for 1 year of supervision under Section 14(a) of the same Act and mandatory counselling while in prison. The sentence of imprisonment is to run separately from the cases AC-62JSK-2- 01/2022 and AC-62JSK-3-01/2022. 160 7th Charge PERTENGAHAN BULAN SEPTEMBER 2018 DI ANTARA JAM LEBIH KURANG 12.00 TENGAHMALAM S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 SEHINGGA 2 PAGI, SEMASA BERADA DIBILIK TIDUR PERTAMA RUMAH ALAMAT NO. 19, LORONG 6A, KAMPUNG BAHAGIA, 165 36000 TELUK INTAN, PERAK DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK TELAH MELAKUKAN AMANG SEKSUAL DENGAN CARA MENYENTUH KEMALUAN ( Registration Identification Card are deliberately deleted to protect her identity). OLEH ITU KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN KESALAHAN YANG 170 BOLEH DIHUKUM DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 14(a) ATAS KESALAHAN SEKSUAL TERHADAP KANAK-KANAK 2017 DAN DIBACA Sentenced by the Teluk Intan Sessions Court to 3 years 175 imprisonment and 1 stroke of caning. Additionally, under Section 16(1) of the Sexual Offenses Against Children Act 2017, 1 year imprisonment and 2 strokes of caning. There is also a provision for 1 year of supervision under Section 14(a) of the same Act and mandatory counselling while in prison. The sentence of 180 imprisonment is to run separately from the cases AC-62JSK-2- 01/2022, AC-62JSK-3-01/2022, and 62JSK-4-01/2022. Trial [3]. A total of eight (8) witnesses were called by the Prosecution at the 185 prosecution stage and upon defence being called only the Appellant/ Accused gave evidence on oath and was cross-examined. Based on the testimonies of the witnesses and the exhibits presented, the Sessions Court Judge decided at the end of the defence case that the Prosecution has successfully proved their case beyond reasonable 190 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 doubt and convicted the Appellant/ accused on all the 7 charges as stated above. [4]. The Appellant/accused is dissatisfied with the decision of the Sessions Court Judge and hereby appeals to this Honourable Court 195 on the sentence. Appeal to High Court [5]. The Appellant/accused is challenging the sentence on plainly 3 grounds: 200 a. That it is 'manifestly excessive.' The total years of Imprisonment imposed is 32 years, distributed as follows: 9 years for the 1st case (AC-62JSK-2-01/2022), 3 years for the 2nd case (AC- 62JSK-3-01/2022), 12 years for the 3rd case (AC-62JSK-4- 01/2022), and 8 years for the 4th case (AC-62JSK-5-01/2022). 205 Further the Appellant/ accused is sentenced to 12 strokes of caning, with 3 strokes for the 1st case, 1 stroke for the 2nd case, 6 strokes for the 3rd case, and 2 strokes for the 4th case. b. The Appellant/Accused's counsel argues that the Appellant/ 210 Accused faced 7 counts in total, but the charge in the 3rd case is based on the same act as the 2nd case, but was charged under different provisions of the law that is under Section 354 and Section 376B of the Penal Code. The two (2) offences were clearly part of the same transaction as they were 215 committed on the same date, time and place i.e. it refers to the same act. The rationale for the one-transaction rule is that S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 consecutive sentences are not appropriate. Therefore, the Appellant/Accused submits that the lower court judge erred in meting out the sentence in the 3rd and 2nd cases to run 220 consecutively. c. The Appellant/Accused's counsel refers to Exhibit P12, which mentions a perineal examination by Dr. Sharifah Raihan bt Syed Kamaruddin (SP7) on 25 June 2016 at 10.40 am, predating the 225 incidents in the charges. Thus, the Appellant/Accused argues that the lower court's sentence is grossly excessively due to the lack of perineal examination findings or medical evidence related to the alleged incidents on the specified dates. The "25 June 2016" date on P12 appears to be a typographical error; however, 230 this issue was not brought up by the Appellant/Accused in the lower court, either during the trial or in submissions. This line of argument, considered an afterthought and lacking merit, typically pertains to acquittal, whereas the current appeal is solely focused on the sentence. 235 The Law on Appeal against Sentence [6]. The test for an appeal against a sentence is that the Appellant/ Accused must demonstrate that the trial judge erred by imposing a sentence that does not comply with valid sentencing principles. This is 240 outlined in the case of Adam Atan v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 33: In an appeal against sentence, the initial function of this court is one of review only. The fact that each of us sitting separately or together would have imposed a lesser sentence is irrelevant. The S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 appellant must satisfy this court that the sentencing court has 245 either erred in principle or imposed a sentence that manifestly excessive. [7]. In the oft-quoted case of Kenneth John Ball (1951) 35 Cr App R 164, which is referenced among others in Public Prosecutor v. Sulaiman 250 Ahmad [1992] 3 CLJ Rep 447; [1992] 4 CLJ 2283; [1993] 1 MLJ 74, it is a well-established legal principle that an appellate court usually does not intervene in a sentence that has been judiciously determined by a lower court, provided the sentence adheres to the correct legal principles. An exception to this rule occurs when the sentence is either 255 manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate, or if it does not comply with the law. This is what Hilbery J commented in Kenneth John Ball (supra): sentence a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public 260 interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing crime, but also in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence, passed in public, serves the public interest in two ways. It may deter others who might be tempted to try crime as seeming to offer easy money on the supposition, that if the offender 265 is caught and brought to justice, the punishment will be negligible. Such a sentence may also deter the particular criminal from committing a crime again, or induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest 270 living. Our law does not, therefore, fix the sentence for a particular crime, but fixes a maximum sentence and leaves it to the court to decide what is, within that maximum, the appropriate sentence for each criminal in the particular circumstances of each case. Not only S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 in regard to each crime, but in regard to each criminal, the court has 275 [8]. The case of Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. Public Prosecutor [1982] 1 MLJ 83, also establishes principles on sentencing, emphasizing the need to balance public interest and the offender's interests: 280 For a discretionary judgment of this kind to be reversed by this court, it must be shown to our satisfaction that the learned judge was embarking on some unauthorised or extraneous or irrelevant exercise of discretion. We are far from convinced that any criticism 285 of the learned judge is warranted. He took the course he did, in outweighing the plea of mitigation in favour of the public interest with a desire to uphold the dignity and authority of the law as administered in this country. We agree. That must receive the greatest weight. It is a serious offence to give false testimony, for 290 it is in the public interest that the search for truth should, in general and always, be unfettered. The courts are the guardians of the public interest (see the Exclusive Brethren case [1980] 3 All ER (underlined is my emphasis) 295 [9]. Also, in the case of Public Prosecutor V Govindnan A/L Chinden Nair [1998] 2 MLJ 181, Augustine Paul J emphasized that when passing a sentence, the primary considerations must include public interest. He clarified that public interest represents justice not only for 300 the Accused but also for society at large. His Lordship said: S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 be one of the prime considerations (see PP v Teh Ah Cheng [1976] 2 MLJ 186). A major element of public interest is that justice means justice not only to the accused but also justice 305 to society. Accordingly, in passing sentence, a court has to consider not only the offence and the offender, but also the interests of society. The court acts as a vehicle to show 310 [10]. Having said that, the High Court typically refrains from interfering with a sentence when exercising its revisionary powers, unless it finds the lower court's sentence to be clearly inadequate, excessively harsh, unlawful, or inappropriate considering all presented facts or those that the court is expected to judicially notice. This suggests that for the High 315 Court to intervene in the sentencing, the lower court must have significantly misapplied the correct sentencing principles. It is a firmly established practice that the High Court does not change a sentence merely because it might have chosen a different sentence. This principle was clearly stated by Hashim Yeop Sani J in Public 320 Prosecutor v Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 2 MLJ 256 with the following words: normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence of the lower court is either manifestly inadequate or grossly 325 excessive or illegal or otherwise not a proper sentence having regard to all the facts disclosed on the record or to all the facts which the court ought to take judicial notice of, that is to say, that the lower court clearly has erred in applying the correct principles in the assessment of the sentence. It is a firmly established 330 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 practice that the court will not alter a sentence merely because it might have [11]. As such the criteria under which an appellate court may revise a lower court's sentencing decision, as established in the Court of Appeal case 335 of PP v. Ling Leh Hoe [2015] 4 CLJ 869, is summarised are as follows: a. The sentencing judge made an incorrect decision regarding the factual basis for the sentence. 340 b. The trial judge erred in understanding the material facts presented. c. The sentence was fundamentally flawed in its principles. 345 d. The sentence was either manifestly excessive or insufficient. [12]. Having reviewed the law governing appeals on sentencing, I will now evaluate the sentence meted out on the Appellant/Accused by the lower court, in light of the aforementioned legal principles. 350 The sentence meted out against the Appellant/Accused [13]. The sentence imposed on the Appellant/Accused falls within the legally permissible range with the prescribed limits for each charge. There was no violation of the maximum allowable sentence. The 355 judge's decision was consistent with legal provisions. Considering the S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 nature of the offense, a sexual offense perpetrated against one's own child is a heinous and morally reprehensible act. It represents a severe breach of trust and duty, inflicting deep psychological and emotional harm on the victim. Such actions not only violate the sanctity of the 360 parent-child relationship but also fundamentally undermine the child's sense of safety and well-being, often leading to long-lasting trauma. This form of abuse is particularly egregious due to the inherent expectation of protection and care that a parent is morally and legally obligated to provide to their child. Taking into account of all these, the 365 sentence meted out is both reasonable and not excessive. It is conceivable that had another judge presided over this case, either at the lower court or on appeal, the sentence might have been even more severe to uphold justice. 370 [14]. The Appellant/Accused did not enter a guilty plea to warrant a reduction in the sentence. Considering the Appellant/A conviction after a full trial for a serious offense, where the Prosecution called (8) eight witnesses, with defence being called, the punishment is appropriate. 375 [15]. Courts must balance the interests of the public and the Appellant/ Accused, prioritizing public interest, especially in light of the disturbing rise in incestuous sexual crimes. It is particularly egregious when offenders, such as the Appellant/Accused, betray the trust of those 380 they should protect, pursuing personal desires over their welfare. This betrayal is accentuated in cases where the offender, like the Appellant/Accused, is a stepfather, a role that inherently demands providing protection, yet in this instance, it has been subverted by committing a grave offence. 385 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [16]. In arriving at the decision by this court to uphold the sentence imposed by the lower court, this court referred to a passage from the case of Public Prosecutor v Sigol bin Singki [2022] 7 MLJ 1, which highlights the statistics of sexual offenses committed against children, especially by those in positions of trust, as mentioned in the "Rang 390 Undang-Undang Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak- Kanak 2017 emphasized that most offenses are committed by family members, often within the home, which complicates detection and reporting. This often results in delayed reporting, with cases sometimes remaining 395 unrecognized until serious consequences, such as pregnancy, arise. The amendment to Section 16 was enacted to strengthen penalties, increasing the maximum imprisonment term from 20 to 25 years, thereby reflecting the gravity of abuse of trust. This amendment highlights the public importance of protecting vulnerable victims and 400 enforcing stricter penalties against family offenders. The passage referred to is as follows: trust to sexually assault the child victim. This fact could be gathered 405 from what w -Undang Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak- (see Rahman bin Mohamad (Lipis) when debating on the Bill stated that in the 10 years alone, the sexual offenders against children involved 410 biological fathers (23.9%), step-fathers (23%), uncles (18.7%), biological brothers (12.5%), cousins (7.2%), brother-in-laws (5.3%), step-brothers (4%), grandfathers (1.6%) and step-grandfathers (1%). 415 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [18] The said minister was further recorded to have stated - kenalan itu sendiri, maknanya ahli keluarga itu sendiri. Oleh sebab itu bila saya mendengar hujahan daripada rakan-rakan sebentar tadi untuk menarik perhatian bahawa kita kena memainkan peranan di 420 sekeliling keadaan persekitaran kita, jiran-jiran kita, kita kena melihat apakah keadaan sebenar jiran-jiran kita itu. Akan tetapi perkara yang berlaku ini adalah disebabkan berlaku di dalam rumah itu sendiri. Kadang-kadang mereka tinggal di rumah kampung atau rumah bandar itu sendiri yang jaraknya jauh daripada orang ramai. 425 Bagaimana kita nak melihat perkara ini berlaku, sebab dia berlaku dalam rumah dia. Kalau sebagai seorang yang kita katakan tadi mahram dia sendiri dia lakukan perkara itu. Bagaimana kita nak mengesan setelah dia melakukan perkara tersebut, maka sudah pastilah dia juga melakukan ugutan terhadap mangsa itu sendiri. Jadi 430 kita mengharapkan supaya apa yang berlaku ini, kita hendaklah akui bahawa kanak-kanak ini sering terdedah dalam keadaan bahaya di kalangan anggota ahli keluarganya sendiri yang kita boleh anggap sebagai musang berbulu ayam ataupun haruan makan anak itu sendiri. 435 Dalam konteks penderaan kepada kanak-kanak ini, kebanyakan kes penderaan seksual terhadap kanak-kanak ini laporan biasanya lambat dibuat sebab yang saya katakan adalah disebabkan kena ugutan daripada ahli keluarga sendiri. Kadang-kadang kita sedar sehingga kanak-kanak ini telah mengandung, baru kita sedar ada 440 perubahan berlaku pada kanak-kanak ini barulah kita mengambil keputusan untuk membuat laporan polis. Kadang-kadang kita tidak membuat laporan polis kerana kita memikirkan ini adalah ahli keluarga kita sendiri melakukan. Kalau bapa dia sendiri atau bapa tirinya atau sebagainya, dia 445 menganggapkan bahawa satu mata pencarian akan hilang kalau S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 mereka melakukan laporan tersebut. Maka inilah yang hendak kita bayangi dengan perubahan daripada akta-akta ini maka mungkin juga kita boleh serba sedikit mencegah daripada perkara yang berlaku itu, sebagaimana yang saya katakan lebih berbelas ribu kes 450 [19] In this respect, it must be noted that while section 14 already provides for imprisonment term of not exceeding 20 years, when read with section 16, the imprisonment term is increased to not exceeding 455 25 years. This clearly indicates that Parliament recognised the vulnerability of victims to persons who are in relationship of trust with them. Respectfully, it would be contrary to public interest to not give effect to the provision when dealing with cases of such nature. 460 [17]. In reaching this decision, the court is also mindful not to submit entirely to public interest or to excessively punish the Appellant/Accused, such as by ensuring they never see the light of day outside of prison, due to the seriousness of the offense committed. In Tuan Mat Tuan Lonik v. PP [2009] 4 CLJ 638, His Lordship Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA (as he 465 then was) in considering the issue of public interest, where the appellant pleaded guilty to the Sessions Court to 5 offences of rape punishable under s. 376B of the Penal Code and where the victim was his stepdaughter who was below the age of 16 years at the time of the rape incidents. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 470 15 years imprisonment and 10 strokes of the rotan for each and every offence. In total, sentence to serve was 75 years in jail and to receive 50 strokes of the rotan. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the term and to receive the maximum rotan of 24 strokes. In allowing the 475 appeal, His Lordship said this : S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 e High Court order as we refused to submit to public opinion; public opinion is like the sword of Damocles that hover over the head of any trial judge, constantly intimidating the court to surrender to the 480 [18]. At paragraph 24, of the same case (Tuan Mat Tuan Lonik (supra)) His Lordship criticised the impracticality of sentencing a 48-year-old man to 75 years, surpassing average life expectancy and straining 485 logic, warning that such irrational sentences could invite public scrutiny and tarnish judicial credibility. This is what His Lordship said: An appellate court will not be overly ready to interfere with any sentence imposed by the trial court unless there are very good 490 reasons to do so. For purposes of this case, suffice if we merely peruse the sentences meted down, subsequently to be affirmed by the High Court, from the point of view of logic. It is statistically accepted that the average life span of a Malaysian man is 70 years whilst that of a Malaysian woman 75 years. In time the average 495 life span will increase. That being so, with the appellant now 48 years old, on average he has 22 years of good life left. To impose a sentence that will take him until the age of 123 years old, and knowing fully well that he never will serve the full term, not only is bizarre but strains the intelligence of the court. Any illogical 500 sentence may attract unnecessary scrutiny and negative comments from the public on how we awkwardly conduct 505 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Conclusion [19]. Based on the above, and being mindful of the words of His Lordship Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA (as he then was), who compared public opinion to the 'sword of Damocles' hanging over trial judges as a 510 constant threat, implying that judges feel pressured or intimidated by public opinion to yield to the public's unreasonable demands', and considering the principle of law relating to sentencing in the long- standing case of Bhandulananda Jayatilake (supra) as stated by Raja Azlan Shah LP (later His Majesty YDPA) that judges, influenced 515 by human nature and individual perspectives, may reach different conclusions in similar cases, leading to varying sentences. As such the appellate court typically refrains from interfering unless there is a compelling reason, despite potential sentence disparities. This is what His Lordship said: 520 judges applying the same principles at the same time in the same country to similar facts may sometimes reach different conclusions (see Jamieson v Jamieson [1952] AC 525, 549). It is for that reason that some very conscientious judges have thought it their 525 duty to visit particular crimes with exemplary sentences; whilst others equally conscientious have thought it their duty to view the same crimes with leniency. Therefore, sentences do vary in apparently similar circumstances with the habit of mind of the particular judge. It is for that reason also that this court has said it 530 again and again that it will not normally interfere with sentences, and the possibility or even the probability, that another court would have imposed a different sentence is not sufficient, per se, to warrant this court's interference. 535 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [20]. Accordingly, since this court found no significant error in the lower court's decision and sentencing, except for a minor error which was considered, the appeal is allowed partially. Specifically, we allow the sentences in cases AA-42JSKH-1-01/2023 and AA-42JSKH-3- 01/2023 to run concurrently, while upholding the lower court's 540 sentencing for the other offenses. Consequently, the total years of imprisonment imposed by the lower court remain unchanged as the net effect of this court's order. 545 Date: 11 December 2023 Moses Susayan 550 MOSES SUSAYAN Judicial Commissioner High Court in Malaya 555 at Ipoh, Perak 560 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Counsel: 565 For Appellant/Accused : Azwan bin Abdul Wahab Advocates and Solicitors Omar Azwan & Partners Ampang, Selangor 570 For Respondent : Geetha Jora Singh Deputy Public Prosecutor Prosecution Unit Perak Legal Advisor Offices 575 (Notice: This Grounds of Judgment is subject to further editing) 580 Headnotes Appeal on Sentencing - test for an appeal against a sentence must demonstrate that the trial judge erred by imposing a 585 sentence that does not comply with valid sentencing principles or imposed a sentence that manifestly excessive. Sentencing - court should prioritize public interest, deterrence, rehabilitation, and tailor punishment to each case and the criminal - 590 High Court only revises lower court sentences if they are inadequate, excessive, illegal, or improperly based on the facts or law, not just due to differing views - court typically avoids interfering trial court sentences unless strongly justified, focusing on 595 S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 logical and realistic considerations, such as the appellant's life expectancy against the sentence length. S/N AAUcSgci0UeqzaLQIwKiQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

CB-42JSKS(A)-1-02/2023

PERAYU NOR HAFIZ BIN HANAPI RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Rayuan jenayah - Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 - Pegawai Perubatan dikatakan melakukan amang seksual terhadap pesakit kanak-kanak - Rayuan dibenarkan.

13/12/2023

YA Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=6c3fe52e-128b-4300-aa4a-c278bc754fb6&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - CB-42JSKS(A)-1-02-2023 NOR HAFIZ v PP - final 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: CB-42JSKS(A)-1-02/2023 ANTARA NOR HAFIZ BIN HANAPI (NO. K/P: 871212-02-5415) … PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA ... RESPONDEN DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI TEMERLOH DALAM NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: CB-42JSKH(A)-1-02/2023 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA ... PERAYU DAN NOR HAFIZ BIN HANAPI (NO. K/P: 871212-02-5415) … RESPONDEN 13/12/2023 09:57:59 CB-42JSKS(A)-1-02/2023 Kand. 31 S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Sesyen Di Temerloh Dalam Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur Kes Jenayah No. CB-61JSK-2-09/2020 Antara Pendakwa Raya Lawan Nor Hafiz bin Hanapi (No. K/P: 871212-02-5415)] ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Ini adalah rayuan daripada Perayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen terhadap kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan seperti berikut: Pertuduhan Pertama Bahawa kamu pada 23/07/2019 jam lebih kurang 11.15 pagi, di Bilik Rawatan Klinik Kesihatan Kuala Tembeling dalam Daerah Jerantut, dalam Negeri Pahang telah melakukan amang seksual S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 fizikal dengan memasukkan jari kamu yang disarung kondom ke dalam mulut kanak-kanak Nama: …..ABC…. (No. KPT: …123…) berumur 15 tahun 01 bulan. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan- Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 14 Akta yang sama. [2] Timbalan Pendakwa Raya telah membuat rayuan silang dalam kes ini terhadap hukuman yang dikenakan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang dinyatakan sebagai tidak setimpal dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Perayu. Pada peringkat kes pendakwaan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah membebaskan dan melepaskan Perayu untuk Pertuduhan Kedua. Oleh itu untuk rayuan ini adalah untuk Pertuduhan Pertama. Keterangan kes [3] Secara ringkasnya keterangan menunjukkan bahawa SP3 telah pergi untuk mendapatkan rawatan di sebuah klinik. Pada masa yang sama Perayu adalah merupakan pegawai perubatan yang memberikan rawatan kepada SP3. SP3 telah menyatakan semasa rawatan itu dilakukan SP3 diminta menutup mata. Pada masa SP3 memberikan keterangan beliau berumur 15 tahun. SP3 dilahirkan pada 09.08.2005. [4] SP3 memperihalkan pemeriksaan yang dilakukan oleh Perayu dengan menyatakan bahawa pada masa kejadian tersebut Perayu telah menyemak nadi di tangan SP3. Selepas itu Perayu ambil stick letak S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 dekat lidah dan doktor meminta SP3 mengambil darah di bilik lain. Doktor memberitahu SP3 bahawa badan SP3 kurang air dan perlu dimasukkan air. Seterusnya doktor memberitahu bapa SP3 agar pulang ke rumah terlebih dahulu disebabkan proses untuk memasukkan air memakan masa. [5] Mahkamah juga mendapati SP3 telah memperihalkan secara terperinci kejadian tersebut. “TPR : Bila jari itu masuk dalam kondom atas lidah kamu, kamu rasa apa? SP3 : Saya rasa macam masuk plastik dalam mulut tapi macam berabuk-abuk dekat plastik tu macam ada habuk. Doktor tanya rasa apa, saya kata rasa plastik je. TPR : 3 jari dalam kondom atas lidah. Setakat mana lidah itu? SP3 : Setengah lidah. TPR : Pohon saksi demo.” [6] SP3 juga mendakwa bahawa semasa Perayu menggunakan jari memasukkan ke dalam mulutnya beliau mendakwa itu adalah kondom. [7] SP3 juga menyatakan juga bahawa beliau merasa pelik bagaimana Perayu boleh menutup mata SP3 semasa beliau diperiksa S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 oleh Perayu. SP3 juga menyatakan bahawa kejadian tersebut telah diberitahu kepada rakan-rakannya di sekolah dan salah seorang rakannya itu mempunyai keluarga yang bekerja di klinik tersebut. Kakitangan tersebut adalah makcik kepada seorang rakan SP3 iaitu Atirah. SP3 juga memberitahu kejadian itu kepada guru-guru beliau. Keterangan SP3 juga menyatakan bahawa beliau telah dipanggil oleh salah seorang kakitangan klinik tersebut untuk menceritakan kejadian tersebut sebelum memutuskan untuk membuat laporan polis. [8] SP3 menyatakan berkenaan pertemuan beliau dengan seorang kakitangan klinik dan kakitangan klinik itu telah memberitahu guru SP3. Di samping itu memberitahu bapa SP3. SP3 telah membuat laporan polis pada 11.10.2019. Kejadian berlaku pada 23.07.2019. Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa saksi-saksi yang terdiri daripada guru dan bapa SP3 telah memberikan keterangan dan memperihalkan berkenaan kejadian yang berlaku itu berdasarkan kepada keterangan SP3. [9] Mahkamah juga mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah memanggil seorang penolong pegawai perubatan iaitu SP6 bagi menjelaskan prosedur rawatan yang boleh diberikan kepada kanak-kanak lelaki atau perempuan. Di samping itu SP6 juga menyatakan SP3 telah menceritakan kejadian itu kepada SP6 Penolong Perawatan Kesihatan Rosita binti Mat Ali dan Jururawat Masyarakat Norisma. [10] SP6 memperihalkan tatacara untuk rawatan kanak-kanak perempuan seperti berikut: S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 “TPR : Sekiranya pesakit tersebut seorang kanak- kanak perempuan di bawah umur, apa tatacara rawatan kita di bilik rawatan? Soalan saya. SP6 : Sekiranya di bilik rawatan, maknanya tiada tempat yang terbuka maknanya tempat tu tertutup apa semua kita kena memanggil peneman ataupun chefron. Mahkamah : Jika tempat itu tertutup kita perlu memanggil? SP6 : Peneman. Mahkamah : Peneman. SP6 : Yang boleh terdiri daripada keluarga pesakit ataupun staff. TPR : Terdiri daripada siapa? SP6 : Boleh daripada PPK (Penolong Perawatan Kesihatan) dengan Jururawat Kesihatan. Jurumakmal Perubatan pun boleh. Penolong Pegawai Farmasi pun boleh. Bagi yang berlainan jantina lah. TPR : Itu sekiranya kita? SP6 : Ya. S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 TPR : Kita, Penolong Pegawai Perubatan menerima kanak-kanak di bawah umur berlainan jantina kita perlu maksudnya dalam bilk rawatan yang tertutup tu perlu ada peneman atau chefron terdiri daripada keluarga pesakit ataupun staff klinik yang kita nyatakan sebentar tadilah? SP6 : Ya, betul. TPR : Adakah tatacara ini juga terpakai untuk pegawai perubatan yang merawat kanak-kanak bawah umur berlainan jantina? SP6 : Ya. TPR : Ada tak dalam mana-mana keadaan tatacara ini tak terpakai? SP6 : Tatacara ini tertakluk kepada mengikut arahan doktor.” [11] SP6 mengesahkan bahawa ketidakpatuhan kepada tatacara tersebut dia tidak pasti sama ada ia adalah kesalahan ataupun tidak tetapi hanyalah sebagai cara untuk melindungi para pekerja di situ. [12] Penelitian kepada alasan penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menunjukkan bahawa beliau bergantung dan mempercayai keterangan SP3 sepenuhnya. S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 “[26] Dengan meneliti dan membaca keterangan SP3 dalam nota keterangan (Mahkamah ini hanya mengambilalih meneruskan perbicaraan kes in pada peringkat SP7 dan SP8 memberikan keterangan) Mahkamah berpendapat keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan lain iaitu SP4 dan SP8 konsisten dan tidak bercanggah antara satu sama lain berhubungan dengan elemen kedua ini. Perlakuan amang seksual oleh Tertuduh adalah apabila Tertuduh mengambil, menggunakan kondom dengan memasukkan 3 jarinya ke dalam kondom tersebut dan kemudiannya memasukkan jari yang disarung dengan kondom ke dalam mulut dan meletakkannya ke lidah SP3. [27] Mahkamah telah meneliti keterangan keterangan SP3 berdasarkan rakaman dan nota keterangan, Mahkamah mendapati SP3 adalah seorang saksi yang jujur, berwibawa dan boleh dipercayai. Mahkamah juga percaya keterangan SP3 adalah keterangan sebenar tentang apa yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh terhadap dirinya pada masa kejadian. Tidak mungkin SP3 dapat memperincikan perbuatan Tertuduh terhadapnya sekiranya kejadian tersebut tidak berlaku. Bukanlah sesuatu yang mudah untuk seseorang mangsa kanak-kanak bagi kes jenayah seksual tampil memberi keterangan sekiranya perkara ini hanya satu rekaan. Secara keseluruhannya, tidak ada sebab untuk Mahkamah tidak mempercayai keterangan SP3 yang menunjukkan kejadian yang dipertuduhkan pada hari tersebut adalah benar-benar berlaku. Tambahan pula SP3 tidak mengenali S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Tertuduh dan merupakan pesakit yang dirawat ole Tertuduh ketika beliau hadir di premis tempat Tertuduh bekerja. [28] Selain itu, SP3 sentiasa berpegang utuh kepada keterangannya semasa disoal balas oleh pihak pembelaan. SP3 telah memberikan keterangan secara konsisten tentang amang seksual fizikal yang berlaku ke atas dirinya. Selain itu, SP3 dan saki pendakwaan yang lain juga dapat memberi penjelasan yang memuaskan kepada Mahkamah tentang percanggahan- percanggahan yang ditimbulkan oleh pihak pembelaan. Tambahan pula, Mahkamah juga mendapati percanggahan yang wujud dalam kes ini bukanlah percanggahan yang boleh melemahkan kes pendakwaan. [29] Disebabkan oleh keterangan SP3 sebagai seorang saksi yang kompeten dan dapat meyakinkan Mahkamah, Mahkamah berpendapat keterangan SP3 dapat berdiri dengan sendirinya sekiranya tiada keterangan sokongan lain. Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada kes PP v Mardai [1949] 1 LNS 65; [1950] 1 MLJ 33.” Elemen Pertuduhan Di Bawah Seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan- kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 [13] Berdasarkan kepada penelitian peruntukan di bawah seksyen 14 (a) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 pada hemat mahkamah elemen kesalahan bagi seksyen 14 (a) adalah seperti berikut: (a) mangsa adalah kanak-kanak; (b) tindakan-tindakan yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh adalah seperti di bawah seksyen 14 (a), (b), (c) atau (d); dan (c) mahkamah harus meneliti keterangan atau perbuatan di bawah seksyen 14 (a), (b), (c) dan (d) tersebut berdasarkan kepada keadaan bahagian yang disentuh, takat perbuatan menyentuh, kontak fizikal serta keadaan yang berkaitan dengan perlakuan di bawah seksyen 14 (a), (b), (c) dan (d) tersebut bagi menentukan sama ada ianya bermaksud seksual. Kata kunci bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14 ini ialah perbuatan- perbuatan di (a), (b), (c) dan (d) itu hendaklah bermaksud seksual. [14] Malahan penelitian kepada seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan- kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 telah terdapat huraian berkenaan perbuatan seksual dalam huraian kedua di mana ia mencadangkan bahawa apabila terdapat keterangan yang menunjukkan perlakuan di bawah seksyen 14 (a), (b), (c) dan (d) Akta tersebut, ia masih tertakluk kepada sama ada perbuatan tersebut tergolong di dalam maksud seksual yang dinyatakan di dalam huraian kedua tersebut. Ini bermakna apabila keterangan menunjukkan S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 bahawa misalnya berlaku sentuhan di bawah seksyen 14(a) Akta tersebut mahkamah perlu meneliti keterangan bahagian fizikal yang disentuh tersebut dan keadaan di mana sentuhan itu dilakukan bagi memutuskan sama ada sentuhan tersebut adalah bermaksud seksual atau sebaliknya. Penelitian kepada peruntukan tersebut tidak menunjukkan bahawa perlunya ditunjukkan mens rea bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14 Akta tersebut. Dalam erti kata lain mens rea bukanlah elemen penting yang diperlukan dalam konteks seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 seperti dalam kesalahan jenayah lain yang lazimnya memerlukan mens rea. [15] Penelitian kepada alasan penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menunjukkan bahawa kebolehterimaan keterangan SP3 bergantung kepada pemerhatian hakim bicara kepada nota keterangan dan rakaman Court Recording & Video-to-Text System (RVT). Mahkamah mengambil perhatian bahawa hakim yang mendengar keterangan SP3 adalah hakim yang berbeza dengan hakim yang membuat dapatan di akhir kes pendakwaan dan pembelaan. Mahkamah juga mendapati tiada catatan yang dibuat dalam nota keterangan berkenaan tingkah laku saksi semasa memberikan keterangan. [16] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dalam alasan penghakimanya turut menyentuh berkenaan dengan tingkah laku SP3 semasa memberi keterangan. Tingkah laku atau demeanor telah diberikan takrifan di dalam Black’s Law Dictionary Seventh Edition seperti berikut: S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 “Demeanour. Outward appearance or behaviour, such as facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, and the hesitation or readiness to answer questions. In evaluating a witness’s credibility, the jury may consider the witness’s demeanour.” [17] Malahan di bawah seksyen 271 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (KPJ) terdapat peruntukan khusus berkenaan dengan tingkah laku saksi yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “271 Remarks as to demeanour of witness A presiding Magistrate recording the evidence of a witness may, at the conclusion of the evidence and at the foot of the notes of it, record such remarks, if any, as he thinks material respecting the demeanour of the witness while under examination.” [18] Apa yang jelas daripada peruntukan di bawah seksyen 271 KPJ tersebut ialah hakim yang mendengar keterangan saksi dikehendaki mencatatkan dalam nota keterangannya tingkah laku saksi semasa memberikan keterangan. Tingkah laku saksi adalah perkara yang perlu dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah dalam merumuskan kredibiliti seorang saksi. Hal ini dinyatakan oleh YA Hakim Raja Azlan Shah dalam kes Tengku Mahmood v Public Prosecutor [1974] 1 MLJ 110 yang telah menjelaskan seperti berikut: “But the demeanour is not always the touch-stone of truth. It is only one ingredient in arriving at a finding of credibility. But so S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 also is motive. Although in cases of this kind it is not easy to get satisfactory evidence, one must not also lose sight of the fact that at the same time it is indeed easy to 'fix' a man in the position of the appellant. A man who was not successful before the Public Services Commission may have hurt his pride and hurt pride is a ferocious beast. It is for this reason that a judge of fact should always test the complainant's evidence against the totality of his evidence and the probabilities of the case. Failure to do so does amount, in my view, to a misdirection, and if it can be demonstrated that the trial judge had failed to do that, his conclusion as to credibility, cannot, in justice, be regarded as impeachable, much less unimpeachable.” [19] Penelitian tingkah laku saksi tidak boleh dibuat semata-mata berdasarkan kepada pemerhatian melalui rakaman sistem RVT. Dalam hal ini Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Rayuan berkenaan isu tingkah laku saksi dalam kes Bunya ak Jalong v Public Prosecutor [2015] 5 MLJ 72 seperti berikut: “[56] The finding of credibility of PW4 necessarily results from the audio visual advantage the trial judge had of the demeanour of PW4. The record contains no record as to the demeanour of the PW4. Section 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: 271. Remarks as to demeanour of witness A presiding Magistrate recording the evidence of a witness may, at the conclusion of the evidence and at the foot of the S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 notes of it, record such remarks, if any, as he thinks material respecting the demeanour of the witness while under examination. [57] In Tara Singh and others v Public Prosecutor [1949] 1 MLJ 88; [1948] 1 LNS, Spenser-Wilkinson J in the Court of Criminal Appeal, said: It has been laid down, however, that ‘an impression as to the demeanour of a witness ought not to be adopted by a trial judge without testing it against the whole of the evidence of the witness in question’ (See judgment of Lord Greene, MR in Yuill v Yuill [1945] 1 All ER 183). This was a civil case and the principle applies with even greater force to criminal cases, especially where, as usually happens in this country, the witness is a non-European giving evidence in his native tongue through interpretation. [58] This was followed by Yusof Abdul Rashid J, in Public Prosecutor v Ku Lip See [1981] 1 MLJ 258; [1980] 1 LNS 166. [59] The impression as to demeanour from the audio visual advantage is something not easily capable of being scrutinised directly not only on appeal, but such impression may be affected from any delay made in assessing and noting that demeanour. Hence, s 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for it to be noted at the end of the notes as to that witness’s testimony. Without such a contemporaneous S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 note at the end of the notes of a witness as to demeanour as a basis or reason, references to demeanour to support a decision suffers from the impression of likelihood it is more of excuse to support the decision. [60] In the circumstances, the finding as to credibility of PW4 based upon demeanour from the audio-visual advantage of the trial judge is flawed and unsafe.” [20] Dalam kes ini Mahkamah mendapati tiada sebarang catatan dibuat dalam nota keterangan berkenaan tingkah laku SP3 oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang mendengar keterangan SP3 atau Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang meneruskan perbicaraan tersebut. Oleh itu Mahkamah berpendapat kehendak seksyen 271 KPJ tidak dilakukan bagi tujuan untuk mengambil kira tingkah laku SP3 yang menjurus kepada keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berkenaan kredibiliti SP3. Adalah tidak memadai Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang meneruskan perbicaraan ini bergantung kepada rakaman sistem RVT untuk menentukan tingkah laku SP3 dan memutuskan kredibiliti SP3. Adalah mustahak untuk hakim yang ingin menggunakan tingkah laku saksi bagi tujuan menguji kebolehpercayaan saksi mematuhi seksyen 271 KPJ dan tidak menunggu di akhir kes bagi menentukan tingkah laku saksi tanpa catatan berkenaan tingkah laku saksi tersebut semasa dia memberi keterangan seperti yang dikehendaki di bawah seksyen 271 KPJ tersebut. S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Apakah mahkamah ini wajar campur tangan dalam dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen [21] Penelitian kepada alasan penghakiman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen menunjukkan bahawa keterangan SP3 telah dijadikan alasan kepada dapatan mahkamah. SP3 telah dinyatakan sebagai saksi yang boleh dipercayai. Malahan tiada alasan untuk SP3 merekapalsu keterangannya. Ini ditambah pula dengan keterangan SP8 yang tidak goyah semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh peguam Perayu. [22] Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa kebolehpercayaan saksi adalah dalam bidang kuasa mahkamah bicara. Penentuan sama ada saksi itu adalah boleh dipercayai adalah berdasarkan kepada keterangan saksi tersebut diuji dengan keterangan saksi-saksi lain. [23] Dalam kes ini keterangan SP3 boleh diteliti bersama keterangan SP4, SP5 dan SP6. SP4 dan SP5 keterangan mereka adalah merupakan satu pengulangan keterangan SP3. Ini adalah disebabkan sumber keterangan adalah dari SP3. SP3 dan Perayu yang berada di tempat kejadian. Sementara SP6 adalah saksi yang menjelaskan bagaimanakah sepatutnya prosedur rawatan yang melibatkan pegawai perubatan dengan seorang kanak-kanak atau berlainan jantina. Di samping itu keterangan pegawai penyiasat adalah berdasarkan keterangan SP3 dan mengumpulkan eksibit-eksibit dan menyusun keterangan saksi-saksi yang lain. S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [24] Adakah kesemua saksi-saksi itu dapat mengesahkan dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen mengenai kebolehterimaan keterangan SP3? Mahkamah ini mendapati keterangan SP3 itu masih tidak dapat menjelaskan bahawa plastik yang dikatakan sebagai kondom. Keterangan SP3 bahawa plastik ialah kondom adalah berdasarkan pengakuan SP3 yang pernah melihatnya di kedai 7-Eleven. SP3 tidak dapat memastikan bahawa itu adalah kondom. Di samping itu mahkamah juga tidak wajar mengenepikan keterangan Perayu semasa pembelaan bahawa kondom memang ada di klinik tersebut untuk tujuan penggunaan untuk perancangan keluarga. [25] Mahkamah juga mendapati keterangan SP6 yang menjelaskan bagaimanakah kes ini bermula seperti di muka surat 71 hingga 72 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2A seperti berikut: “TPR : Siapa Penolong Perawatan Kesihatan? SP6 : PPK tu, Rosita binti Mat Ali. Mahkamah : Penolong apa? SP6 : Penolong Perawatan Kesihatan. Mahkamah : Penolong Perawatan Kesihatan. Nama? SP6 : Rosita binti Mat Ali Mahkamah : Lepas tu? SP6 : Dia maklumkan pada saya dia mendengar anak saudara dia menceritakan kes yang berlaku ini S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 ada terjadi pada budak sekolah. Sekolah Menengah Kuala Tembeling. Mahkamah : Lepas tu? SP6 : Lepas tu masuk kerja hari Isnin, saya buat pasal maklumat yang dapat tu, dia bagi nama betul. Nor Atna, saya tak berapa ingat nama dia. Mahkamah : Mana ni? Yang mana nama yang mana? SP6 : Yang kes hari ni punya. Yang budak bawah umur ni. Mahkamah : Dan nama tidak ingat untuk kes hari ini. SP6 : Saya cek buku pendaftaran, dan dapat kalau tak silap 27 ke 23.7. nama mangsa. Tulisan pun tulisan saya, saya yang daftarkan nama dia, pukul 11.15.” [26] SP6 semasa pemeriksaan utama telah menerangkan tatacara rawatan yang melibatkan seorang kanak-kanak dan perempuan di bawah umur seperti berikut: “TPR : Sekiranya pesakit tersebut seorang kanak-kanak perempuan di bawah umur, apa tatacara rawatan kita di bilik rawatan? Soalan saya. S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 SP6 : Sekiranya di bilik rawatan, maknanya tiada tempat yang terbuka maknanya tempat tu tertutup apa semua kita kena memanggil peneman ataupun chefron.” [27] Keterangan SP6 adalah hanya menjelaskan prosedur rawatan yang sewajarnya diikuti melibatkan kanak-kanak dan perempuan bawah umur. Dalam keterangan SP6 tiada penjelasan berkenaan prosedur klinikal rawatan yang diberikan oleh seorang doktor kepada pesakitnya. Ini dapat difahami kerana SP6 tidak berada dalam kedudukan untuk menyatakan perkara tersebut disebabkan SP6 bukannya seorang doktor terlatih atau pegawai perubatan yang boleh mengesahkan prosedur klinikal rawatan kepada pesakit. Ia tidak dapat membantu mahkamah untuk mengesahkan prosedur klinikal rawatan Perayu kepada SP3. Ketiadaan keterangan tersebut menyebabkan mahkamah tidak dapat mengesahkan keterangan SP3 sama ada tindakan Perayu memasukkan plastik ke dalam mulut SP3 itu adalah sebahagian daripada prosedur rawatan. Keterangan SP3 berkenaan Perayu memasukkan plastik itu ke dalam mulut SP3 adakah boleh dikatakan sebagai sentuhan seksual bagi maksud seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017. [28] Oleh itu dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang berdasarkan kepada kebolehpercayaan dan penerimaan keterangan SP3 sebagai saksi yang jujur dan tidak digoyah keterangannya serta disokong oleh keterangan lain iaitu SP5, SP4 dan SP7 adalah tidak dapat memenuhi lompang keterangan berkenaan prosedur klinikal rawatan yang diberikan oleh Perayu kepada SP3. Jika terdapat keterangan S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 sedemikian ia akan memberikan gambaran sama ada tindakan Perayu kepada SP3 adalah sesuatu yang bercanggah dengan prosedur klinikal rawatan yang sepatutnya. Jika ini berlaku maka sudah terang lagi bersuluh bahawa keterangan SP3 tersebut berkenaan kejadian itu boleh diterima oleh mahkamah. [29] Apa yang lebih penting dalam kes ini ialah keterangan SP3 sendiri yang tidak dapat secara pasti menyatakan bahawa plastik yang dimasukkan melalui jari Perayu adalah sebenarnya kondom atau sebaliknya. Mahkamah tidak boleh berdasarkan kepada keterangan yang samar-samar berkenaan dengan barang kes plastik tersebut untuk memutuskan bahawa keterangan SP3 bahawa plastik tersebut adalah kondom adalah sesuatu yang muktamad. Malahan dalam keterangan semasa perbicaraan juga didapati bahawa plastik yang dikatakan kondom tersebut tidak dikemukakan sebagai eksibit. Ini tidak dapat mengesahkan keterangan SP3 tersebut bagi menjadikan salah satu alasan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen mensabitkan Perayu. [30] Keterangan-keterangan yang sedemikian oleh SP3 tidaklah pada hemat mahkamah boleh dikatakan sebagai keterangan yang luar biasa meyakinkan (unusually convincing). Terma “unusually convincing” telah dinyatakan dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 5 SLR 601 seperti berikut: “... testimony that, when weighed against the overall backdrop of the available facts and circumstances, contains that ring of S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 truth which leaves the court satisfied that no reasonable doubt exists in favour of the accused.” [31] Ia telah diterima pakai dalam undang-undang jenayah di negara ini melalui kes PP lwn. Mohamad Malek Ridhzuan Che Hassan [2013] 8 CLJ 359. Ia membawa maksud bahawa sekiranya keterangan adalah luar biasa meyakinkan ia tidak memerlukan keterangan sokongan bagi kesalahan jenayah seksual. Ini disahkan juga melalui peruntukan di bawah seksyen 18 Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 seperti berikut: “18 Keterangan saksi kanak-kanak Walau apa pun apa-apa yang berlawanan dalam mana-mana undang-undang bertulis yang lain, dalam mana-mana prosiding terhadap mana-mana orang yang berhubungan dengan mana-mana kesalahan di bawah Akta ini, atau mana- mana kesalahan yang dinyatakan dalam Jadual sekiranya mangsa ialah kanak-kanak, mahkamah boleh mensabitkan orang itu bagi kesalahan itu berasaskan keterangan tanpa sokongan seseorang kanak-kanak, yang diberikan dengan sumpah atau selainnya.” [32] Mahkamah juga meneliti seksyen 16 Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-Kanak 2007 berkenaan dengan pemakaian Akta Keterangan 1950 bagi keterangan yang diberikan oleh kanak-kanak. Seksyen 16 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 “16 Pemakaian Akta Keterangan 1950 dan Kanun Tatacara Jenayah Peruntukan Akta Keterangan 1950 dan Kanun Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 593] hendaklah terus terpakai kecuali setakat yang peruntukan-peruntukan itu secara nyata diubah suai oleh Akta ini.” [33] Ia menunjukkan bahawa prinsip undang-undang keterangan tidak wajar diketepikan semasa kanak-kanak memberikan keterangan tetapi haruslah memastikan ianya dibaca selari dengan peruntukan Akta Keterangan 1950. Ini bermakna pergantungan kepada keterangan saksi kanak-kanak iaitu SP3 dalam kes ini tidak boleh menyebabkan prinsip-prinsip undang-undang keterangan berkenaan kebolehterimaan serta kebolehpercayaan saksi-saksi di bawah Akta Keterangan 1950 dikesampingkan. [34] Dalam kes ini mahkamah berpendapat Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah gagal untuk meneliti keterangan-keterangan dan membuat penilaian yang sewajarnya dan hanya berdasarkan kepada kebolehpercayaan SP3 dan keterangan saksi-saksi lain tanpa memberi pertimbangan yang sewajarnya. Adakah ini mewajarkan mahkamah campur tangan dalam dapatan dan sabitan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen? [35] Pada masa yang sama Mahkamah juga perlu berhati-hati dalam kes ini disebabkan sebarang penilaian keterangan yang tidak teliti akan menimbulkan ketidakadilan kepada Perayu dan mangsa. Ia adalah disebabkan Perayu adalah seorang pegawai perubatan yang S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk memberikan rawatan yang sewajarnya kepada pesakit iaitu dalam konteks kes ini SP3. Penelitian keterangan yang tidak tepat akan menyebabkan Perayu akan terdedah dengan dakwaan amang seksual walaupun proses yang dilakukan terhadap SP3 tersebut alah merupakan satu prosedur klinikal rawatan yang wajar dilakukan kepada SP3. Oleh yang demikian keterangan berkenaan prosedur klinikal rawatan yang sewajarnya diberikan kepada SP3 perlu dikemukakan. Ini penting bagi membolehkan Mahkamah memutuskan sama ada tindakan Perayu terhadap SP3 telah melebihi daripada prosedur klinikal rawatan yang sepatutnya diberikan kepada SP3. Ini boleh menunjukkan bahawa Perayu telah melakukan amang seksual kepada SP3. [36] Ketiadaan keterangan sedemikian boleh menyebabkan Perayu akan menggunakan kedudukannya sebagai pegawai perubatan untuk melakukan amang seksual kepada SP3 atas alasan sentuhan tersebut adalah merupakan salah satu prosedur klinikal rawatan yang perlu diberikan kepada SP3. Ini akan menyebabkan jaminan perlindungan undang-undang terhadap SP3 tidak dapat dilaksanakan. Oleh itu adalah penting untuk keterangan prosedur klinikal rawatan ini dikemukakan daripada pihak yang mempunyai autoriti atau pegawai perubatan kanan atau pegawai penyelia kanan Perayu bagi mengesahkan prosedur klinikal rawatan yang sebenarnya. [37] Dalam hal ini Mahkamah ingin merujuk pandangan Suzanne Ost, Profesor di Law School Lacaster University United Kingdom dalam artikelnya bertajuk Breaching the sexual boundaries in the doctor- S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 patient relationship: should English law recognise fiduciary duties? Medical Law Review, Volume 24, Issue 2, Spring 2016, Pages 206– 233, https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fww001 seperti berikut: “First, this professional relationship, which is so fundamental in our society, offers a considerable exploitative opportunity for the unscrupulous doctor. This is because of not merely the significant imbalance of power, but also the unique way in which the relationship will readily furnish opportunities for sexual exploitation. Other professional relationships – such as social worker-client or solicitor-client – will seldom if ever do likewise, for as Archard explains, ‘[a] patient… must open herself up, lay herself bare, share significant confidences with her doctor.’ In such a relationship that is so dependent on trust, there is clear evidence that the sexual exploitation of patients has a deleterious effect on their mental well-being. Moreover, the sexual nature of the exploitation in the unequal relationship between the doctor and patient serves to render especially egregious the abuse of trust. Secondly, as I will demonstrate, a fiduciary duty not to breach the sexual boundaries can be grounded in the doctor’s professional responsibilities not to breach trust or to act out of self-interest, and is compatible with the contemporary pro-patient autonomy model of the doctor-patient relationship.” [38] Penelitian kepada Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 jelas menunjukkan bahawa perlindungan diberikan S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 kepada kanak-kanak daripada diperlakukan amang seksual oleh individu yang mempunyai akses kepada kanak-kanak tersebut dalam hubungan amanah di antara kanak-kanak dan individu tersebut misalnya seorang pegawai perubatan. Ini dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 16 Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 seperti berikut: “(1) Jika seseorang yang melakukan mana-mana kesalahan di bawah Akta ini atau mana-mana kesalahan yang dinyatakan dalam Jadual terhadap seseorang kanak-kanak, mempunyai hubungan amanah dengan kanak-kanak itu, orang itu hendaklah, sebagai tambahan kepada hukuman yang dia boleh dikenakan bagi kesalahan itu, dihukum dengan pemenjaraan selama tempoh tidak melebihi lima tahun dan hendaklah juga dihukum dengan hukuman sebat tidak kurang daripada dua sebatan. (2) Dalam seksyen ini, seseorang dikatakan mempunyai hubungan amanah dengan seseorang kanak-kanak jika kanak-kanak itu berada di bawah pemeliharaan, pengawasan atau kuasanya, termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada- (a) ibu atau bapa, penjaga atau seseorang yang mempunyai hubungan persaudaraan melalui pertalian darah seibu sebapa atau pertalian darah seibu atau sebapa, atau melalui perkahwinan atau pengangkatan, termasuk pengangkatan de facto; (b) seseorang yang mengasuh seorang kanak-kanak atau lebih bagi balasan berharga bagi apa-apa tempoh masa; (c) guru, pensyarah atau warden sesuatu tadika, sekolah, institusi pengajian tinggi awam atau institusi pengajian tinggi swasta; (d) mana-mana orang yang menyediakan perkhidmatan jagaan kesihatan di kemudahan jagaan kesihatan Kerajaan atau kemudahan jagaan kesihatan swasta sebagaimana yang S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 ditakrifkan dalam seksyen 2 Akta Kemudahan dan Perkhidmatan Jagaan Kesihatan Swasta 1998 [Akta 586]; (e) jurulatih; dan (f) pekhidmat awam dengan apa jua pangkat dalam menjalankan kewajipannya di bawah mana-mana undang- undang bertulis berkenaan dengan kanak-kanak itu.” [39] Dalam konteks pegawai perubatan, seksyen 16 (d) Akta tersebut telah membolehkan hukuman yang lebih berat dikenakan terhadap individu yang melakukan kesalahan tersebut. Ia diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 16 (1) Akta Kesalahan-kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017. [40] Perkhidmatan jagaan kesihatan Kerajaan yang digunakan di bawah seksyen 16 (d) Akta tersebut telah ditakrifkan di bawah Akta Kemudahan Dan Perkhidmatan Jagaan Kesihatan Swasta 1998 seperti berikut: “"perkhidmatan jagaan kesihatan Kerajaan" ertinya apa-apa perkhidmatan jagaan kesihatan yang disediakan, dikendalikan atau disenggarakan oleh Kerajaan tetapi tidak termasuk perkhidmatan jagaan kesihatan Kerajaan yang diswastakan atau yang diperbadankan.” [41] Namun demikian sekiranya keterangan yang dikemukakan tidak dapat menunjukkan bahawa tindakan Perayu ke atas SP3 tersebut telah menyalahi prosedur klinikal rawatan bagi Mahkamah memutuskan S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 bahawa ia adalah satu tindakan yang boleh digolongkan sebagai amang seksual sabitan dan hukuman terhadap Perayu akan menyebabkan ketidakadilan kepada Perayu dan pengamal perubatan lain semata-mata disebabkan kanak-kanak menyatakan mereka telah disentuh oleh doktor yang berkenaan tanpa sebarang keterangan bahawa sentuhan tersebut bukannya sebahagian daripada prosedur rawatan yang sewajarnya. [42] Mahkamah ini juga meneliti pandangan yang menarik oleh Profesor Suzanne Ost dalam artikel yang bertajuk The Medical Professional as Special before the Criminal Law In: Criminality at Work. Edited by Alan Bogg, Jennifer Collins, Mark Freedland QC, and Jonathan Herring, Oxford University Press (2020). © Alan Bogg, Jennifer Collins, Mark Freedland, and Jonathan Herring seperti berikut: “Returning to the first of the two central questions posed at the start of this chapter, it is indeed the case that the medical profession is dealt with in a unique way by the criminal law. In certain contexts, the medical professional role seemingly both exculpates doctors and allows medical opinion to have a significant influence on the interpretation of the criminal law. Yet this same role can also attract criminal liability in other circumstances. Looking to the second question, the strongest arguments in favour of this special treatment by the criminal law relate to the public interest in recognizing the beneficial and necessary role that doctors play in society and the public S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 interest in protecting the patient, the weaker party, from serious wrongs that can be perpetrated through the doctor’s position of power. More controversially, in some respects, the criminal law acts as the protector of morality under the guise of public safety. …. Thus, we return to the significance of context; whilst the medical profession continues to be a relatively autonomous category of personal work relations that is dealt with in a unique way by the criminal law, whether there is a public interest in treating doctors in this special way depends upon the duties being performed, the environment in which the doctor is working, and whether a serious wrong has been committed through the abuse of a position of power and trust.” Kesimpulan [43] Berdasarkan kepada keterangan saksi-saksi yang dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan, pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu, alasan penghakiman hakim bicara dan eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan Mahkamah ini berpendapat adalah tidak selamat untuk mengekalkan sabitan dan hukuman oleh hakim bicara. Kegagalan hakim bicara meneliti keterangan saksi-saksi dengan sewajarnya dan hanya bergantung kepada keterangan saksi kanak-kanak yang disokong oleh saksi-saksi lain yang mengulangi keterangan SP3 tidak dapat menyokong dapatan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. Ini ditambah pula dengan ketiadaan keterangan berkenaan prosedur klinikal dan S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 rawatan yang sepatutnya diberikan oleh doktor kepada SP3. Oleh itu dapatan sabitan dan hukuman Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen adalah diketepikan. Nota Hujung [44] Sesungguhnya kanak-kanak adalah terdedah kepada kegiatan amang seksual yang dilakukan terhadapnya. Undang-undang telah digubal bagi membolehkan proses pendakwaan dan penerimaan keterangan saksi-saksi kanak-kanak tidak perlu dilakukan dengan menjejaskan kebajikan kanak-kanak. Malahan tatacara merekodkan keterangan kanak-kanak juga telah diperjelaskan di bawah Akta Keterangan Saksi Kanak-kanak 2007. Penggubalan Akta Kesalahan- kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-kanak 2017 adalah merupakan tindakan yang menggambarkan kesungguhan badan perundangan untuk melindungi kanak-kanak. Namun demikian ia akan menjadi sia- sia sekiranya penyiasatan dan pendakwaan serta penghakiman tidak dilakukan dengan sewajarnya. Ia akan mengundang kepada bencana ketidakadilan kepada pihak Tertuduh dan mangsa amang seksual tersebut. Ia wajar dielakkan. [45] Pihak yang berwajib tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya mengambil jalan singkat untuk mengemukakan keterangan kanak- kanak dengan mengkesampingkan prinsip undang-undang dengan kepercayaan bahawa keterangan kanak-kanak tersebut sepatutnya diterima oleh Mahkamah tanpa perlu terikat dengan Akta Keterangan 1950 semata-mata disebabkan oleh penggubalan Akta Keterangan S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 Saksi Kanak-kanak 2007. Ia adalah satu mitos dan kepercayaan tidak berasas yang boleh mendorong kepada ketidakadilan dan kezaliman. Bertarikh: 13hb. Disember 2023 (ROSLAN BIN MAT NOR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA TEMERLOH, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi Pihak Perayu Ahmad Zahid bin Abu Hashim Tetuan Ahmad Zahid Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur Bagi Pihak Responden Ain-Nur’Amiyerra Awod binti Abdullah Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Temerloh, Pahang Darul Makmur S/N LuU/bIsSAEOqSsJ4vHVPtg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-24NCvC-1396-07/2023

Land law – right to sell land – settlement agreement signed between proprietor and lender – terms of settlement agreement – interpretation – contract term in vague or general wording allowing lender to assist proprietor to sell land at price not lower than a stated amount – whether contract clause divesting the proprietor of his proprietary right to sell the land – no power of attorney was signed – no trust was created – obligation of the lender under clause on assistance to sell land – whether lender can sell land much below its fair market value – discretionary remedy of specific performance – whether should be granted to enforce the lender’s request to sell land at a price much less than its fair market value.

12/12/2023

YA Tuan Tee Geok Hock

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=cdb6ccd6-3cd8-4b19-8062-3c2b41c842d3&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - (GOJ)(Final) Sin Chin Teong v. Zulkifli [sale of bungalow].docx 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO.: BA-24NCvC-1396-07/2023 _________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 15 JULY 2022 BETWEEN SIN CHIN TEONG AND ZULKIFLI BIN ABDUL LATIFF, MOHD SHAQELADEEB BIN ZULKIFLI AND RAWAIDAH BINTI SELLAHUDDIN AYOBEE AND IN THE MATTER OF PROPERTY HELD UNDER H.S.(D) 40412, PT NO. 33169, MUKIM KAJANG, ULU LANGAT DISTRICT, SELANGOR AND HAS ADDRESS NO. 28, JALAN SENYUM MATAHARI, COUNTRY HEIGHTS, 43000 KAJANG, SELANGOR AND IN THE MATTER OF RULE 7 OF THE RULES OF COURT 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF RULE 92 RULE 4 OF THE RULES OF COURT 2012 AND 2 IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 417 OF THE NATIONAL LAND CODE 1965 (ACT 56) BETWEEN SIN CHIN TEONG (IDENTITY CARD NO. : 670603-05-5223) … PLAINTIFF AND 1. ZULKIFLI BIN ABDUL LATIFF (IDENTITY CARD NO. : 590818-10-6593) 2. MOHD SHAQELADEEB BIN ZULKIFLI (IDENTITY CARD NO. : 900830-08-5407) 3. RAWAIDAH BINTI SELLAHUDDIN AYOBEE (IDENTITY CARD NO. : 831126-03-5768) … DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Rights to Sell Land) Introduction 1. The question in issue here is whether under the general wording of clauses of a settlement agreement signed between the registered and beneficial owners of the land and the lender who lent some money to them, the registered and beneficial owners have divested in favour of the lender the proprietary right to sell the landed property to a third person and at a price of the lender’s choice. 2. On 27 October 2023 this Court answered the question in the negative, and dismissed the Plaintiff-lender’s suit for specific performance for the Plaintiff’s proposed sale of the Defendant’s landed property (i.e. 3 a large bungalow with land and swimming pool, hereinafter referred to as “the said Bungalow”) to a third person and at a price of the Plaintiff’s choice. Factual background 3. In year 2021 the Plaintiff filed Shah Alam High Court Suit No. BA- 22NCvC-314-08/2021 against the Defendants-proprietors [paragraph 4(i) of the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit in Enclosure 2; paragraphs 6, 7 and 10 of the Defendants’ Affidavit in Reply in Enclosure 6]. 4. On 15 June 2022 the Plaintiff withdrew the said suit as the parties had agreed to enter into a settlement agreement: paragraph 4(iii) of and Exhibit “B” to the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit in Enclosure 2; paragraph 10 of the Defendants’ Affidavit in Reply in Enclosure 6. 5. On 15 July 2022 the Defendants-proprietors and the Plaintiff entered into the Settlement Agreement dated 15 July 2022, a copy whereof is exhibited as “A’” to the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit in Enclosure 2: see paragraph 4(ii) of the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit; paragraph 10 of the Defendants’ Affidavit in Reply in Enclosure 6. 6. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to settle the claim and disputes at a total amount of RM2,200,000 by 9 post-dated cheques to be issued by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff: clauses 2 to 4 thereof at pages 5 and 6 (pdf pages 21 to 22 of Enclosure 2). 7. Clauses 5 to 9 of the Settlement Agreement provide as follows: 4 “5. Subject to the clearance of all payment as envisaged in clause 2 and 3 above, in the event that the Defendants intend to sell one unit of the bungalow house held under H.S.(D) 40412, PT 33169 Mukim Kajang, Daerah Hulu Langat, bearing postal address at No. 28, Jalan Senyum Matahari, Country Heights, 43000 Kajang Selangor [hereinafter referred to as “the Property”’] to any interested purchaser to assists in the payment of the final sum, the Defendants agree that the sum of RM1,480,000.00 shall be released directly to the Plaintiff from the proceeds of the purchase price of the Property and the Defendant’s solicitors shall release the sum of RM1,480,000.00 shall be released directly to the Plaintiff from the proceeds shall be release the sum of RM1,480,000.00 to the Plaintiff within 5 days from the date of receipt of the purchase price of the Property PROVIDED ALWAYS the Defendants Solicitors are retained by the Defendants as stakeholders in the preparation of the intended Sale & Purchase Agreement of the Property between the Defendants and the prospective purchaser[s]. 6. The Plaintiff shall withdraw private caveat on the Property upon the interested purchaser obtaining a facility to finance the purchase of the Property and forward to the Defendants Solicitors copies of the Notice of Withdrawal of Caveat duly executed by the Plaintiff. In the event that the sale of the Property to any interested purchaser cannot be completed, the Plaintiff may choose to re-enter the caveat on the Property. 7. In the event that the Plaintiff decides to assist the sale of the Property by way of obtaining an interested purchaser, the Defendants shall covenant and undertake to forthwith and 5 execute all relevant documents including but not limited to the sale and purchase agreement, Memorandum of Transfer and any relevant and incidental documents with the interested purchaser to complete the sale of the Property. 8. If the Plaintiff decides to exercises the right under clause 7 above, the purchase price of the Property shall be maintained at the value of not less than RM5,000,000.00. 9. In the event of default in the payments and/or dishonoured cheques at any time during this time of Settlement Agreement, unless prior consent are obtained, the Plaintiff shall have right to commence legal proceedings against the Defendant for the recovery of the settlement sum, less any payment which had been received by the Plaintiff.” 8. Up to the date of commencement of the present suit, the Defendants made payments for instalments No. 1 to No. 7 totalling RM220,000: see paragraph 6 of the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit (Enclosure 2); paragraph 10 of the Defendants’ Affidavit in Reply in Enclosure 6. 9. After the extension of time was given by the Plaintiff to the Defendants for the payment of the balance amount, the Defendants still did not pay up. 10. Taking the position that he had the legal right to sell the Defendants’ landed property, the Plaintiff has obtained a Letter of Offer from Greater Wealth Management Sdn Bhd for purchasing the said Bungalow at RM5,000,000: see paragraph 16 of and Exhibit “E” (pdf 6 pages 51 to 53) to the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit. 11. The Greater Wealth Management Sdn Bhd’s letter of Offer to Purchase signed by the offeror was addressed to the Defendants- proprietors. 12. When the Defendants refused to sign or accept Greater Wealth Management Sdn Bhd’s said offer, the Plaintiff commenced this suit to seek specific performance of the Settlement Agreement for sale of the said Bungalow to Greater Wealth Management Sdn Bhd. The law 13. Under the National Land Code (“the NLC”) and the laws, the Defendants as the registered proprietors and beneficial owners of the bungalow house have the legal rights to sell the bungalow house to a purchaser of their own choice and at the price which they agree upon. 14. For a land issued with individual Issue Documents of Title, the National Land Code expressly recognises the following manners and mechanisms by which a registered proprietor can confer upon another person the power to sell or transfer his land: (a) Power of Attorney duly registered with the Land Registry / Land Office: see sections 309 to 311 of NLC; (b) Instrument of trust duly registered with the Land Registry / Land Office: see sections 332, 333, 344 and 345 of NLC; 7 (c) Where the registered proprietor has sold the land and collected the total sale consideration thereby making himself as the bare trustee holding the land: be: Yong Ah Chee v. Lee Chong Hai & Anor [1994] 2 MLJ 614; [1994] 2 AMR 1445; [1994] 3 CLJ 20 (Supreme Court); He-Con Sdn Bhd v. Bulyah binti Ishak & Anor. [2020] 4 MLJ 662; [2020] 5 MLRA 98; [2020] 7 CLJ 271 (Federal Court) paragraph [61]; Samuel Naik Siang Ting v. Public Bank [2015] 5 MLRA 665; [2015] 6 MLJ 1; [2015] 8 CLJ 944 (Federal Court). 15. Unless the registered proprietor has divested his proprietary right to sell or transfer the land by way of a valid and duly-registered Power of Attorney for valuable consideration or instrument of trust in favour of another person or has become a bare trustee after having sold the land and collected the sale consideration, the proprietary rights to sell, transfer or deal with the land remain with the registered proprietor. Application of law to the facts of the present case 16. The express terms in the Settlement Agreement which refer to the said Bungalow are contained in clauses 5 to 9 and reproduced in paragraph 7 above. 17. Apart from these express contractual terms, there is no Power of Attorney or Deed of Trust executed by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the said Bungalow. The Defendants-registered proprietors have not signed any sale agreement to sell the said Bungalow to the Plaintiff-lender. Neither have the Defendants- registered proprietors collected the sale proceeds from the Plaintiff- 8 lender in connection with any sale of the said Bungalow. 18. These express contract terms do not clearly or specifically stipulate that the Defendants’ proprietary rights to sell or transfer their said Bungalow have been surrendered or passed to the Plaintiff. 19. Clause 7 and 8 of the Settlement Agreement do not destroy or erode the Defendants’ legal rights as registered proprietors and beneficial owners of the bungalow house. These clauses merely provide for a mechanism for the Plaintiff’s assistance in finding a purchaser. However, this mechanism of assistance in sale cannot be invoked unless either the Defendants have absolutely refused to find a purchaser in event of the Defendants’ default in repayment or the Defendants have neglected over a prolonged period of time to take diligent steps to find a buyer. Neither of such events has happened here. Here, the Defendants-registered proprietors want to find buyer of their choice and to sell the said Bungalow at an amount much higher than RM5,000,000 proposed by the Plaintiff-lender. 20. The proprietary rights of the Defendants as the registered proprietors and beneficial owners to deal with, sell and transfer the said Bungalow have not been eliminated or taken away by the Settlement Agreement dated 15.7.2022. 21. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 15.7.2022 the Defendants-proprietors retains the rights to find buyer and sell the bungalow house at a price agreed by the Defendants so as to repay the balance debt to the Plaintiff: see clause 5 of the Settlement Agreement [Exhibit “A” to the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support, Enclosure 9 2]. 22. By the Plaintiff’s act or conduct in getting an offer to purchase which was addressed by the offeror to the Defendants as the offerees, the Plaintiff has impliedly recognised that without the consent or endorsement of the Defendants-proprietors, the Plaintiff does not have the legal capacity or power to sell the said Bungalow by purporting to accept the offer. 23. In the circumstances of the present case, the Defendants have not absolutely refused to find a purchaser and also there is not prolonged neglect on the part of the Defendants to take diligent steps to find a buyer. This is borne out by the IQI Realty Sdn Bhd’s Letter of Confirmation for Sale: see Exhibit “D” at pdf pages 40 to 42 of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support (Enclosure 2). 24. Even if the assistance mechanism were assumed to be triggered, clause 8 of the Settlement Agreement does not empower the Plaintiff to find a buyer for a price below the fair and reasonable market of the bungalow house. 25. By stipulating that the buyer to be found by the Plaintiff in pursuance of the assistance shall be for a price “not less than RM5,000,000”, clause 8 gives assurance to the Defendants-proprietors that even in the worst of the property market situation, the bungalow house would not be sold for less than RM5,000,000. 26. Clause 8 of the Settlement Agreement cannot be interpreted as giving a power of sale, an indirect form of Power of Attorney, to sell as 10 RM5,000,000 irrespective of the fair market price of the bungalow house. 27. In the present case, the Defendants have produced a valuation by licensed valuer Azmi & Co that the fair market value of the bungalow house as at 30 August 2023 is RM10,500,000: see Exhibit “Z-3” in the Defendants’ Affidavit in Reply (Enclosure 6). 28. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has not produced any contrary valuation report to rebut this valuation. 29. In the valuation report, the bungalow house is described as a 3 ½ storey individual-designed bungalow house in the Country Heights, Kajang together with swimming pool and private elevator with tiled area of 18,288 sq ft and gross floor area of about 18,000 sq ft; 13 years of age, well-maintained and in good condition; and built on a freehold land. 30. In the circumstances, this Court finds on a balance of probabilities that the Plaintiff’s proposed price of RM5,000,000 with the potential buyer he has found is much below the fair market value of the bungalow house. 31. Even if the Plaintiff were assumed to have the right to find a buyer, the Plaintiff would be in breach of his obligation to sell the bungalow house at a fair market price when he proposes to sell it for RM5,000,000, a price which is much below the fair market value. 11 32. In the entire circumstances, this Court it is improper and/or inequitable for the Plaintiff to be granted the relief of specific performance for sale of the bungalow house much below the fair market value and in breach of the obligation of the Plaintiff to find a buyer at fair market price. Conclusion 33. In conclusion, this Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s suit with costs of RM6,000, subject to allocatur. Dated this : 12th December 2023 Signed ….…................................................................ TEE GEOK HOCK JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM (NCVC 10) To the parties’ solicitors: 1. For the Plaintiff : Pung Jenn Jiang Messrs Yong Chee Keong Norashikin & Co. (Seremban) 2. For the Defendant : Ahmad Fadhli bin Salleh Messrs Fadzil & Eddin (Cheras)

Tika 2.6.0

WA-62CY-9-05/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH SHARIL BIN MOHD SARIF

OKS dituduh dibawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 [Akta 588]. OKS telah mengaku salah dan selepas itu OKS maklumkan bahawa beliau tidak siuman dan bahawa beliau pernah buat saringan psikiatri di Hospital Sungai Petani, Kedah. Mahkamah telah perintahkan OKS dihantar ke Hospital Psikiatrik, Hospital Bahagia, Ulu Kinta, Perak unutk pemerhatian dibawah Seksyen 342(3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah.Lapuran perubatan Forensik Psikiatri - Doktor telah membuat kesimpulan bahawa keadaan mental OKS telah bertambah baik dengan rawatan yang diberi dan adalah stabil pada tarikh lapuran ini ditulis. Beliau layak dihadapkan ke Mahkamah untuk dibicarakan serta mampu untuk membela diri. Kes dibicarakan – pihak Pendakwaan gagal buktikan kes prima facie dan OKS telah dilepas dan dibebaskan dari kedua-dua pertuduhan. Pihak Pendakwaan gagal buktikan bahawa OKS telah memuatnaik komunikasi tersebut dengan niat untuk menyakitkan hari orang lain

12/12/2023

Puan Priscilla Hemamalini a/p Nadarajan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0f314cb7-1ded-4982-89d2-9cace85c5d71&Inline=true

PENDAKWA RAYA - 1 - DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN JENAYAH DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA KES JENAYAH NO: WA-62CY-9-05/2023 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN SHARIL BIN MOHD SARIF ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] OKS telah dituduh seperti berikut: Pertuduhan Pertama: “Bahawa kamu pada 12 Mac 2023 jam lebih kurang 5.28 pagi, melalui perkhidmatan aplikasi Twitter dengan menggunakan laman profil Twitter “SharilSarif39” di pautan https://twitter.com/SharilSarif39/status/1634667693809999872 secara sedar membuat dan memulakan penghantaran komunikasi yang jelik sifatnya iaitu “…(dipadam kerana perkataan lucah dan menghina Raja dan agama)......” sepertimana dalam Lampiran A dengan niat untuk menyakitkan hati orang lain, yang dibaca pada 13 Mac 2023 jam lebih kurang 8.22 petang di Pejabat JSJK Bukit Aman, di dalam Daerah Wangsa Maju, di dalam Wilayah il 02/01/2024 09:07:03 WA-62CY-9-05/2023 Kand. 46 S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 2 - Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan dibawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 [Akta 588] dan boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 233(3) Akta yang sama.” Pertuduhan Kedua: “Bahawa kamu pada 12 Mac 2023 jam lebih kurang 5.30 pagi, melalui perkhidmatan aplikasi Twitter dengan menggunakan laman profil Twitter “SharilSarif39” di pautan https://twitter.com/SharilSarif39/status/1634668099227222017 secara sedar membuat dan memulakan penghantaran komunikasi yang jelik sifatnya iaitu “…(dipadam kerana perkataan lucah dan menghina Raja )......” sepertimana dalam Lampiran A dengan niat untuk menyakitkan hati orang lain, yang dibaca pada 13 Mac 2023 jam lebih kurang 8.22 petang di Pejabat JSJK Bukit Aman, di dalam Daerah Wangsa Maju, di dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. Oleh itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan dibawah seksyen 233(1)(a) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 [Akta 588] dan boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 233(3) Akta yang sama.” Seksyen 233(3) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 memperuntukakn hukuman denda tidak melebihi RM50,000.00 atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh tidak melebihi 1 tahun atau kedua-duanya dan hendaklah juga boleh didenda selanjutnya RM1,000.00 bagi setaiap hari kesalahan itu diteruskan selepas pensabitan. [2] OKS telah dihadapkan di Mahkamah pada 19.5.2023. Pada tarikh tersebut, OKS telah mengaku salah terhadap kedua-dua pertuduhan dan selepas itu OKS maklumkan bahawa beliau tidak siuman dan bahawa beliau S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 3 - pernah buat saringan psikiatri di Hospital Sungai Petani, Kedah. Oleh kerana OKS telah menyatakan bahawa beliau tidak siuman, Mahkamah telah perintahkan OKS dihantar ke Hospital Psikiatrik, Hospital Bahagia, Ulu Kinta, Perak unutk pemerhatian dibawah Seksyen 342(3) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. [3] Lapuran perubatan Forensik Psikiatri keatas OKS bertarikh 14 Jun 2023 [Ekshibit P4(B)] diterima oleh Mahkamah. Di dalam lapuran tersebut, doktor telah membuat kesimpulan seperti berikut: a) Encik Sharil bin Mohd Sarif menghidap penyakit Skizofrenia (Schizophrenia). b) Pada masa kejadian-kejadian seperti yang dituduh pada 12 Mac 2023, beliau berada dalam keadaan mental yang tidak waras dan tidak sedar akan sifat dan akibat daripada perbuatannya serta tidak mampu untuk mengetahui bahawa perbuatan tersebut adalah salah dan bertentangan dari segi undang-undang. c) Keadaan mental beliau telah bertambah baik dengan rawatan yang diberi dan adalah stabil pada tarikh lapuran ini ditulis. Beliau layak dihadapkan ke Mahkamah untuk dibicarakan serta mampu untuk membela diri. S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 4 - Pihak Pendakwaan seterusnya telah pohon tarikh sebulan untuk merujuk kes ke Ibu Pejabat. [4] Selepas kes dirujuk ke Ibu Pejabat, arahan yang diterima adalah untuk meneruskan dengan kedua-dua pertuduhan terhadap OKS. Mahkamah merujuk kepada seksyen 343(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah Certificate of Medical Director 343. (1) If the Medical Director shall certify that the accused person is of sound mind and capable of making his defence the Judge or Magistrate shall proceed with the trial. OKS masih mengaku salah terhadap kedua-dua pertuduhan tetapi Mahkamah tidak dapat menerima pengakuan salah OKS dan telah menetapkan kes ini untuk bicara berpandukan seksyen 343(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan juga kes Public Prosecutor v. Nageswari Nagaratnam [1994] 4 CLJ 419. [5] Kes telah dibicarakan dengan keterangan tujuh (7) orang saksi Pendakwaan. OKS tidak diwakili oleh peguambela. Pada akhir kes Pendakwaan, Mahkamah mendapati pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan kes prima facie tehadap OKS bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan. S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 5 - Oleh yang demikian, OKS telah dilepas dan dibebaskan dari kedua-dua pertuduhan. Pihak Pendakwa Raya tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan melepaskan dan membebaskan OKS dan kini merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap perintah tersebut. Fakta Kes dan Keterangan [6] SP1 adalah Pegawai Penyiasat Police Cyber Investigation & Response Centre (PCIRC) yang telah melayari internet pada 13/3/2023 pada jam 2022 hrs dan melihat beberapa ciapan jelik yang dimuatnaik oleh pemilik akaun Twitter @SharilSarif39 di pautan https://twitter.com/SharilSarif39/status/1634667693809999872 dan https://twitter.com/SharilSarif39/status/1634668099227222017. Beliau telah membuat lapuran polis berkenaan ‘posting’ tersebut. [7] SP2 adalah Penolong Pengarah, Jabatan Siasatan Rangkaian di Suruhanjaya Komunikasi dan Mutimedia Malaysia. Beliau telah menerima permohonan daripada Insp Harold (SP7) untuk menjalankan analisis keatas satu akaun Twitter Sharil bin Mohd Sarif beralamat https://twitter.com/SharilSarif39 yang memuatnaik satu ciapan Twitter pada S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 6 - 12 Mac 2023 jam 5.28 pagi dan 5.30 pagi di pautan seperti di atas. Hasil analisis, SP2 mendapati pentadbir akaun Twitter tersebut adalah seorang individu bernama Sharil bin Mohd Sarif iaitu OKS dalam kes ini. [8] SP3 adalah Pakar Perunding Forensik Psikiatri & Ketua Subkepakaran Forensik Psikiatri dari Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Perak. Beliau adalah pakar yang telah membuat pemeriksaan terhadap OKS dan telah menyediakan Lapuran bertarikh 14.6.2023 (Ekshibit P4B). SP3 menyatakan bahawa OKS menghidap sejenis penyakit mental iaitu Skizofrenia (Schizophrenia). Penyakit ini adalah satu penyakit mental yang serius yang menyebabkan seseorang itu mengalami gejala-gejala psikotik. Gejala-gejalan psikotik ini adalah merangkumi dua gejala penting iaitu halusinasi dan delusi. OKS telah menghidap Skizofrenia ini semenjak 9 tahun sebelum beliau dirujuk ke Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta. Dalam tempoh 9 tahun itu, beliau tidak pernah menerima rawatan mahupun didiognosa menghidap penyakit mental. Akibat daripada tidak didiagnosa dan tidak menerima rawatan, dari masa ke semasa, gejala-gejala penyakit beliau bertambah teruk. Pada ketika kejadian, beliau mengalami delusi dalam bentuk delusi syak wasangka atau ‘persecutory’ dan ‘paranoid delusion’. Delusi syak wasangka ini sering dialami oleh pesakit-pesakit yang menghidap Skizofrenia. Mereka menaruh perasaan syak wasangka terhadap orang di S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 7 - sekeliling mereka dan orang-orang ini boleh jadi sesiapapun, iaitu orang awam atau ahli keluarga sendiri. Intipati gejala syak wasangka ini menyebabkan mereka selalu curiga terhadap orang yang mereka menaruh perasaan syak tersebut. Itu dimaksudkan delusi syak wasangka. Ini bukan syak biasa, ia delusi maksudnya pesakit itu mempercayai bahawa ada orang di luar yang menaruh dendam atau mempunyai fikiran yang tidak baik terhadap mereka tanpa sebarang bukti yang kukuh. Ini yang dipanggil sebagai delusi. Merujuk kepada perenggan 10 dan 11 di dalam Lapuran (P4B), Pemeriksaan mental pada masa kejadian yang didakwa Ia merujuk kepada pemeriksaan mental secara ‘retrospective’. Iaitu pemeriksaan untuk menentukan gejala-gejala penyakit yang dilami oleh tertuduh pada masa kejadian yang didakwa. Daripada pemeriksaan, SP3 mendapati bahawa OKS pada masa tersebut mengalami gejala halusinasi suara dan delusi syak wasangka terhadap kerabat diraja. Disebabakan oleh halusinasi dan delusi dan ini adalah gejala psikotok penyakit Skizofrenia, dan atas sebab penyakit beliau yang tidak dirawat sepanjang sembilan (9) tahun, ini telah menyebabkan kemerosoton ‘cognitive’ atau ‘cognitive dysfunction’ sehingga menyebebakan kemampuan beliau untuk tidak mengetahui sifat dan akibat perbuatan beliau seperti yang dituduh adalah salah dan bertentangan dari segi undang-undang. S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 8 - Merujuk kepada perenggan 12 dan 13 di dalam Lapuran (P4B), Pemeriksaan mental terkini Ini merujuk kepada pemeriksan mental pada masa beliau berada di hospital, Ia berbeza dengan perenggan 10 iaitu Pemeriksan mental pada masa kejadian. Pemeriksaan mental terkini yang merujuk kepada keadaan mental beliau semasa dirujuk ke hospital. Pada masa itu SP3 mendapati bahawa pada awal kemasukan, percakapan OKS kurang relevan dan beliau alami gejala delusi syak wasangka. Setelah beliau disahkan menghidap penyakit Skizofrenia, rawatan ubatan telah diberikan kepada beliau. Sepanjang 3 minggu berada dalam wad, beliau menerima ubat-ubat anti psikotik. Setelah menerima ubatan, gejala-gejala penyakit beliau telah reda atau bertambah baik dan pecakapan beliau kembali relevan. [9] SP4 bertugas sebagai Pembantu Teknikal di Jabatan Digital Forensik. Beliau bertanggungjawap keatas bilik penyimpanan barang bukti. Beliau mengesahkan bahawa telah menerima barang kes iaitu sebuah telefon bimbit (Ekshibit P7) dan dua unit sim kad berjenama DIGI (Ekshibit P7A dan B) dan telah menyimpan barang-barang tersebut di dalam bilik penyimpanan barang bukti pada 24 Mei 2023 atas permohonan SP7. Barang kes telah dikeluarkan daripada bilik tersebut pada 26 Mei 2023 atas permohonan Muhammad Nursyadiq Saian iaitu Juruanalisis Forensik (SP5) dan beliau telah menerima S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 9 - kembali barang kes pada 6 Jun 2023. Pada 7 Jun 2023, SP4 telah menyerahkan semula semua barang kepada SP7. [10] SP5 adalah Juruanalisis Forensik Digital yang telah menganalisa barang kes dan telah menyediakan Lapuran analisis forensic bernama “Digital Forensics Case Report” (Ekshibit P12). Hasil penemuan beliau adalah seperti berikut: a) Laporan analisis forensik pada muka surat 8 dirujuk. Satu (1) akaun Twitter atas nama Sharil Bin Mohd Sarif dengan katanama SharilSarif39 dan nombor Twitter ID 1554851247248719872 telah dilog masuk pada barang kes DF2023-MAY-24-01-HP01. b) Laporan analisis forensik pada muka surat 9 didrujuk. Tiga (3) maklumat peranti ditemui pada barang kes DF2023-MAY-24-01- HP01_SIM01 iaitu nombor ICCID 89601622020804738834, nombor IMSI 502161033984387 dan nombor MSISDN 0165036101. c) Laporan analisis forensik pada muka surat 9 dirujuk. Dua (2) maklumat peranti ditemui pada barang kes DF2023-MAY-24-01-HP01_SIM02 iaitu nombor ICCID 89601622020803460976 dan nombor IMSI 502161033856601. S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 10 - [11] SP6 adalah Juruanalisis Forensik Digital yang telah melakukan preservasi data keatas akaun Twitter @SharilSari39 dan menyediakan Lapuran Preservasi Data (Ekshibit P16). Hasil penemuan beliau adalah seperti berikut: a) Akaun Twitter dilog masuk sebagai pentadbir dengan menggunakan username SharilSarif39 dan kata laluan 562455474555 yang diberi oleh Pegawai Penyiasat adalah akaun Twitter “@SharilSarif39”. (m/s 9, 10). b) Dua (2) pautan posting Twitter bersama timestamp bagi akaun Twitter “@SharilSarif39” adalah twitter.com/sharilsarif39/status/1634667693809999872 pada 5:28 AM · Mar 12, 2023 dan twitter.com/sharilsarif39/status/1634668099227222017 pada 5:30 AM · Mar 12, 2023. (m/s 11, 12, 13) c) Satu (1) Twitter User ID bagi akaun Twitter “@SharilSarif39” adalah 1554851247248719872. (m/s 14, 15) [12] Saksi terakhir pihak Pendakwaan adalah Pegawai Penyiasat (SP7) kes ini. Hasil siasatan beliau didapati:- a) Pengendali akaun Twitter SharilSarif39 adalah Sharil bin Mohd Sarif No. K.P: 830109026101. S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 11 - b) ‘Data preservation’ mengesahkan ‘Username’ dan ‘password’ yang diperolehi daripada tertuduh boleh akses akaun twitter SharilSarif39. Tarikh dan masa memuatnaik untuk kedua -dua ciapan adalah pada 5:28 am Mar 12, 2023 dan 5.30 am Mar 12, 2023. c) Analisis Data Forensik mengesahkan terdapat akaun Twitter SharilSarif39 beserta Twitter ID yang sepadan dengan Laporan Data Preservation di dalam eksibit. [13] Pada sepanjang perbicaraan, OKS tidak menyoal balas mana-mana saksi. Setelah pihak Pendakwaan menutup kes, OKS telah berhujah seperti berikut: “ Selamat petang puan. Masa kejadian saya tidak sedar. Ia jadi sendiri. Sudah kali keempat. Kali ini beri peluang untuk saya bagi saya makan ubat di hospital lama Sungai Petani. Saya pun menyesal dengan perbuatan saya. Saya tidak sedar dan ia jadi sendiri. Pohon lepas bebas. Masa kejadian saya tidak sempurna akal. Walaubagaimanapun, saya minta maaf atas kejadian.” Pihak Pendakwaan pula telah berhujah bahawa pihak Pendakwaan telah memenuhi kesemua elemen dibawah seksyen 233(1) (a) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan dan pohon OKS dipanggil untuk membela diri. S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 12 - Isu dan Pendapat (Findings of Fact) [14] Pihak Pendakwaan hendaklah membuktikan suatu kes prima facie di akhir kes Pendakwaan seperti yang diperuntukkan dibawah seksyen 173 (f) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes PP v. Yong Choo Kiong [2022] 10 CLJ 103, dimana Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “[22] Dalam kes Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85; [2005] 2 MLJ 301, Mahkamah Persekutuan semasa menjelaskan konsep prima facie antara lainnya menyatakan: ... A prima facie case is therefore one that is sufficient for the accused to be called upon to answer. This in turn means that the evidence adduced must be such that it can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal. [23] Seterusnya, prinsip kes 'prima facie ' telah diputuskan di dalam PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 (FC) sebagaimana berikut: ... In PP v. Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim (No. 3) [1999] 2 CLJ 215, Augustine Paul J describe what a prima facie is in the following terms: A prima facie case arises when then evidence in favour of a party is sufficiently strong for the opposing party to be called on to answer. The evidence adduced must be such that it can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence by the other side. Taken in its totality, the force of evidence must be such that, if unrebutted it is sufficient to induce the court to believe the existence of the facts stated in the charge or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts existed or did happen. As this exercise can not be postponed to the end of the trial, a maximum evaluation of the credibility of witnesses must be done at the close of the case for the prosecution before the court can rule that a prima facie case had been made out in order to call for the defence. [24] Rujukan juga dibuat terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Mohd Naki Mohd Yusuf v. PP [2014] 7 CLJ 441 yang menyatakan di ms. 457 seperti berikut: S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 13 - [48] A prima facie case is one that is sufficient for the appellant to be called upon to answer. This means that the evidence adduced must be such that it can be overthrown only by evidence in rebuttal. The Court must, at the close of the case for the prosecution, undertake a positive evaluation of the credibility and reliability of all the evidence adduced so as to determine whether the elements of the offence have been established. The force of the evidence adduced must be such that, if rebutted, is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts stated in the charge or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts exist or did happen. [25] Bagi mengenal pasti sama ada suatu kes telah dibuktikan secara "prima facie", adalah menjadi tugas mahkamah untuk membuat penilaian ke atas keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan secara keseluruhannya. Ini termasuk bahagian-bahagian keterangan saksi-saksi dalam peringkat pemeriksaan awal, pemeriksaan balas dan pemeriksaan semula. Keterangan saksi-saksi mestilah konsisten dalam segala tahap sedemikian. YA Mohd Zawawi Salleh HMR, (beliau semasa itu), semasa menyampaikan penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Mohd Yusri Mangsor & Anor v. PP [2014] 7 CLJ 897 berkata di ms. 909 seperti demikian: (g) Further, it is the paramount duty of the court to consider entire evidence of a witness brought on record in the examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination. In other word courts must take an overall view of the evidence of each witness. [26] Berdasarkan kepada kedudukan ini, pihak pendakwaan perlu mengemukakan keterangan yang secara keseluruhannya menghasilkan suatu fakta yang cukup lengkap dan jitu yang mana semuanya menjurus kepada penglibatan OKT dalam melakukan kesalahan seperti dalam pertuduhan. Dalam masa yang sama, pihak pendakwaan perlu mengemukakan keterangan-keterangan untuk menangkis kesemua pembelaan OKT yang diketengahkan oleh OKT melalui pemeriksaan balas yang dilakukan ke atas saksi-saksi pendakwaan bagi membolehkan mahkamah membuat keputusan sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes secara prima facie dan sama ada OKT perlu dipanggil untuk membela diri.” S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 14 - [15] Seksyen 233(1) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 memperuntukkan seperti yang berikut. Penggunaan tidak wajar kemudahan rangkaian atau perkhidmatan rangkaian, dll. (1) Seseorang yang – (a) Dengan menggunakan mana-mana kemudahan rangkaian atau perkhidmatan aplikasi secara sedar – (i) Membuat, mewujudkan atau meminta-minta; dan (ii) Memulakan penghantaran, apa-apa komen, permintaan, cadangan atau komunikasi lain yang lucah, sumbang, palsu, mengancam atau jelik sifatnya dengan niat untuk menyakitkan hati, menganiayai, mengugut, atau mengganggu orang lain; atau (b) Memulakan suatu komunikasi dengan menggunakan mana-mana perkhidmatan aplikasi, sama ada secara berterusan, berulang kali atau selainnya, dan dalam masa itu komunikasi mungkin atau tidak mungkin berlaku, dengan atau tanpa mendedahkan identitinya dan dengan niat untuk menyakitkan hati, menganiayai, mengugut atau mengganggu mana-mana orang di mana-mana nombor atau alamat elektronik, melakukan suatu kesalahan. … ” Di dalam kes Mohd Fahmi Reza bin Mohd Zarin v. PP [2020] 7 MLJ 399, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 15 - “[9] Bagi maksud pertuduhan terhadap perayu, saya dapati HMS dalam alasan penghakimannya, begitu juga peguam perayu dan pihak pendakwaan dalam hujahan bertulis mereka, dengan tepat menyatakan terdapat tiga elemen yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan bagi pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 233 Akta KMM, yakni: (a) Perayu telah menggunakan aplikasi laman profil Facebook miliknya untuk memuat naik suatu komunikasi (komunikasi adalah seperti di Lampiran A kepada pertuduhan); (b) Komunikasi tersebut adalah palsu sifatnya; dan (c) Komunikasi tersebut dimuat naik dengan niat di pihak perayu untuk menyakitkan hati orang lain. Oleh yang demikian, elemen yang perlu dibuktikan oleh pihak Pendakwaan adalah seperti berikut: 1) OKS telah menggunakan aplikasi Twitter miliknya untuk memuatnaik suatu komunikasi; 2) Komunikasi tersebut adalah jelik 3) Komunikasi tersebut dimuatnaik dengan niat untuk menyakitkan hari orang lain. [16] Pihak Pendakwaan telah memanggil Pakar Perunding Forensik Psikiatri & Ketua Subkepakaran Forensik Psikiatri (SP3) dari Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Perak sebagai saksi Pendakwaan. Beliau telah menyediakan Lapuran S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 16 - perubatan Forensik Psikiatri keatas OKS bertarikh 14 Jun 2023 [Ekshibit P4(B)]. Adalah jelas daripada saksi Pendakwaan ini sendiri bahawa OKS menghidap penyakit Skizofrenia (Schizophrenia) dan pada masa kejadian seperti yang dituduh pada 12 Mac 2023, beliau berada dalam keadaan mental yang tidak waras dan tidak sedar akan sifat dan akibat daripada perbuatannya serta tidak mampu untuk mengetahui bahawa perbuatan tersebut adalah salah dan bertentangan dari segi undang-undang. Di dalam kes PP v. Rutinin Suhaimin [2013] 2 CLJ 427, Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti yang berikut: “[17] As for evidence in respect of intention, it is always a matter of inference. From the fact that an offensive remark pertaining to the HRH Sultan of Perak had been posted on the online visitor book, in can be inferred that the accused had intended to cause annoyance. It is also unnecessary to call the victim of the annoying remark to the witness stand. Section 233(1)(b) does not say that the victim of the offence must actually feel annoyed or abused. The provision only says that the offender must have intention to annoy or abuse………………….. Therefore, the prosecution had tendered sufficient inferential evidence to prove intention.” Di dalam kes Mohd Fahmi Reza (supra), Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi juga telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “[24] Mahkamah ini memilih untuk bersetuju dengan hujahan Pihak Pendakwaan bahawa dalam penentuan bahawa elemen ketiga di bawah s. 233(1)(a) Akta KMM itu dipenuhi, prinsip yang terpakai adalah S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 17 - sebagaimana yang diputuskan dalam kes Ong Eng Guan v. PP [1955] 1 LNS 82; [1956] 1 MLJ 44, iaitu: "The point is not whether he annoyed the complainant,... but whether... he intended to annoy him... ". Mahkamah mendapati pihak Pendakwaan langsung tidak dapat membuktikan elemen ketiga iaitu bahawa OKS telah memuatnaik komunikasi tersebut dengan niat (penekanan ditambah) untuk menyakitkan hati, menganiaya, mengugut atau mengangggu orang lain walaupun ia hanya perlu dibuktikan secara inferens. Adalah jelas dari pada Lapuran perubatan Forensik Psikiatri bahawa semasa kejadian seperti yang dituduh, OKS berada dalam keadaan mental yang tidak waras dan tidak sedar akan sifat dan akibat daripada perbuatannya serta tidak mampu untuk mengetahui bahawa perbuatan tersebut adalah salah dan bertentangan dari segi undang-undang. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah mendapati pihak Pendakwaan tidak dapat membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap OKS. [17] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Ulin Anak Blukok v. PP [2021] 1 LNS 2319 , Mahkamah Rayuan, Putrajaya telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “Our Decision [29] Having perused the appeal records, we disagree with the appellant's submission. We find the learned trial Judge had applied the correct test S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 18 - of legal insanity as opposed to medical insanity. This is what His Lordship states at para [39] of the written judgment: "[39] The Court of Appeal in the case of John a/k Nyumbei v. PP [2007] 2 CLJ 509; [2007] 7 MLJ 206 drew a clear distinction between medical insanity and legal insanity in the following passage: 13. Thus, under s. 84 Penal Code, criminality has to be determined according to that legal test and not merely by the mental state of an accused person according to the medical test. There is a distinction between the notion of a legal insanity and medical insanity. Not every form of insanity exempts a person from criminal responsibility. Only legal insanity provides that exemption under s. 84 Penal Code. The specie of insanity addressed by s. 84 is the one that impairs the cognitive faculties of a person. Its nature and extent must be that to make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of his act, or that he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. The criminality of an act therefore must be determined by this test laid down in s. 84 as distinguished from the medical test (see Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's Law of Crime (25th Ed) p280)." [30] Based on the principle of stare decisis, we also find the learned trial Judge had adopted the correct approach as recommended by the Court of Appeal in John Nyumbei's case in resolving the issue of insanity. The recommended approach is stated as follows: "When the defence of insanity is raised the court needs to consider two matters, namely: (i) whether the accused person has successfully established, as a preliminary issue, that at the time of committing the act he was of unsound mind, and (ii) if he was of unsound mind, whether he has proven that his unsoundness of mind was of a degree to satisfy one of the tests earlier mentioned ie, that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his act as being wrong or against the law.” S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 19 - Di dalam kes ini, pihak OKS tidak diwakili oleh peguam dan beliau hanya berhujah pada akhir kes Pendakwaan bahawa beliau tidak waras semasa kejadian. Kes Ulin Anak Blukok (supra) adalah suatu kes dimana pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap OKT dan OKT telah ‘raised the defence of isanity’ berdasarkan seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan. Seksyen 84 Kanun Keseksaan 84. Perbuatan seseorang yang tidak sempurna akal Tidaklah menjadi kesalahan apa-apa jua yang dilakukan oleh seseorang yang pada masa melakukannya, oleh sebab akalnya tidak sempurna, tidak berupaya mengetahui keadaan perbuatan itu atau bahawa apa yang dilakukannya itu sama ada salah atau berlawanan dengan undang-undang. Di dalam kes ini, pihak Pendakwaan sendiri telah memanggil Doktor pakar yang telah memberi keterangan mengenai keadaan mental OKS dan menggunapakai ‘test of legal insanity’, Mahkamah berpendapat pihak Pendakwaan sendiri telah membuktikan bahawa OKS tidak waras dan tidak sedar akan sifat dan akibat daripada perbuatannya dan OKS juga tidak mampu untuk mengetahui bahawa perbuatan tersebut adalah salah dan bertentangan dari segi undang-undang. S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal - 20 - Kesimpulan [18] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan seperti di atas, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa pihak Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap OKS. Oleh yang demikian, OKS telah dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri. Mahkamah berpendapat pelepasan dan pembebasan ini adalah wajar dan patut. Bertarikh pada 12 Disember, 2023 (PRISCILLA HEMAMALINI NADARAJAN) HAKIM MAHKAMAH SESYEN MAHKAMAH SESYEN JENAYAH 4 (SIBER) WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peguamcara: Bagi pihak Timbalan Pendakwaraya : Nurilya Ellyna binti Nor Azmal Bagi pihak OKS : mewakili diri sendiri S/N t0wxD0dgkmJ0pys6FxdcQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AC-A53KJ-109-11/2021

PLAINTIF 1. ) YUSOF BIN YACOB 2. ) SAMSIAH BINTI MOHD TAHIR DEFENDAN 1. ) SINITHARAN A/P KRISHNAN 2. ) MHC PLANTATIONS BHD

Plaintif-Plaintif telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan saya yang diberikan pada 17/11/2023 melalui Notis Rayuan bertarikh 21/11/2023 (Lamp 39).Rayuan adalah terhadap isu liabiliti sahaja.Dalam keadaan sedemikian, saya mendapati Plaintif-Plaintif gagal membuktikan kes atas imbangan kebarangkalian.Oleh itu, tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif ditolak dengan kos.

12/12/2023

Tuan Gan Peng Kun

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=25b6651a-1656-414e-9985-e6ff52f17e65&Inline=true

12/12/2023 16:31:24 AC-A53KJ-109-11/2021 Kand. 42 S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal fl W N Gmvui./vvvrrkszn-ta/uvrzn Ac—As3KJ—1n9—11/2021 Kand. 42 12/11/222; mu-za pug» MAHKAIMH sssvfiu pl vswx mun mum «Esau PERAK mam. n gz; AN uuuuu snvn. no. Al:-A§§K .1»:-w:uz1 ANYARA vusar am ucoa sunsllm sum MOHD um»: .. PLAINTIFPLAINTIF um smmuuuu AIL xnnsuum mm: PLANYAYION Bun DEFEMDAMVDEFENDAN ALAsA§ gsugnmmnm Pfimym LUAN Plamm F'\amm lelah memoaum layman (emadzp ksvmusan says yang dmenkan plda 17/H/2023 me\alm mm; Rlyuin zpmm 21/H/201: (Lamp 39) Rayuan nflmah lemadapwsuMab\hlwsar1a;.n ma ;, 1 Fans tun/2020 [am mum knrang 3 on pevang, Plavml mam. menunggang moms-ks‘ AEP7646 nan am a hendak bahk x. mmlh m Bam 9 Jz\an Manavapnexa mux man F'\amInY Keflua yang melvpxkzm men Plamfi Panama mambmmeng m\os:ka\ lersebut P\amM Kzdua mam ke mankam-h map. um naval memhenkan kevatzngzu kerana keadaan kesmatan henna ynng xmk mengmnkan um Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIZ mum puns! H :2 Ayabwla F1:mlfl—VlamlWsampaI m mu Jalan Yfluk lnun-Hum‘ Me\m\ung merzka xemnax dengan kemahnann dengnn Inn AKKWIY yang dlpandu duh Daflendan Valuma Vets: F'\amI|Y—PlamI:l ualah molasvkal merek: mlawgar flan avah Dawning uleh Dalendan Panama b.ma.sa«.n "pm Duh: 9 mnlFeIIamn(P21) P21 man: an . 14/7/2020 mm a bun mania xemamngnn Vsm Dsisndun Panama pula Iahh mmmiml wa.nw.m.mn.r mum mngmmpu Von behau um bergesa dengan p-nu nebular: mu Von behau. menyebabkan momma: Ierbahas flan pm. is summer. km Duimvdin Pamma mmmm ream nah; (D35) uaaa hen yang sama mm sebpas A9 mwrmkemalangan heflaku De9'endan»D:4end.nn dmnm mqnhan meraka mencabav versl P|amm—P\amM melaluv semn yam: mralatkzn man Dr mum Nnwx @ Nunn Huda am 0nNuan(SP2}da\am1:pman pumbaun (P4) Dalam Sejalah F4‘ swz Ie\ah msncaulkin mammal levgehnclv keraru mum Penama mevasa Femng samun menunqgang spz «em. dlpanmll memhsnkan kehemngan flan belpzlunng manbenkln Den|Blasan,Yan§ nxdanenaavalsaya memuaskan SP2 berpendavalhahnwa kecedzuan yang dmlamn oleh P\aml\l Panama manyebalskan new mix mm: mengmgal uermn now» up: yang sebenmnyn berhku svz juga berpamang mervyemak Vavflfan Vapnrin danpada Jabman Fembedahan Am (>22) din Jabatan Bsdah Mmu1(P23JdIn menywmpulkan bahawa vava doklor yang msmm Flamm mam. berseluyu hnhawl Plamm Panama uemnax dalam kemihnqan man vaya cuma udak push mekamsme bevlakmvyi ksmahnqnn man var: lersabnl 2 sm Gmwixvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 13 u :5 1a 17 1s Saya menenmn penjeiasnn yang dwbsnkan man SP2 bahawn se.am. ylrvn am.-mun behau mam Po Ialah oenla yang mm. mm: ukah mbenkan aleh Plamm mum. lanpa memenkn dmgan mendalam keoademnn yang mahml ob?! wnamm Panama Soiepas nemenkuan Varum du.a\ank.In Xe max Namln Pannm-I, $92 berpsfldapal ucmeman yang dmamv ulnh Plamm Penama boleh menyeblhkan beinau membenknn cum: yang be¢uI>ah—u|7nh Owl Ilu‘ k.ema\anaan ylng belllku bukamah dnsablhkm Nah Plalnlfl Pananu yang m. I penmg semngan meuyebabkin mmomunya ne.geu..cn Wahupun detmkxan‘ »=u..nm=:amm:masm mermkulbahan umuk memhukuknn kg. tzmadap Dalandanrhelendnn Ila: mangan Kzbnvnngknlun Dalam kes Mend Shllmtfin Aou mm H V Mmummu Salwin Abu sum [mm 1 ms Au, Mafvkamah Ymggw msmumskan sedemvkun -ms mm was bmugm by my Plarnlrfl and the human L: on me mum 1.; nmva his mum, based on the balance 0/prubabalrl/es ma burden 0! wave rest: WI!!! WV: mum and me Pmmvflrs lo drsmama .1: onus m prove rt: cause a( swan Hymns! mo Defendant as mm by Ms Fads»-al Cour! m lire case M Letchumwvsn Chumar Alaqappan {A5 Execumr m SIA/amelaa Acm mscsasecm &Anor V Secure Planlnlron S117! and (201715 cm 415 1201714 MUSE? Based on Lelmumanan Chemnr ysuplu) cue, sec!/on V01 arm Evraoncv As! 1950 um referred holdmg Ina! the burden la maam the cm rvsls mrouqmm on m pany who assens the alflrmntrve onna Issue “ Sepem ying dmyatakan m alas‘ F\amm-Plmrml den Devena. Dalundan membenksn veal yang namm tenlang hagamuna xernalangan baflaku 3 sm Gmwixvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 19 over. nu, say: memnurwm kewappalv umuk mengkau flan menelm kgiemua kalerawan ‘(nun mkmwkakan‘ -mg... menglmbvl kw: bdrm memhuku artmah Imlatak alas bum PI:mM—F1aInIr1 2:» Dawn Kes Naarilnlil-inol Alldln a on v Tnnv LeIND¢[1PIWl 2 cu Rev 545, Mahkamah memmuskan sedzrmkwan ‘u rs usslul mum. him iura momsnt to say: low words rsgammq in- approach winch a mu Judge shun/:1 mm NI mmrmg ms tvrdsnc: adduced .2 a ma! u Ila: been slated m Mmerou: case: mu: m m4 that me swdence gvvan by I!» wrlnsssss olonepany was unshsken or unbruwn rs ml per as an EN .mIfc«’mIncn1:e:I nlcvcdmmly and mm M: .m..n: pmoanmryanmpmm.my aims /acun Issue must be memme wnsrdelslmn . :65 Ior mstumx Mummy 5 Ors, v pp (vase; 1L/vs 1 H7[1E66]1MLJ 257, Dale Makhrnrbm Hoslwm V 2:: pm; cu map) 1:71 nu ma» V um Wan Kev (195411 ms 1351195511 ML] 135 at p 372 /1 ha: 515» mm. sud that . my Judge mom not approach we. cm upon me am oldacadrng mm mm; Ma conflwtwg stuns: n. should mm mu rather an me am oicarmdenng mm vclsian rs whale/VW promos mmpmmm . sac (nr Instance Kmay wk cm» 5. 07: V Rug [1956] ML./ 52 wmn mess pnncrpaes m mmd I man now an-es: en. awaam: m Inc pmssnl cars - 21 Keterangan yang dukemukakan man ueaumua Ion dnn mo(auka\ belgevak dnlnm haluin ‘(lug sama‘ um can bawah ks aha mevunkul .3.» (P1; 22 mamm Panama menyzlikan Van nemaan Panama man mmanggavnya dan my. hawking lap: mm m langahrlallgah kerana sewany: pelanggaran herlaku dlbflhaglan|eIIglh,muInl1ka\dan bahauakan Ielmasuk K2 mm. hn 23 Say: mmapau vam m. max msoknng Men kemeakan yang malarm (den mmumkal am buying ms-mavawkan man mm. penymsm LSP‘UdalIm 5:9 wssw 2 sm Gmvaxvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 .2 may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 24 25 25 27 23 29 an nae: keroiakandlsenarawkan oleh SP1 pad: manawuanabahigxan dwan Van. um: la: a. cam Inn hucu hadapnn km dun kanan‘ dun bnhaqmn belakang mnlaswkal Kemsikan melnsvkm . an m hahngmn kznan rump... mm. name kanan‘ brek laugan can laIn—\am manakala karvsakzn hm walah m pm samun km senammya. kemsakan yang malerm mulunkzl an Inn kanswslen danflin vars! uemnm Panama. -am: malaria! lelah bergesemengarv pmln xahallh km mu yang 4«pu-cum lalu tevhabn: am pluh Wa\au nagaxmanapun, say: «mu dapal meneman same ad: mnluslul yang nwngmmpn Ion atau Ion ylng mengmmnI| mmomu km kekumngnn bukm yxng awkemulukan semis: pemlcavaan Wflaupun mm-, behan membukn admzh xemxaus um FlamlxV—P\a|rml Pamyatann mum plus menyacaxan kemxmngan benaku m man: km mexanggav manusuw flan amh behking Say: mcmnpam kerosakzn pad: mulomkal am Lon um menyokurvg vevsw seaemmn Kalelingan Phlnlfl Panama pma bnvslal SAN-sarvmg Mxnakah kefimangnn sm ada\ah dengxlcakfia danaersnrat vendapilsarnalr Mala Dalam kes Llm Juh Nnurv Nlclcolu mum» *p A Amzr[2D19] 1 ms 1:mManum.n memumskzn sedermknan ‘The court showd mu attach any wmgm in Ms swoence clan ro mm: psmcular many has been negligent or Hat [Ar ward: In line! also!) Dacause m whemsra partyrs name larneqlrgsrvca oramsrwlss rs to be deemed ny the mull. (2) an ro has no yersanz! mwvaag. Iigarvmg m. ncmdern The I0‘: knawlldge allhe acmden.‘ rs derwcd mmyrmm me resulls arm to‘: 5 sm Gmwixvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! mvsatrgnlmn m ulhar wards, m. 10': avrdsncl ragirdnng who .5 H5911?” ‘M ML calvsnlufss nsmay ewdenae 7 lab’ on the /aflawmf ,ua.7m.m of o..., Hm Thy: Ag ox ma»-y-» Ismmg .5 . Hag» Cum Judgw m mm Pvoascalor V Stew Sung[1955] 1 ms um Imeslv ML./ 145, at1l5,as VaI1ows— 'YheInspec1n(ssw'derv:.a Mathis ....;m.s Izdmmln :..».v.»..: we accused was owner oflns macluma. was ugh!/y ma. our .5 hursnv. MW" Oblactvorv rarred by nfiisncu nouns»/.' fsmphams nddn-17, and 13» an 10's swdervcs rsqanimv who ,5 new/mm oromsrwrsa u amely ms or her apmn ma cowl cam: now apm-on swdenca mum Mars 1: s mam: we balms Ins mm mm rs n.,.:..a m. mun‘: wmbatsnce wnsrum the court may accspl M sxpen apvman undo! g 45m EA Sacborv 451115»: prvwdu as ?ol1uws— 'Op»munA' olsxpefl: 45(1) Men the court has to lawn an Owmon upon 5 Dom! cl «Wyn Aim/urofxctsnca own, are: twdqnmy organumsnsss or handwntmg or finger rmorsurons, me opmmns upmv mm pom! of Person: spewalry when m Ina! Iomgiv law mm or 8/1, 0. m quaxlmns I! :9 mm, mgenmrvnness of nandwnlmq vvfingsr rmbmxxrms, any raievanl mm “ 31 Dalam ksadaan uedemlkml uya mendlpall mamumamm max membukhkan kes alas vmbangan Keharanfikahan :2 cm Nu twwtuun P\:\nlfl-Fmlnlfl dnohk dengin In: (El KUANTIJM 33 Saplm yang dmyiliknn m alas. rnyuan mmmvv idahh lamadw Am nanum mm Nnmunaemxknan say: membamangkaruuqa takumn g.m.mgm.sw unmk kesenanqan Mukan v». Hakwm Illankamah Tmggw :4 am. mg! um P\mnMFerIama mxamxan sepem henkut a sm Gmvaxvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! Loss ul cousmousnzsa‘ ralvogmde annasa, mun lraumllm Dram Vruury mm um: "um pnnmal subuznclvuoid hamomvaqa, ngM oocwpwm enae|>hn\uma\au-I — mm mo «:7 Fracluve anmemvwau ngm maxulalysmuswxlh rmmma\ llmdlevellng and an pockzls wmm V wzuauo (C) Mumpxe nhvixmn wound. sun lusue wmv ngm chul mu Ind right mgn — mama (a) Commumly anquved pneumuma — mink ammm gm‘ dxnpada kemalarvian ml (5) Fraclum M n-lama! Valera! merygosd plate — Rmsmn (nuuk P247 (n Muuzls waslmg :71mer\uNu>n\l:nd\>ugh . mzwno 35 Gaul! mg! am Plamln Kenna drlnkxlrxan upam mm (a) Loss cl mnscmuxness — RM5.5D0 (:3) Mullxph am. on wound over rluhl shuuman ngm mda amsarsume ac tongue Vacerauen wmmfl uvlv ugh! lerehead. lammlmn wnund aver scam — wmmmo 4:) Demovlwg wmma n| nghllhngh axposmy llama — Rmumo my Ohmuzlwe hydrocephalus mvo\vmg mm \aIua\ and mum venlndes samndary ta mmpresslan av cerebm aquedlm hy quadngeawlil aracnnma cyst. non dlsvlaued lradure ngm zygmm avch. nun mswaced lmcmve snuamous null .24 um temponl bone extzndmg mlo emnummpmau sum lraumahc ngm wnmm sinus Vmclure 7 sm Gmvaxvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm (2) (0 wllh air pockets at r-gm ‘mm: omnlal mum, mm suhmxamn ul nghl spnemzyqamm Mme . Rmsoao M-me wishing uflhe "gm uwm m._;n — mm mm Scar- nmmouo as sann mm khas PIamMFeflama mmsmn izpem hsvlkm (at M Le) Aer to (97 m Nunmq care -mink a.m.xmn Kerasakzn pikanan. lam tanvan nu-apt-one dan xasm — max mbukukan P=rbe1an|iin pengllanlnn an an pembnlan — mm no (Pea) . mm 55 0:12) » Rmsn 00 (Pan Kn: wawan pemnanan paku . mssuao (bzetab :1... M; Km mwman fIsnIzrapx—1fA x RMZBBD M960 . P\a|nM~Pmrmf um menumnkkan bahzwa rawahn fiuzyluvarfl «mu now.» awanem a. manual »m,a.n Olah nu‘ hnnyl we mam anggnran kas dnbenarkan Kus pemnenan lavovan Pambalan (V27{a) Gan mm ~ man on n ma) ~ awn no Kai Dembelun dokumen Pohs — bawalv kns Kai vsrmn... lipavin mm 37 Gum rug! ms mum Kzdua mlaksnrkan sevem mm 1:) «:7 re» (at m Nursmfl cave — um dlbukhkan Ksvasakan pikamn ‘am moan, hnndphflrle mm mm _ hdak mbukllkan Pevbemnliafl Dengubatan uan ml perubaiin — mzsso (mo) . museums» Kus Vapnrln nembilan pm:— mam an (F1343) dan um Km rawalan nsmevaw — m x wzaan = RM950 :4 sm Gmwixvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm , F'\aInnI—PlamInI max menuruukkan mam rawalan Iiuol:up4 um wan dwpevmem .4. mane: karajaarv oxen Mu hanya us flanpada angqavan kos ammuxan (:7 Kn: pembelllvv Wauulan pembnlnn (P15)—RM200 an Faedan I 2 5% setamm ms garm W khas dan mun Iramalangan sehmgga mu penghaknman 5% sen’-mun alas germ mg. am flan lankh penyaahan saman sahlnggi tankh penghlklmzm , 5% mm alas purmah pengnaman davltankhpervgmkxman sehmgga lankh penyelesaxan penuh Kn: mengnkul max. 12 msEMaER zuzs F-uulmclv-I PllinIfl—PlaIrm! u luau Tlluan an... 5 Cu Ptnutmcara :1. ndan-Dalevldln Rum Kumr Ynluan xx: 1. Kumar . wan.--.. g sm Gmvaxvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-24NCvC-436-03/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) Gregory Seow 2. ) Joanne Lee Saw Eng RESPONDEN 1. ) KKHills Management Sdn Bhd 2. ) Teh bin Khuan 3. ) Lim Kian Chong 4. ) Hicom-Gamuda Development (Sdn Bhd)

Guarded and gated development – Sale and Purchase Agreements and Deeds of Mutual Covenants signed by all purchasers of 270 units – assignment clauses in the Deed of Mutual Covenants – management and maintenance of security services in guarded and gate development – developer’s assignment of roles and functions of providing security in completed development to Residents Association – whether valid and binding upon purchasers – whether burden annexed to benefit is assignable – conditional benefit principle – whether applicable in Malaysia – subsequent assignment by Residents Association to a limited company – limited company’s shares and directorship held by only four purchasers in the development – whether limited company is a legal entity contemplated to be assignee under the assignment clauses of Deed of Mutual Covenants – whether second assignment by Residents Association to limited company is valid or binding upon all the purchasers – general meeting of Resident’s Association as a registered society – proposed agenda in notice of general meeting in general and usual terms – no specific agenda or mention of divesting or transfer of the principal business of society – meeting attended by a fraction of total members – resolution passed to assign the Association’s entire roles and functions on guarded and gated services to the limited company – whether resolution valid – invalid second assignment and resolution – remedies appropriate to the situation – whether receiver and manager should be appointed over the Residents Association – overall interest of non-profit society and its members.

12/12/2023

YA Tuan Tee Geok Hock

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=eb5f8dae-1b9c-427e-9190-2c4a0a6ea55d&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO.: BA-24NCvC-436-03/2023 _________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF KK HILLS MANAGEMENT SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 1378803-T) AND IN THE MATTER OF KOTA KEMUNING HILLS RESIDENT’S ASSOCIATION (REGISTRATION NO. : PPM-009-10-16022011) AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 465(H) AND (K) AND OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2016 IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 AND OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CORPORATION ACT 1966 AND IN THE MATTER OF RULE 15 RULE 16, RULE 28 AND RULE 92 OF THE RULES OF COURT 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SCHEDULE TO THE COURTS OF JUDICE ACT 1964 AND 2 IN THE MATTER OF THE SPECIFIC ACT OF 1950 DAN IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTRACT ACT 1950 BETWEEN 1. GREGORY SEOW (IDENTITY CARD NO. : 610109-10-6369) 2. JOANNE LEE SAW ENG (IDENTITY CARD NO. : 680530-10-5216) … PLAINTIFFS AND 1. KKHILLS MANAGEMENT SDN BHD (COMPANY NO. : 1378803-T 2. TEH BIN KHUAN (SUED IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS PRESIDENT OF KOTA KEMUNING HILLS RESIDENT’S ASSOCIATION) 3. LIM KIAN CHONG (SUED IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS VICE PRESIDENT OF KOTA KEMUNING HILLS RESIDENT’S ASSOCIATION) 4. HICOM-GAMUDA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.285780-D) …DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT 3 GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT Introduction [1] Over the years, guarded and gated communities have become the preferred choice of residential properties by home buyers who can afford to pay property prices at a premium over those comparable properties without guarded and gated features. [2] The Plaintiffs, co-owners of one unit of bungalow house, are among the numerous buyers who bought bungalow houses (270 units) at Kemuning Hills from the developer Hicom-Gamuda Development Sdn Bhd, the 4th Defendant herein (“the Developer”) on basis and terms that the development project would be a guarded and gated community. In addition to the usual Sale and Purchase Agreement, each of the original homebuyers signed a Deed of Mutual Covenants of identical terms with the Developer regarding the maintenance and management of common services and facilities including the provisosn of security guards. [3] The present suit by the Plaintiffs is against KKHills Management Sdn Bhd as the 1st Defendant (“the Management Company”), the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in their personal capacities and also their official capacities as the office bearers of the residents association described as Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills (”the RA”) and the Developer as the 4th Defendant. [4] In the Originating Summons here, the Plaintiffs pray for numerous items of reliefs from (a) to (w) which can be conveniently grouped into the following broad categories: 4 (a) Challenging the validity of the Developer’s first assignment of its roles and functions under the Deed of Mutual Covenants to the RA; (b) Challenging the validity of the RA’s resolutions dated 19.3.2022 and second assignment of its roles and functions under the Deed of Mutual Covenants to the Management Company; (c) Declaratory orders against the office bearers of the RA regarding trust, accounts and restitution; (d) Appointment of Receiver and Manager to operate and manage the guarded and gated facilities on behalf of the residents and home owners in the development project; and (e) Other ancillary and/or consequential orders. [5] On 12 October 2023 this Court allowed parts of the prayers sought by the Plaintiff but dismissed other parts of the Plaintiff’s prayers. [6] Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff has appealed against the said decision. The Notice of Appeal does not clearly and specifically state which parts of the said decision form the subject matter of appeal. The impression this Court gets from the Notice of Appeal is that whatever part of the Plaintiff’s prayers which was not allowed by this Court appears to form the subject matter of this appeal. Background and Main Facts of the Case [7] In or around 2004, the Developer/ Gamuda developed a housing development called KK Hills, which comprises of 270 units of bungalows and semi-detached houses. (“KK Hills”). 5 [8] The Developer entered into the Sale and Purchase Agreements with the purchasers of KK Hills, including one dated 4.2.2004 (“SPA”) with the Plaintiffs, who currently remain the registered owners and residents of the Land and Property in KK Hills. [Enclosure 3 page 43 paragraph 11 Enclosure 3 pages 96 - 124]. [9] Simultaneously with the SPA, a Deed of Mutual Covenants (“DMC”) was also entered into for the Developer to be in charge of the control management administration of the common area and facilities to regulate the day-to-day use and enjoyment of the property, common area, management and administration of KK Hills until such services are taken over by the authority [Enclosure 3 page 43 paragraph 12]. See the DMC at pdf pages 125 – 163 of Enclosure 3. [10] KK Hills was fully developed and the vacant possession of the Property was delivered to the Plaintiffs on or around 2005. The Plaintiffs started moving into the Property in or around 2008 [Enclosure 3 page 44 paragraph 13]. The local authority Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam through its letter dated 5 April 2005 approved the Developer’s development as a gated community: paragraph 4 of MBSA’s letter dated 16.8.2021 to Ravindharan: Enclosure 5 page 12. [11] When KK Hills was first completed, KK Hills was managed by the Developer through its agents. The Developer obtained permission from local authorities for KK Hills to be a gated community on or around 2005. This was overtaken by a further conditional approval granted in the letter from Shah Alam City Council to the RA dated 26.1.2022 [Enclosure 3 pages 44 - 45 paragraphs 15 - 16 Enclosure 5 pages 12 - 14 Enclosure 5 pages 31 - 36]. 6 [12] During the period of the Developer’s management over KK Hills, a group of owners including KC Lim were actively scrutinizing the Developer’s management of KK Hills [Enclosure 3 page 45 paragraph 17]. [13] On 16.2.2011, Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills (”the RA”) was established and registered under the Societies Act 1966. The present office bearers of the RA include, amongst others: (a) Frank Teh, who is the current President of the RA, and shareholder and director of the Management Company; and (b) KC Lim, who is the current Vice President of the RA and shareholder and director of the 1st Defendant-Company [Enclosure 3/ p.45/ paragraph 18 Enclosure 3 pages 83, 85, 95]. [14] After the RA was set up, the RA actively liaised with the Developer on the management of KK Hills on behalf of the owners. The RA also conducted general meetings and other gatherings to address issues in KK Hills with homeowners. [Enclosure 3 page 45 paragraph 19]. [15] Having acknowledged the existence of the RA as a homeowners’ association, on or around 9.7.2014, Developer notified the Intended Handover of the management of KK Hills to the RA in the year 2015 (“Intended Handover”), which was objected by some landowners (including the Plaintiffs) [Enclosure 4 page 77]. [16] On or around 23.12.2014, the Developer notified the owners in KK Hills that it shall hand over its duties, obligations and functions as set out under the DMC to the RA on 30.6.2015. However, this did not happen 7 [Enclosure 4 page 82]. From July 2020 until December 2020, Gamuda and the RA gave notice of the assignment to the residents of KK Hills. The said notice was given by way of multiple announcements, notices, and a town hall gathering (see pdf pages 50 – 68 of Enclosure 11). [17] Gregory joined as a committee member of the RA for the term 2018/2019. At that time, Frank Teh was also the president of the RA. Gregory did not seek re-election after one term [Enclosure 3 page 46 paragraph 23]. [18] On or around 29.6.2020, the Developer once again informed the RA that the Intended Handover was intended to be completed by November 2020 [Enclosure 4 pages 83 - 85]. On 7.8.2020, the Management Company was incorporated under the Companies Act 2016. [19] It seems that complaints were raised by some land owners (including Gregory) to the Developer that the RA allegedly lacked transparency as they allegedly were excluded from some groups and/or their texts/messages were deleted and/or they were at one time banned from the group [Enclosure 4 pages 88 - 104]. Records show that subsequently Gregory was reinstated in the WhatsApp group and the reason given by an office bearer was that the deletion was an oversight or due to inadvertence. [20] On 1.12.2020, the Developer entered into a Master Assignment with the RA to assign its rights, duties and obligations under the DMC to the RA (“1st Impugned Assignment”) [Enclosure 4 pages 159 - 163]. See Master Assignment at pdf pages 70 – 100 of Enclosure 11. 8 [21] Since the 1st Impugned Assignment, the RA managed KK Hills until the Management Company took over the management. [22] By letter dated 26.01.2022 the local authority granted specific detailed approval for guarded community at KK Hills [pages 31 – 36 of Enclosure 5]. [23] Notice of 11th AGM of the RA was issued via e-mails to the members of the RA, and there was no specific item of agenda on proposal for assignment of RA’s rights, benefits, functions and obligations in respect of management and administration of the guarded community to the Management Company or anybody else: see page 52 of Enclosure 5. [24] Shortly before the date of AGM of the RA, the 1st Plaintiff was temporarily suspended as member by the RA pending an inquiry into alleged misconduct. As a result of such suspension, the 1st Plaintiff was barred from attending the 11th AGM: see pages 56 – 61 of Enclosure 5. [25] During the annual general meeting on 19.3.2022 attended by 39 members, the RA by majority of 36 votes passed the following purported resolutions: (1) to assign the roles and responsibilities under the DMC from the RA to the Management Company (Resolution No. 2 at pages 66 – 67 of Enclosure 5); and 9 (2) to transfer and release shares of the RA to 5 individuals including Frank Teh and KC Lim (“Resolution No. 3 of 11th AGM”) [Enclosure 5 pages 63 - 69]. [26] The RA subsequently on 8.4.2022 executed a second assignment document by which the RA purported to assign the rights, duties and obligations under the DMC to the Management Company (“2nd Impugned Assignment”) Enclosure 11 pages 123 - 153]. [27] The Management Company then proceeds to manage KK Hills and collect maintenance charges and sinking fund based on the purported assignments. The Management Company also operated gated and guarded community scheme in KK Hills [Enclosure 5 pages 12 - 14]. [28] The RA after inquiry found on 7.7.2022 that the1st Plaintiff’s conduct was totally unbecoming and has fallen short of the standard expected of a member of the association but merely punished him with a admonition and reprimand. The 1st Plaintiff’s membership was lifted as from 7.7.2022: page 94 of Enclosure 5. [29] The Plaintiffs refused to pay the maintenance charges and sinking fund since 1.12.2020 [Enclosure 5 pages 26 - 28]. The unpaid maintenance fees imposed upon the 1st Plaintiff was RM9,126.47 as at 6.9.2022: pages 97 – 98 of Enclosure 5. [30] The Management Company brought a claim vide Shah Alam Magistrates’ Court Civil Suit No.BA-A72NCvC-59-01/2023 (“Suit 59”) claiming maintenance charges and sinking fund against the Plaintiffs in January 2023 [Enclosure 5 pages 101 - 112]. 10 [31] In this Originating Summons, the Plaintiffs seek various declaratory reliefs and related or ancillary orders. Main issue to be decided [32] On a broad basis, the main issues to be decided in the present case are: (1) whether the assignment of the Developer’s maintenance and management functions, rights and obligations (“the Master Assignment”) to the RA was valid and binding upon the residents including the Plaintiffs; (2) whether the RA’s assignment of the RA’s maintenance and management functions, rights and obligations to the 1st Defendant-company was valid and binding upon the residents including the Plaintiffs; (3) whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs and remedies prayed for or part thereof. 1st Main issue: whether the assignment of the Developer’s maintenance and management functions, rights and obligations (“the Master Assignment”) to the RA was valid and binding upon the residents including the Plaintiffs Conditional benefit principle [33] In the present case, the Plaintiffs argue that on the principle that only benefits and rights can be assigned but no burden or obligation can be assigned can be assigned, the Master Assignment dated 1.12.220 11 which stipulated for assignment of the entire rights, benefits, burdens and obligations of the Developer/4th Defendant under the Deed of Mutual Covenants (“DMC”) to the Residents’ Association is invalid, unenforceable and void ab initio. [34] On the other hand, the Defendants argue that the type and nature of the rights, benefits, burdens and obligations of the Developer/4th Defendant under the DMC are capable of being validly assigned and that the DMC by its terms expressly provides for such assignment, and therefore the Master Assignment is valid and binding. [35] Having read and considered the decided authorities cited by the parties, this Court held that: (a) as a general rule, a burden or obligation under an agreement cannot be validly assigned to a non-party; and (b) however, as exception thereto, a particular type and nature of contractual burden or obligation can be validly assigned together with the rights and benefits under the same contract to a non- party who becomes the assignee. The general rule has been decided in various cases including Housing and Development Board v Lee Sem Yoong Sdn Bhd [1987] MLJ 204 (Supreme Court); Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd & Ors; and Anor Appeal [1993] 3 All ER 417 (House of Lords); Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd [1902] 2 KB 660 (Court of Appeal of England), while the exception has been judicially recognised in various cases including Halsall v Brizell [1957] 1 All ER 371; Tito v Waddell (No.2)[1977] 3 All ER 129 (Megarry V-C at p.290, 291 and 320); Davies v Jones [2009] EWCA 12 Civ 1164 (English Court of Appeal); Thamesmead Town Ltd v Allotey [1998] 3 EGLR 97 (English Court of Appeal); Wilkinson v Kerdene Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 44 (English Court of Appeal); Elwood v Goodman [2014] Ch 442 (English Court of Appeal). [36] Megarry J in Tito v. Waddell (No. 2) described the exception as conditional benefit principle. The conditional benefit principle propounded by Megarry J in Tito v. Waddell (No. 2) was also impliedly approved by the House of Lords in Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 AC 310. [37] The conditional benefit principle was stated by Megarry V-C in Tito v. Waddell (No. 2) as follows: “. An instrument may be framed so that it confers only a conditional or qualified right, the condition or qualification being that certain restrictions shall be observed or certain burdens assumed, such as an obligation to make certain payments. Such restrictions or qualifications are an intrinsic part of the right: you take the right as it stands, and you cannot pick out the good and reject the bad. In such cases, it is not only the original [obligor] who is bound by the burden: his successors in title are unable to take the right without also assuming the burden. The benefit and the burden have been annexed to each other ab initio, and so the benefit is only a conditional benefit.” [38] The English Court of Appeal in Davies v Jones [2009] EWCA Civ 1164 (“Davies”) analysed the aforesaid cases including a few other English Court of Appeal cases and held (at [27], p.766) that the following propositions could be distilled from the cases analysed: 13 (1) The benefit and burden must be conferred in or by the same transaction; (2) The receipt or enjoyment of the benefit must be relevant to the imposition of the burden in the sense that the former must be conditional on or reciprocal to the latter; and (3) The person on whom the burden is alleged to have been imposed must have or have had the opportunity of rejecting or disclaiming the benefit, not merely the right to receive the benefit. (“the Davies tripartite formulation”) [39] This Court agrees that the exception, also described as conditional benefit principle, has also been recognised in Malaysia: see Housing and Development Board v Lee Sem Yoong Sdn Bhd [1987] 2 MLJ 204; [1987] 1 LNS 30 (Supreme Court); Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd. v Penang Garden Sdn. Bhd. [1990] 1 CLJ (Rep) 748 at 751 A-B; [1990] 1 MLRH 495 (Mohamed Dzaiddin J (later CJ)]; Affin-ACF Finance Berhad v Meriplex Sdn Bhd & Ors [2010] 3 MLRH 668; [2011] 8 CLJ 455; [2010] MLJU 969 [Nallini J (now FCJ)]. In Housing and Development Board v Lee Sem Yoong Sdn Bhd (supra) the Supreme Court expressly approved and applied the conditional benefit principle in the following passage of the judgment: “We are of the view that the assignment in this case falls under the classification of conditional benefits as expounded by Megarry V.C. in Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] 1 Ch 106, 290, viz. where the benefit and the burden in an instrument has been annexed to each other ab initio such that the conditions or restrictions became an intrinsic part of the right, it is not only the original grantee who is bound by the burden but his successors in title must take the right as well as assuming the burden.” 14 [40] Assignability of matters under the law of assignment is a common law principle which was also extended to include equitable assignment. Common law principles have been developed in tandem with the progress of society. In light of changes and new developments in our life and society, either new common law principles are enunciated or the pre-existing common law principles evolves to fit in with the needs and common wellbeing of the society at the relevant time. [41] In line with the changes and developments in our life, economy and society, this Court held that the conditional benefit principle should be applied in Malaysia. [42] Although the 4th Defendant’s counsel, being the counsel who strongly advocates the application of the conditional benefit principle in Malaysia through his arguments here, has also submitted that only requirements (1) and (3) in Davies tripartite formulation are really necessary for the application of the conditional benefit principle in a particular case, this Court prefers the English Court of Appeal’s Davies tripartite formulation in its entirety. [43] The reasons for this preference include: (a) the English Court of Appeal has carried out an analytical consideration of the relevant past decisions before coming to this conclusion; (b) conditional benefit principle as an exception to the general rule against assignment of burden should not be formulated too widely so much so that the general rule would be erased or obliterated; 15 (c) with the increase in trades and commercial transactions and the increasing complexities of the contractual transactions, it has become not uncommon to have parties in a contract stipulating for different and separate matters between them, and the removal of requirement (2) from the Davies tripartite formulation would or is likely to result in assignability of all or most types of burdens in a contract, thereby creating an anomaly of making the exception much wider than the general rule; and (d) the conditional benefit principle with requirement (2) is more consistent with the co-existence with the well-settled doctrine of severability in contract terms. [44] In our present case, the transaction between the Developer and the Plaintiffs was the sale and purchase of a residential house to be built by the Developer together with facilities, services and common areas including security guards. [45] The SPA and the DMC were signed together on the same day when the Developer and the Plaintiffs entered into the sale and purchase transaction. [46] Under the DMC, the burden of providing security guards was to be handled and managed by the Developer, and the benefit of having security guards and therefore enhanced security in the development is the intended direct benefit to be enjoyed by the purchasers as residents in the development. 16 [47] The indirect monetary benefit of a probably better market value of residential house in a guarded community if also to be enjoyed by all the purchasers of residential units in a guarded and gated community. [48] It is settled law that there can be more than one documents in respect of a transaction. [49] In the premises, the same requirement (1) has been fulfilled, i.e. the benefit and burden must be conferred in or by the same transaction. [50] The requirement (2) is that the receipt or enjoyment of the benefit must be relevant to the imposition of the burden in the sense that the former must be conditional on or reciprocal to the latter. [51] A party’s benefit is usually also another party’s burden. As far as the Developer is concerned, the burden is in respect of provision of security guards and having to handle and manage the employment of security guards, their housing needs and remunerations, while the seeming benefit to the Developer is the rights to collect service charges from the purchasers (but it is not a real benefit because it is a non-profit activity). [52] As far as the property purchasers and/or residents are concerned, their benefits of having security guards to guard the development are better security and likelihood of better market values for their residential properties in a guarded community, while their burden is the payment of service charges towards the costs of security guards. 17 [53] The property purchasers’ benefits, derived from the provision of security guards, are relevant to the imposition of the Developer’s burden in the sense that the former are conditional on or reciprocal to the latter Developer’s burden. If the Developer removes the provision of security guards, the property purchasers would not enjoy any benefit of better security or likelihood of better market value of properties in a guarded community. If the purchasers remove their burden of having to contribute service charges, their benefits of better security and likelihood of enhanced market value of properties in a guarded community would also vanish. [54] In the circumstances, this Court has held that requirement (2) of Davies tripartite formulation is fulfilled here. [55] As regards requirement (3) that the person on whom the burden is alleged to have been imposed must have or have had the opportunity of rejecting or disclaiming the benefit, not merely the right to receive the benefit, it is noted that when the properties in this development project were sold by the Developer to the purchasers including the Plaintiffs and with the signing of the DMA simultaneously with the SPA, each purchaser knew at the time of signing SPA and DMA that the development was to be a guarded community and they signed the agreements with intention and/or reciprocal commitments that they would contribute towards the costs of security guards. [56] If a buyer did not want the financial burden of contributing towards the costs of security guards in a guarded community, he/she should not have bought any unit of property from the Developer with such guarded community feature and terms. A potential purchaser had, at the time 18 before the signing of SPA and DMC, the full opportunity to reject or disclaim the benefit of better security in a planned development with guard community by him/her refusing to buy the property and also refusing to sign the SPA and DMC. If he/she did not sign the SPA and DMC to buy any property in a planned development with guarded community, then he/she would have no burden of having to contribute towards the costs of security guards. [57] In the circumstances here, requirement (3) is also fulfilled. [58] In the express terms of the DMC, the purchasers including the Plaintiffs specifically agreed that the Developer’s handling and management of the security service will not be forever, and that the Developer has been given express contractual rights, after the completion of the construction and development of the project, to assign its roles and functions under the DMC to the Residents Association or corporation. [59] Here, by way of the Master Assignment dated 1.12.2020, the Developer assigned its roles and functions to the Residents Association comprising of members who are purchasers of the property units in this project. [60] In the premises, this Court held that the Master Assignment from the Developer to the RA is valid and binding upon all the purchasers in the development project. [61] Independently of the conditional benefit principle, even decided cases which did not mention the conditional benefit principle have held that the payment obligation binds the transferee where there is a clear and 19 obvious link between the rights enjoyed by the transferee and the obligation to contribute to the costs of providing the service or facility from which the right of enjoyment is derived (see Elwood v Goodman [2014] Ch 442), or where an instrument may be framed so that it confers a right that is conditional on certain restrictions being observed or certain burdens assumed (see Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd. v Penang Garden Sdn. Bhd. [1990] 1 CLJ (Rep) 748 at 751 A-B and Affin-ACF Finance Berhad v Meriplex Sdn Bhd & Ors [2010] MLJU 969, or where the payment obligation is related to the rights or benefit which the person has continued to exercise or enjoy (see Wilkinson v Kerdene Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 44). [62] Here, after having bought the property unit in a development with guarded community feature, the Plaintiffs have continued to enjoy the benefit of better security and likelihood of enhanced market value of owning a property unit in a guarded community. [63] The benefits of better security and likelihood of enhanced market value of owning a property unit in a guarded community continue to be enjoyed by the Plaintiffs so long as they are owners of the property unit. [64] The present case is unlike those where an assignment instrument seeks to impose a non-payment type of physical obligation upon the subsequent buyer, such as obligation to repair his own roof which was adjacent to a neighbour’s roof (Rhode v. Stephens), etc. In cases where the effect of assignment merely imposes a payment obligation upon the contractee arising from works or services to be carried out by another person which benefits the contractee and such service or work 20 is what the contractee’s original contract expressly stipulated, there is no valid legal reason for the contractee to refuse to make payment for such service or work. [65] In summing up, the assignment of the Developer’s maintenance and management functions, rights and obligations through the Master Assignment to the RA was valid and binding upon the residents including the Plaintiffs. 2nd main issue: whether the RA’s assignment of the RA’s maintenance and management functions, rights and obligations to the 1st Defendant- company was valid and binding upon the residents including the Plaintiffs [66] Arising from the Plaintiffs’ arguments in respect of the 2nd main issue, the outcome of the 2nd main issue depends on the following sub- issues: (1) whether the establishment of KKHills Management Sdn Bhd is illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills; (2) whether KKHills Management Sdn Bhd is a competent legal entity to receive the assignment of the roles and functions from the RA under the DMCs; and (3) whether all the resolutions or part thereof passed in the annual general meeting of Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills held on 19.3.2022 are null and void and of no effect. 21 Sub-issue (1): Whether KKHills Management Sdn Bhd is illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of the RA [67] Sub-issue (1), formulated from the relief (a) prayed for by the Plaintiffs, involves a mismatch of two features. The legality of a limited company such as KKHills Management Sdn Bhd is not dependent on whether or not its objectives, business or articles of association are consistent with the terms of the Constitution of the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills – a different legal entity. [68] Although members of a society are bound by the rules and constitution of the society in their capacity as members, the members of a society have the freedom of other association and are free to form a limited company of their own choice. Such limited company incorporated by some members of a society is a legal and lawful company as long as it is incorporated in accordance with the Companies Act and has lawful objectives. [69] In the premises, it is a mismatch and out of place to consider or decide whether the establishment of KKHills Management Sdn Bhd is illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills. Sub-issue (2): whether or not the Management Company can lawfully take over the roles and functions of the RA under the DMC [70] However, it is a different question whether or not such limited company can lawfully take over the roles and functions of the society. That brings us to sub-issue (2). 22 [71] Clauses of the DMC which are relevant to this question whether or not such limited company can lawfully take over the roles and functions of the society are reproduced below: 4.10 Homeowners association The Purchaser further agrees and covenants with the Vendor that the Vendor may, at any time hereafter and if required by the Vendor as the Vendor in its absolute discretion may deem fit establish or cause to be establish a homeowners association or corporation to take over all or any part of the duties obligations and functions of the Vendor as set out in this Deed. For the avoidance of doubt, the Vendor shall not be obliged to recognise any homeowners association formed by the Purchaser and/or the other owners without the Vendor’s prior written consent. 6.5 Assignment of the Common Area and/or the Facilities The Vendor shall have the absolute right and liberty at any time to completely assign all or any part of its obligation under this Clause to maintain the Common Area and/or the Facilities to any other party person or corporation as the Vendor may in its absolute discretion deems fit and upon such assignment as aforesaid the Purchaser shall thereafter deal with the assignee in respect of all matters pertaining to the same and shall pay all charges referred to in Clause 7 directly to the assignee. Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing the Vendor reserves its rights at any time to surrender all or any part of its duties and obligation to the Purchaser and to the other owners collectively to the homeowners association as set out in Clause 4.11 and/or to the Authority in such manner as the Vendor deems fit and shall not in any way be liable to the Purchaser in such event. 23 8.1 Provision for the Services Subject to Clause 8.2 and Clause 8.3 of this Deed hereof, the Vendor shall provide only the Services and security services until the same are taken over by the homewoners’ association (if any) and/or the Authority (whichever is applicable) Provided Always that if the said Property shall remain vacant without any construction works carried out thereon by the Purchaser, the Vendor shall be entitled but shall not be obliged to cut the grass periodically subject to payments being made by the Purchaser to the Vendor as provided in Clause 7.2 hereof. 8.3 Assignment of the Services and maintenance of obligation The Vendor shall have the absolute right and liberty at any time to completely assign all or any part of its obligation under this Clause to maintain the said Property and provide the Services to any other party person or corporation as the Vendor may in its absolute discretion deems fit and upon such assignment as aforesaid the Purchaser shall thereafter deal with the assignee in respect of all matters pertaining to the Service and shall pay the Service Charge referred to in Clause 9 directly to the assignee. Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing the Vendor reserves its right at any time to surrender all or any part of its duties and obligations to the Purchaser and to the other owns collectively to the homeowners association as set out in Clause 4.11 and/or to the Authority in such manner as the Vendor deems fit and shall not in any way be liable to the Purchaser in such event. [72] interpreted in the context of the DMC and harmoniously and also in light of the indisputable background foundation of the SPAs between 24 the Developer the various purchasers, the relevant clauses of the DMC envisage that the assignment and taking over of the roles and functions of management and administration of facilities and services including security guards shall be to the Residents Association or a corporation collectively owned, controlled and managed by members comprising of all the purchasers in the guarded community project. [73] In our present case, KKHills Management Sdn Bhd is a limited company with four (4) shareholders and four (4) directors who are part of purchasers in the project. [74] Except for these four (4) persons, all the other purchasers in the KK Hills project and other members of the Residents Association are not shareholders or directors of KKHills Management Sdn Bhd. [75] Therefore, KKHills Management Sdn Bhd is not a legal entity which was intended or contemplated by the Developer and the purchasers, who are signatories to the SPAs and DMCs, as a legal entity who is competent and eligible to take over the roles and functions of the Developer under the DMC. [76] In the circumstances, the purported assignment in the Second Assignment, said to be signed between the RA and KKHills Management Sdn Bhd, is a transaction which is not permitted by the DMC. [77] In the premises, this Court has held that KKHills Management Sdn Bhd, with its shareholding structure and directorship as at the material 25 times, cannot lawfully take over the roles and functions of the Residents Association. [78] To qualify as a competent limited company to take over the roles and functions of the RA under the DMC in accordance with the intent and purposes of the DMC, a limited company must have: (a) as its shareholders / members, all the property owners in the project who are able and willing to be its shareholders / members (and not merely some of such property owners); and (b) a Memorandum and Articles of Association which are in substance similar to the rules of the RA. [79] In summing up on sub-issue (2), this Court holds that at the material time of the Second Assignment, KKHills Management Sdn Bhd was not a competent or eligible legal entity to receive the assignment of the roles and functions from the RA under the DMCs. As such, the purported assignment under the Second Assignment is invalid and void. Sub-issue (3): Validity or otherwise of the RA resolutions passed on 19.2.2022 AGM [80] We now come to the resolutions passed at the RA’s 11th AGM on 19.3.2022. [81] Although the general principle is that the members are contractually bound to accept the majority decision of the member decided by the AGM, a court may interfere with such internal affairs of the club in the event the club had acted ultra vires the rules of the club: see Lee Tak 26 Suan v Tunku Dato' Seri Shahabudin bin Tunku Besar Burhanuddin & Ors [2013] 7 MLJ 157 (High Court). [82] In Petrie Christopher Harrisson v Jones Alan And Others [2005] 2 SLR 387, the Singapore High Court held that although the majority of members present at a meeting had an absolute right to regulate procedure and/or conduct of that meeting, this was limited to purely procedural issues. An entitlement to vote, in contrast to the modality of voting, was a substantive contractual right on the basis of which a legitimate expectation to participate in the entirety of the voting exercise would have accrued to each member attending the meeting. [83] This Court does not accept the Plaintiffs’ argument that erroneously or wrongfully denying one (1) member of the society from attending an AGM could invalidate the resolutions passed by the majority of multiple members who attended the AGM, bearing in mind that 36 members voted in favour while only 2 voted against the proposed resolutions. From the quantity of the majority votes at the 11th AGM of the RA, the 1st Plaintiff’s one (1) vote would not make any real or practical difference to the outcome of the passing of resolutions. [84] In the Plaintiffs’ counsel’s submissions, the Plaintiffs have also argued that the RA’s resolutions on assignment to KKHills Management Sdn Bhd were not stipulated in the Agenda circulated for the 11th AGM of the RA and was therefore invalidly or improperly passed at the said AGM. [85] This Court holds that the purpose of Agenda for a society’s AGM is to inform in advance the members the specific matters proposed to be 27 passed at the AGM so that the members are duly informed and can decide whether or not they want to attend the particular AGM to discuss and vote for or against the proposed matters. [86] It is the ordinary habits of human beings that if the proposed Agenda are on the routine matter or the usual management or administrative matters, many members are unlikely to bother to attend the AGM. However, if the proposed matters in the Agenda contain a special or extraordinary matter or a matter which is of great importance to the society or to the members, comparatively many more members who know of such proposed Agenda would attend the AGM to participate in the discussions and voting at the AGM. [87] For the RA society here, there were 270 members but only 39 members attended the 11th AGM based on the Agenda sent out. [88] In order to fulfil the basic requirement and achieve the main objective of giving advance notice of agenda to the members of the society before the date of the proposed AGM, the agenda must specifically state the major or important matters which are proposed to be discussed, considered and resolved at the AGM so that the members of the society have the reasonable opportunity to know the specific major or important matters to be discussed and considered at the AGM and decide whether or not they want to set aside time for attendance at the AGM to state their views and cast their votes for or against the proposed major or important matters. [89] The Office Bearers of a society cannot, under the guise or subtle cover of “any other matter arising”, raise a specific major or important matter 28 which is not expressly stated in the specific items of the agenda. “Any other matter arising” in the agenda for a society’s AGM refers to incidental, consequential or detailing matters in respect another specific matter expressly stated in the same agenda, but it cannot include a fresh matter which is major or of much importance to the society as a whole. [90] In deciding whether or not a particular matter falls within the ambit of the items stated in a notice of general meeting, the Court considers it objectively from the viewpoint of a reasonable reader in the factual context of the case. [91] In the factual context of our present case, after the Developer’s completion of the project and subsequent to the expiry of the defect liability period, the RA’s roles and functions in the control and management of security guards in the project is the sole or principal purpose of forming and continuing with the RA as a society. [92] In the Agenda sent to the members of the society, there was no mention whatsoever of any proposal to assign or pass to another company or entity the society’s roles and functions in the control and management of security guards in the project, which was practically the only business of the society or at least the principal business of the society. [93] The assignment resolutions purportedly passed at the 11th AGM would in effect assign and pass to another company (i.e. KKHills Management Sdn Bhd) the only or principal business of the society. 29 [94] With due respect to the Office Bearers of the society and whoever were advising them at the material times, the assignment resolution purportedly passed at the 11th AGM were passed in contravention of the principles of meetings of societies and the Constitution of the RA. [95] In the premises, this Court held that the items of resolutions passed in the annual general meeting of Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills held on 19.3.2022 are, insofar as they purported to assign or pass the RA’s roles and functions under the DMC to KKHills Management Sdn Bhd, null and void and of no effect. 3rd main issue: whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs and remedies prayed for or part thereof. [96] In this Originating Summons (“OS”), the Plaintiffs seek the following reliefs: (a) a declaration that the establishment of KKHills Management Sdn Bhd is illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills; (b) a declaration that all resolutions passed in the annual general meeting of Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills held on 19.3.2022 (or such other resolutions as this Court deem fit) are null and void and of no effect; (c) a declaration that the Master Assignment Agreement dated 1.12.2020 is invalid, unenforceable and void ab initio; (d) a declaration that KKHills Management Sdn Bhd holds all and any of its assets (including those held by any entity or party) on 30 trust for the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills and/or land owners in Kota Kemuning Hills, including the Plaintiffs; (e) KKHills Management Sdn Bhd to account for all assets and proceeds as trustee to Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills and/or land owners in Kota Kemuning Hills, including the Plaintiffs in each of the breaches of fiduciary duty and/or breach of trust; (f) a declaration that Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills and/or land owners in Kota Kemuning Hills, including the Plaintiffs are entitled to inquiry on such an account against KKHills Management Sdn Bhd (and/or its shareholders and directors); (g) a declaration that Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills and/or its office bearers holds all and/or any of its assets (including those held by any entities or parties) on trust for the land owners in Kota Kemuning Hills, including the Plaintiffs; (h) Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills and/or its office bearers to account for all assets and proceeds as trustee to the land owners in Kota Kemuning Hills, including the Plaintiffs in each of the breaches of fiduciary duty and/or breach of trust; (i) a declaration that the land owners in Kota Kemuning Hills, including the Plaintiffs are entitled to inquiry on such an account against Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills (and/or its office bearers); 31 (j) a Receiver and Manager or such other person as this Court deem fit be appointed for KKHills Management Sdn Bhd, including but not limited to: (i) take possession and control of the property of KKHills Management Sdn Bhd with a view to its winding up as a going concern; (ii) convert the property of KKHills Management Sdn Bhd into money; (iii) inspect at any reasonable time books or documents that relate to the property in receivership and that are in possession or under the control of KKHills Management Sdn Bhd; (iv) investigate and report the affairs of KKHills Management Sdn Bhd to the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills as to how much monies have been received and whether they were utilized in good faith; (v) distribute all the assets of KKHills Management Sdn Bhd in accordance with the above trust; (vi) engage or discharge employees on behalf of KKHills Management Sdn Bhd; 32 (vii) such other things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with, or as incidental to the receivership; (k) remuneration of the receiver and manager or such other person as this Court deem fit to be borne by such person(s), in such proportion and to such extent as may be determined by this Court; (l) after the receivership and distribution of assets by the Receiver and Manager or such other person as this Court deem fit, KKHills Management Sdn Bhd be wound up by the Court under Sections 465 (h) and (k) of the Companies Act 2016; (m) a court-regulated meeting for Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills (which shall be deemed to be a meeting called according to the Clause 7 of the Constitution of the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills and those residents who present and entitled to vote) to be held within one (1) month of the Order made herein; (n) the court-regulated meeting shall discuss and determine the following matters at the meeting: (i) general qualifications/membership of Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills; (ii) functions, rights, duties and powers of management of Kota Kemuning Hills under 270 Deeds of Mutual Covenants from Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills; 33 (iii) disposal of the shares of Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills in KKHills Management Sdn Bhd; (iv) cancellation of such clauses which ultra virus the Constitution Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills dated 1.6.2010; (v) novation of duties, obligations, functions, rights, title, interests, proceeds, and benefits as set out in the Deed of Mutual Covenant dated 4.2.2004 from Hicom-Gamuda Development Sdn Bhd to Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills; (o) this Honourable Court to order on the calling, convening and conduct of such meeting including the appointment of the chairperson; (p) restitution in a sum (which is to be assessed by the Receiver and Manager or such other person as this Court deem fit appointed by this Order) or such other current and non-current assets to be made by the KKHills Management Sdn Bhd and/or the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills to Hicom- Gamuda Development Sdn Bhd or such other persons as this Court deem fit; (q) in the alternative, compensation to be awarded to the Plaintiffs; (r) an order to compel Hicom-Gamuda Development Sdn Bhd to surrender the maintenance of common area to the local authority or such other person as this Court deem fit; 34 (s) a declaration that the maintenance fees and sinking funds are to be paid by the land owners in Kota Kemuning Hills to the newly- appointed party and/or committee; (t) loss and damages to be assessed; (u) costs of this application be provided for including but not limited to parties who is liable to pay the costs, which may comprise of the current and past members of the RA, directors and shareholders of KKHills Management Sdn Bhd, and such other persons who are responsible, in such proportion and to what extent; (v) Shah Alam Magistrates’ Court Civil Suit No. BA-A72NCvC-59- 01/2023 be transferred to this Honourable Court to be dealt with in such manner and subject to further directions as may be given by this Honourable Court; and (w) such further order or reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper, including but not limited to that the Plaintiffs are at liberty to apply [97] As a consequence of this Court’s decision on the 1st main issue, prayer (c) of the OS regarding the Master Assignment is dismissed with costs. The Plaintiffs shall pay the costs of RM12,000 to the 4th Defendant/Gamuda, subject to allocator. [98] As a consequence of this Court’s decision on the 2nd main issue, prayer (a) of the OS is dismissed with costs. 35 [99] As a consequence of this Court’s decision on the 2nd main issue: (1) prayer (b) (challenge against the RA’s resolutions) of the OS is partly allowed, and it is hereby declared that the resolutions No. 2 and No. 3 passed in the annual general meeting of Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills held on 19.3.2022 are, insofar as they relate to purported assignment of the RA’s roles and functions and transfer of shares to KKHills Management Sdn Bhd, are null and void and of no effect; (2) The Second Assignment dated 8.4.2022 which purported to assign the RA’s roles and functions under the DMC to KKHills Management Sdn Bhd is hereby declared to be null and void and of no effect; (3) a declaration that KKHills Management Sdn Bhd holds all and any of its assets on trust for the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills [prayer (d) of the OS is allowed as aforesaid]; (4) KKHills Management Sdn Bhd is to account for all assets and proceeds as trustee to Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills by preparing a statement of account of assets and proceeds and providing the same to the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills within one (1) month from the date of this Order [prayer (e), (f) and (h) is partly allowed on modified terms as aforesaid]; and 36 (5) a declaration that the members of the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills are, subject to payment of administrative charges and subject to their fulfilment of payment obligations in accordance with the rules of the RA, entitled to receive a copy each of the statement of account under item (4) above from the Residents’ Association of Kota Kemuning Hills. [100] All the other reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiffs are dismissed. This Court does not find valid or sufficient basis and reasons for granting the Plaintiffs’ other prayers in the OS because: (1) The guarded community scheme at KK Hills has been approved by the local authority and is a legally recognised community scheme recognised by law; (2) The affairs of the RA as a society should be handled and managed by the society itself and it is up to the society, acting in accordance with the laws and its rules, to decide what is in the best interest of its members as a whole. As long as the society acts and decides in accordance with the laws and its rules, the minority in the society have to abide by the majority’s decisions. The Court’s limited intervention would only be considered where the society acts against the laws or its rules and only to extent necessary to stop or prevent contravention of the law or society’s rules; (3) As far as the Court is concerned, it is not in the overall interest of a non-profit society in charge of a guarded community to appoint receivers and managers, as such appointment entails 37 substantial amounts of fees and expenses over and above the society’s normal expenses. If a society on its own by its properly- resolved decision wants to engage external professionals to manage parts of its roles and functions in the guarded community, or a member thereof by his/her generosity wants to sponsor the costs of appointing external professional to help in managing parts of the society’s roles and functions, it is up to them to make such commercial decision. The Court will not order appointment of receivers and managers for a non-profit society in charge of a guarded community which would have effect of exerting a heavy financial burden upon a non-profit society in charge of a guarded community with meagre source of limited revenue; (4) As a general rule, the Court does not grant an order which requires the Court’s close or intensive supervision in the implementation or enforcement of such court order and which would have the effect of the Court taking over the conduct of the society or company’s meetings and affairs. Even specific performance of a contract which requires the Court’s intensive or substantial supervision and administration would not be granted. As such, this Court dismisses the Plaintiffs’ prayers which seek the Court’s close monitoring and/or significant supervision of the proceedings in the RA’s meetings and affairs. (5) The RA as a society is left to convene and conduct its own meetings in accordance with the law and its rules, and it is not for the Court officials to attend and supervise the conduct of such meetings. If any member of the society wants to keep a audio- 38 visual record of the proceedings at the annual meetings of the society, he/she may do so unless such recording is expressly prohibited by the rules of the society. (6) As it is the intent and objective of the purchasers who executed the DMCs together with SPAs at the beginning of the project that the project when completed would be managed and administered as a guarded community, it is unjust and inequitable for a minority group of members to come to the Court to seek to demolish and/or destroy the basic feature of the guarded community which they all expressly and specifically covenanted in common through the DMCs. Much less could the purchasers of one (1) unit of property purports to seek to demolish and/or destroy the basic feature of the guarded community which they all expressly and specifically covenanted in common through the DMCs. (7) If any person does not want to live in a guarded community with the ancillary payment obligation, he/she should not buy any property unit in a project sold with the guarded community feature. A property purchaser cannot sign the contract for a guarded community with hundreds of other purchasers and then subsequently come to the Court to try to destroy and/or demolish the fundamental feature of the guarded community he signed for. If a buyer changes his/her mind regarding living in a guarded community, after having signed the SPA and DMC with guarded community features together with many other buyers in the same guarded community project, such buyer can sell off his property unit in the guarded community and move to another residential 39 project without guarded community features. It is unjust and inequitable, at the instance of a buyer or a minority of buyers, to destroy or demolish the guarded community features which many other buyers have contracted, paid for and intended to enjoy the benefits therefrom. (8) No damages are awarded to the Plaintiffs here because the Plaintiffs appears to have been in default in paying their portions of contributions towards the maintenance and management of the guarded community. Although the Plaintiffs as members of the society has the locus standi to file and pursue this action for several of the reliefs prayed for, the Plaintiffs’ default in paying contribution towards costs of maintain and managing the guarded community are inconsistent with the intent and objective of the DMC which was signed together with the SPA. [101] As this Court has disagreed with quite a number of the Plaintiffs’ arguments and the majority of the Plaintiffs’ numerous prayers have been dismissed here, the Plaintiffs should not be awarded costs of this suit. Conclusion [102] In conclusion, this Court on 12 October 2023 made the following orders: (1) Item (a) dalam Saman Pemula (lampiran 1) ditolak; (2) Item (c) dalam Saman Pemula (lampiran 1) ditolak dengan kos; 40 (3) Sebahagian item (b) dalam Saman Pemula dibenarkan, dan deklarisai diberikan bahawa resolusi-resolusi No. 2 dan No. 3 yang diluluskan dalam mesyuarat agung tahunan Persatuan Penduduk Kota Kemuning Hills yang diadakan pada 19.3.2022 adalah terbatal dan tidak sah dan tidak berkuat kuasa sejauhnya ianya konon menyerah-hak peranan-peranan dan fungsi-fungsi dan syer-syer Persatuan tersebut kepadaKKHills Management Sdn Bhd; (4) Deklarasi bahawa Suratan Serah-hak bertarikh 8.4.2022 yang kononya menyerah-hak peranan-peranan dan fungsi-fungsi dan syer-syer Persatuan Penduduk Kota Kemuning Hills kepada KKHills Management Sdn Bhd adalah tidak sah dan tidak berkuat kuasa; (5) Deklarasi bahawa KKHills Management Sdn Bhd memegang semua harta atas amanah bagi kepentingan Persatuan Penduduk Kota Kemuning Hills; (6) KKHills Management Sdn Bhd hendaklah kemukakan akaun mengenai semua ast-ast dan hasil sebagai pemegang amanah kepada Persatuan Penduduk Kota Kemuning Hills dengan menyediakan satu penyata akaun bagi asset dan hasildan membekalkannya kepada Persatuan Penduduk Kota Kemuning Hills dalam tempoh satu (1) bulan dari tarikh perintah ini; (7) Deklarasi bahawa kesemua ahli-ahki Persatuan Penduduk Kota Kemuning Hills, tertakluk kepada pembayaran caj pentadbiran dan penunaian obligasi pembayaran menurut kaedah-kaedah 41 persatuan, masing-masing berhak menerima sesalinan penyata akaun yang dinyatakan dalam item (6) daripada Persatuan Penduduk Kota Kemuning Hills; (8) Lain-lain item dalam Saman Pemula (Lampiran 1) ditolak; (9) Plaintif-Plaitif hendaklah membayar kos guaman sejumlah RM12,000 kepada Defendan Keempat, tertakluk kepada alokatur; dan (10) Tiada perintah kos guaman antara Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan-Defendan Pertama, Kedua dan Ketiga. Dated this : 12th December 2023 Signed ..….…................................................................ TEE GEOK HOCK JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM (NCVC 10) To the parties’ solicitors: 1. For the Plaintiffs : Foo Hong Chuen Joycelyn Goh Messrs Izral Partnership (Kuala Lumpur) 2. For the 1st, 2nd & 3rd : Brenda Chan Qing Wen Defendants Messrs Meng Wai & Associates (Shah Alam) 42 For the 4th Defendant : Prisilla Chong Messrs Ranjit Singh & Yeoh (Kuala Lumpur)

Tika 2.6.0

B-05(M)-55-02/2020

PERAYU MAHENDARA RAO A/L SURUNARAYANA RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

Trafficking in drugs - Whether evidence of carrying proven - Whether wilful blindness defeats defeats defence of innocent carrier? - Whether statement of co-accused can be used to call for defence without any other independent evidence?

12/12/2023

YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l ParamaguruKorumYA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin MeeraYA Datuk Ravinthran a/l ParamaguruYA Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=999b859f-a51b-494f-9495-dafa04e3f10a&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B-05(M)-54-02/2020 ANTARA MOHAMAD ZULAZWAN BIN SAALI … PERAYU (NO. K/P: 870111-13-5119) LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Shah Alam Perbicaraan Jenayah No. BA-45A-38-04/2018 Di Antara Pendakwa Raya Lawan 1. Mohamad Zulazwan Bin Saali 2. Mahendara Rao a/l Surunarayana] DIDENGAR BERSAMA DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B-05(M)-55-02/2020 12/12/2023 10:25:56 B-05(M)-55-02/2020 Kand. 41 S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 ANTARA MAHENDARA RAO A/L SURUNARAYANA … PERAYU (NO. K/P: 790101-10-5055] LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Shah Alam Perbicaraan Jenayah No. BA-45A-38-04/2018 Di Antara Pendakwa Raya Lawan 1. Mohamad Zulazwan Bin Saali 2. Mahendara Rao a/l Surunarayana] KORAM: VAZEER ALAM BIN MYDIN MEERA, HMR RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU, HMR HASHIM BIN HAMZAH, HMR S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The appellants were charged with the offence of trafficking a large quantity of methamphetamine at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport 2 (KLIA 2). The appellant in Appeal B-05(M)-54-02/2020 is Mohamed Zulazwan bin Saali (Zulazwan) whereas the appellant in Appeal B-05(M)- 55-02/2020 is Mahendara Rao A/L Surunarayana (Mahendara). Zulazwan and Mahendara were the first and second accused persons before the High Court. At the conclusion of the trial both appellants were convicted of the offence and sentenced to death and hence these appeals. We heard their respective appeals together. [2] We set out the charge below for ease of reference: “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 6/11/2017, jam lebih kurang 7.25 petang di Mesin No. 5 di Pelepasan Domestik, Aras 3, KLIA 2 di dalam daerah Sepang, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 1415.2 gram, dan dengan itü kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan”. Summary of case for prosecution [3] The prosecution called a total of ten witnesses. The crucial witness in respect of the element of possession against Zulazwan was SP5 (Mhd Norazlan bin Abdul Aziz). He is an auxiliary policeman. SP5’s duty was to S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 scan passenger bags through the X-Ray machine at the Domestic Departure Lounge of KLIA2. [4] At the material time, he scanned an Elegant brand black suitcase at Scanner Machine No. 5. He noticed suspicious images on the screen. He asked for the owner of the suitcase. Zulazwan stepped forward and said that it is his suitcase. He was asked to open and remove its contents. After Zulazwan removed a plastic bag containing bread, SP5 noticed a Milo box and a Koko Kruch box inside the suitcase and requested that they be emptied. Unexpectedly, Zulazwan walked away, leaving the suitcase and its contents behind. He was subsequently arrested when he queued up again at Scanner Machine No. 6. [5] He was brought to SP5, who continued with the inspection of the black suitcase in question. Zulazwan removed a transparent plastic bag from the Milo box. It contained a white crystalline substance. SP5 said Zulazwan became nervous and attempted to flee again but was restrained with the assistance of another auxiliary policeman. He was then handed over to the Police Narcotics Division at KLIA 2 where inspection of the suitcase continued in the presence of ASP Mohamad Syairazi bin Mohamad Shapuzi (SP7). The police also found white crystalline substance in the Koko Kruch box. SP7 suspected that the crystalline substance was methamphetamine. [6] Zulazwan told SP7 that the Milo and Koko Krunch boxes had been given to him earlier in the day by an Indian man at a petrol station near the airport. He was told that the boxes contained vehicle spare parts namely that of a Vespa that was ordered by someone named Dahlan. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Zulazwan was going back to Miri that evening. SP7 requested Zulazwan to call the Indian man to come to the airport. Zulazwan was asked to feign that he missed his flight and needed money to purchase another ticket. [7] When Mahendara arrived at the airport with two other individuals, the police arrested all of them. The police did not find any incriminating substance on Mahendara or on the other two individuals. However, the police discovered a plastic packet on the dashboard of the vehicle they had arrived in. It contained ketamine. The crystalline substance found in the Milo and Koko Krunch boxes was sent to the Chemistry Department for analysis. The chemist (SP6) confirmed that the crystalline substance found in both boxes was methamphetamine with a total weight of 1415.4 grammes. That is the case for the prosecution in a nutshell. High Court finding at end of case for the prosecution [8] The learned Judicial Commissioner considered whether there was evidence to support the following elements of the charge: (a) That the drug that was seized was methamphetamine; (b) That Zulazwan and Mahendara were in possession of the drugs; (c) That they were trafficking the drugs; (d) Common intention. [9] The learned Judicial Commissioner considered the evidence of SP5 who told the court that prior to arrest, Zulazwan admitted being the S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 owner of the black suitcase in question in which the drugs were found. No one else apart from Zulazwan handled the suitcase in question at the material time. He also considered the evidence that the DNA material taken from the towel found in the suticase matched the DNA profile of Zulazwan. Since Zulazwan attempted to run away during the inspection at the Departure Lounge, the learned Judicial Commissioner said that it can be inferred that he knew that his suitcase contained drugs. [10] The learned Judicial Commissioner also invoked the presumption of possession from custody under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. This presumption was invoked against both appellants, although Mahendara was not present at Scanner Machine No. 5 when the drugs were discovered. [11] In respect of the element of trafficking, the learned Judicial Commissioner applied the broad definition of “trafficking” in section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 which includes “carrying”. As there was evidence that Zulazwan carried the suitcase that contained methamphetamine at the Departure Lounge en route to Miri, the learned Judicial Commissioner found that there was direct evidence of trafficking. [12] As for the case against Mahendara, the learned Judicial Commissioner considered the evidence of SP7. He said that according to Zulazwan, the Milo and Koko Krunch boxes were placed in his suitcase by Mahendara. Zulazwan was told that it contained vehicle spare parts. The learned Judicial Commissioner also had regard to the evidence of the closed-circuit television (CCTV) still images that showed the appellants leaving the airport area together and later returning with a black suitcase. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 The learned Judicial Commissioner concluded that this constituted evidence of common intention. [13] For the above reasons, the learned Judicial Commissioner found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the appellants and called for their defence. Both appellants elected to give sworn evidence. Defence of Zulazwan [14] He is from Sarawak. At the material time, he lived in Miri. On 3.11.2017, a friend of his by the name Dahlan requested him to collect a vehicle (Vespa) spare part from KLIA 2 and bring it back to Miri. Zulazwan was informed that sending the spare part via post might result in damage. Zulazwan agreed to Dahlan’s request. On 6.11.2017, Zulazwan met Shanmuga, who is an employee of Dahlan in Miri. Shanmuga provided Zulazwan with an Airasia return ticket to KLIA 2, a suitcase filled with clothes, and pocket money of RM150.00. [15] Following Dahlan’s instructions, Zulazwan flew to KLIA 2 that evening and awaited a call on his handphone. Mahendara contacted him and arranged to meet him at Door No. 2, on the third level of KLIA 2. Zulazwan was invited to join him for a smoke and a meal. Zulazwan told the court that Mahendara took his suitcase and placed it in the boot of his car. They then proceeded to a nearby petrol station. Upon arrival, Zulazwan left the car to buy bread while Mahendara remained in the car. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [16] When Zulazwan returned to the car, Mahendara told him that he had placed the vehicle spare part inside his suitcase. He then drove him back to the airport. Upon arrival, he took Zulazwan’s suitcase from the boot and handed it to him. Zulazwan proceeded to the Departure Lounge and queued at the security clearance counter. After his suitcase was scanned, he was asked about the suitcase and ordered to open it. No caution was administered to him. At that moment, Zulazwan decided to go to the toilet. When he returned, he queued up again unperturbed, because he was not aware that there were any drugs inside his suitcase. [17] Upon opening the suitcase at the request of the security officers, he noticed a Milo box inside it. He was shocked and became nervous because it contained a crystalline substance instead of a vehicle spare part. He told the security officers that the Milo box did not belong to him. He explained that Mahendara was supposed to have put a vehicle spare part inside his suitcase. He would not have stood in line at the security clearance counter if he had known that it contained drugs. SP7 instructed him to call Mahendara, pretending he had missed his flight and requesting another ticket. He followed instructions, and as a result, two individuals, whom he never met before, and Mahendara came to meet him at the airport. They were all arrested by the waiting police. Thus, his defence was that he had no intention to traffic the drugs in question, as he had no knowledge of what Mahendara had put inside his suitcase. Defence of Mahendara [18] He worked as a taxi driver with an income of RM100 to RM300 a day. The vehicle he used was a red Proton Pesona bearing registration S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 number HWE 4374. On the day in question, he picked up two passengers in the Bukit Bintang area around 9.20 p.m. and drove them to KLIA 2. The two passengers asked him to wait while they went inside the airport. About 10 minutes later, the police ordered him out of his taxi and handcuffed him. He said the police found a small quantity of drugs in his taxi that was meant for his personal consumption. He was brought to the airport police station, where he noiced that the two passengers he had ferried to the airport had also been arrested. He also noticed a Malay man, whom he never met before, had been arrested. [19] Mahendara denied driving a silver Proton Wira car to KLIA 2 as claimed by Zulazwan. He said that he only drove his taxi. He denied meeting Zulazwan earlier in the day or putting drugs inside his suitcase. However, he admitted that the ketamine that the police found in his car belonged to him. Decision of High Court at end of case [20] The learned Judicial Commissioner directed himself that Zulazwan and Mahendara must be acquitted if they rebutted the presumption of possession on a balance of probabilities or raised a reasonable doubt regarding the trafficking element of the charge. [21] In respect of the case against Zulazwan, the learned Judicial Commissioner addressed the evidence that he was seen by the auxiliary policeman (SP5) carrying the suitcase that contained the drugs in question. Zulazwan was found to have custody of the drugs, and for this reason, the presumption of possession was invoked at the close of the S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 prosecution’s case. The learned Judicial Commissioner disbelieved Zulazwan, who claimed that he thought the suitcase contained a vehicle spare part. His Lordship found it improbable that Zulazwan did not examine his own suitcase and was thus an innocent carrier. Moreover, the DNA profile developed by the chemist (SP4) from genetic material found on the towel in the suitcase matched that of Zulazwan. The fact that Zulazwan ran away during inspection of the suitcase by the auxiliary policeman (SP5) was also considered by the High Court. His Lordship said that it can be inferred that he had knowledge of the contents of the suitcase. However, the learned Judicial Commissioner also invoked the presumption of possession from custody. As Zulazwan carried a large quantity of drugs at the airport on his way to Miri, the learned Judicial Commissioner held that his actions fell within the definition of trafficking under section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. For the above reasons, he found that Zulazwan did not rebut the presumption of possession on a balance of probabilities and that he did not raise a reasonable doubt on the whole of the prosecution’s case. [22] As for the case against Mahendara, learned Judicial Commissioner relied heavily on the evidence of Zulazwan to convict him. He considered Zulazwan’s defence that Mahendara met him at the airport when he arrived from Miri earlier in the day and brought him to the nearby petrol station. Zulazwan said that Mahendara told him that he had put a vehicle spare part in his suitcase. His Lordship also took into account the evidence of SP7 who said that Mahendara came to the airport with two other individuals after Zulazwan called him, pretending that he missed his flight. The discovery of ketamine in Mahendara’s car was also deemed relevant. His Lordship disbelieved Mahendara’s testimony that he had S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 nothing to do with the methamphetamine that was recovered from Zulazwan’s suitcase. For these reasons, the learned Judicial Commissioner held that Zulazwan and Mahendara had common intention in trafficking the drugs in question. In the result, he convicted both Zulazwan and Mahendara and sentenced them to death. Issues in the appeal [23] Counsel for Zulazwan raised the following issues: (a) That there was no evidence that Zulazwan was in possession of the suitcase and that the learned Judicial Commissioner failed to consider that SP5 and SP7 did not administer caution on Zulazwan; (b) That the learned Judicial Commissioner erred in rejecting the defence of innocent carrier; (c) That there was no evidence of common intention between Zulazwan and Mahendara; (d) That the learned Judicial Commissioner did not consider the fact that the prosecution failed to challenge the defence of Zulazwan and Mahendara. [24] Counsel for Mahendara, on the other hand, argued that his client should not have been called to enter his defence in the first place. He submitted that Mahendara was arrested over three hours after the arrest of Zulazwan. He was not at the security clearance counter of the Departure Lounge with Zulazwan. He was arrested after he came to the S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 airport with two passengers in his taxi. The learned Judicial Commissioner relied on CCTV still images that purportedly showed Zulazwan going into a car much earlier. However, the CCTV still images were blurry and do not show clearly that Mahendara was inside the car. Appeal of Zulazwan [25] We shall first address the issues pertaining to the appeal of Zulazwan. Custody of suitcase [26] It must be recalled that learned Judicial Commissioner invoked the presumption of possession from custody against Zulazwan. The main argument of counsel for Zulazwan was that the prosecution failed to prove possession. His reasons are as follows. He argued that when Zulazwan was arrested by SP5, the suitcase was on the table near the scanner machine and not with him. The related argument is that the admission of Zulazwan to SP5 that the suitcase belonged to him is not admissible as no caution was administered. Counsel for Zulazwan also argued that SP5 failed to identify his client. [27] We see no merit in the above grounds for the following reasons. The learned Judicial Commissioner had good grounds to make a finding that the appellant was in possession of the suitcase. SP5 testified that when he saw suspicious content on the scanner machine monitor screen, he enquired generally about the owner of the suitcase. Zulazwan stepped forward and admitted that it belonged to him. It must be noted that S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Zulazwan was not arrested that time. Neither was Zulazwan asked if he would confess to any wrongdoing. No drugs were mentioned. He merely admitted to SP5 that the suitcase belonged to him. The suitcase had not even been inspected at that time. Thus, the argument that the statement is not admissible because it was a confession elicited without the necessary caution under section 37B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is without merit. However, during the inspection process, Zulazwan left the area. He was arrested when he queued up again at Scanner Machine No. 6. This time, he was specifically asked whether he was the owner of the suitcase. As he was under arrest by then, his statement would not be admissible especially in relation to the contents of the suitcase. However, it must be noted that SP5 very clearly said that he was owner of the suitcase on the earlier occasion when the former enquired from the passengers near the scanner machine about the owner of the suitcase in question. In our view this evidence was correctly admitted by the learned Judicial Commissioner. [28] Counsel for Zulazwan also raised the point that SP5 could not identify his client when he queued up for a second time at Scanner no. 6. It was suggested that SP5 and his colleague arrested the wrong person. This suggestion was refuted. SP5 agreed that he did not take a close look at Zulazwan during the initial encounter. However, he clarified that after Zulazwan fled, he promptly reported the incident to the Security Operations Centre whose staff reviewed the CCTV footage, identified the person who left the area during inspection and provided SP5 with a detailed description. As mentioned earlier, Zulazwan, was subsequently arrested when he came to Scanner No. 6. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [29] Furthermore, the DNA test conducted on a towel taken from the suitcase in question proved that the profile developed from it belonged to Zulazwan. Counsel for Zulazwan suggested that his DNA stains from either skin cells or saliva got transferred to the towel when Zulazwan opened the suitcase for inspection. Although, the chemist (SP4) who conducted the examination said that DNA stains can be transferred easily depending on the length of time a person handles exhibits, she did not say that mere touching of the contents of the suitcase to remove the Milo box could have resulted in such a situation. There was no evidence either from SP5 that Zulazwan handled the towel for a period of time during inspection or used it in anyway. The evidence was that he opened the suitcase and he removed the Milo box and its contents. [30] For the above reasons, we find no merit in the submission that Zulazwan was not in custody of the suitcase when he attempted to get past the security clearance counter at the Departure Lounge. In the premises, the presumption of possession was correctly invoked by the learned Judicial Commissioner. Defence of innocent carrier [31] After defence was called, as we said earlier, Zulazwan did not deny that the suitcase in which the drugs were found belonged to him. He only said that no caution was administered on him and that he left to go to the toilet in the midst of the inspection. We note that at the material time he was not arrested. He said as follows in his witness statement: 25. Saya telah meletakkan beg saya di dalam kotak untuk diimbas. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 26. Setelah itu saya telah dipanggil oleh polis bantuan di situ dan bertanyakan mengenai beg saya. Sebelum beliau bertanyakan kepada saya, tiada apa-apa kata amaran yang diberikan kepada saya. 27. Beliau telah mengarahkan saya untuk membuka beg tersebut dan saya telah di arahkan untuk mengeluarkan kotak tersebut. 28. Pada masa iitu saya terus beredar untuk mencari tandas di dalam kawasan perlepasan dan telah meningalkan beg tersebut di mesin pengimbas. (emphasis ours). [32] However, Zulazwan said that he thought that Mahendara had put a Vespa vehicle spare part inside when he was brought out of the airport area to a nearby petrol station. He told the same story to SP7 during interrogation immediately after arrest. [33] The learned Judicial Commissioner rejected the defence of innocent carrier. In our opinion, there is no merit in the argument of counsel for Zulazwan that the His Lordship erred in doing so. The defence of innocent carrier is frequently raised by accused persons who are caught with drugs in their possession. These accused persons would assert that they did not know that the bag they were asked to carry contained drugs. It may well be that in some cases, there is truth in this defence. It is the duty of the trial court to thoroughly examine each case on its own facts to determine the applicability of the defence. In Munuswamy Sundar Raj v PP [2016] 1 CLJ 357, the Federal Court said as follows in respect of the duty of the trial court: [11] In order not to throttle the discretion of judges, let alone no cases are similar, we are loath to lay down restrictive guidelines for courts to consider prior to deciding whether the defence of innocent carrier can prevail. We leave it to the better judgment of the presiding judge. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [34] However, wilful blindness on the part of accused persons as to what they carried would defeat the defence of innocent carrier. In other words, if the circumstances surrounding the case indicate that the accused persons knew or should have known the contents of the items they were tasked with carrying, or if they consciously chose to remain uninformed when they ought to have inquired, the defence will fail. In the well-known case of Public Prosecutor v Herlina Purnama Sari [2017] 1 MLRA 499, the Federal Court, speaking through Raus Sharif PCA (later CJ), said as follows: The doctrine of ‘wilful blindness’ can be summarised to be applicable to a situation where the circumstances are such as to raise suspicion sufficient for a reasonable person to be put on inquiry as to the legitimacy of a particular transaction. To put it another way, if the circumstances are such as to arouse suspicion, then it is incumbent on a person to make the necessary inquiries in order to satisfy himself as to the genuineness of what was informed to him. Should he fail to embark upon this course of action, then he will be guilty of ‘wilful blindness’. In other words, he is then taken to know the true situation. He then cannot be said to have either rebutted the presumption of knowledge or have raised a reasonable doubt as to his knowledge of the situation. [35] The learned Judicial Commissioner gave his reasons in paragraphs [135] to [148] of his grounds of judgment why he found that Zulazwan exhibited wilful blindness as to the contents of the suitcase and was therefore ineligible to avail the defence of innocent carrier. In summary, his reasons are as follows. The learned Judicial Commissioner noted that Mahendara, who was a stranger, had come to the airport to meet Zulazwan and deliver a Vespa spare for transportation to Miri. Zulazwan did not witness Mahendara putting said Vespa spare part inside his suitcase as he stepped out of the car to buy some food at the petrol S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 station. Nevertheless, Zulazwan accepted Mahendara’s assertion that the Vespa spare part was already inside the suitcase without bothering to verify it for himself. Zulazwan had ample time and opportunity to do so as Mahendara left the airport after dropping him off to board the plane. The learned Judicial Commissioner also found it peculiar that Zulazwan was not at all curious whether the Vespa spare part, presumably a heavy or bulky object, was suitable to be placed inside his suitcase that contained his clothes. [36] We wholly agree with the reasons given by the learned Judicial Commissioner for finding that Zulazwan exhibited wilful blindness in respect of the contents his suitcase. As the learned Judicial Commissioner noted, it is improbable for anyone in Zulazwan’s position not to inspect the suitcase after entrusting it to a stranger for the purpose of placing an item inside. After all, the sole reason Zulazwan came from Miri to KLIA2 was to collect a Vespa spare part on behalf of Dahlan. Hence, it defies belief that Zulazwan would passively accept the word of Mahendara, a stranger, regarding the placement of the Vespa spare part inside the suitcase. He could have easily verified the assertion of Mahendara by simply opening the suitcase. Unless, of course, as the learned Judicial Commissioner inferred, Zulazwan already knew that there were drugs inside the suitcase. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned Judicial Commissioner did not err in rejecting the defence of innocent carrier as submitted by counsel for Zulazwan. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Common intention [37] Counsel for Zulazwan argued that the learned Judicial Commissioner erred in finding that there was common intention between his client and Mahendara. Counsel for Mahendara similarly contended that there was no common intention between his client and Zulazwan in respect of the offence of trafficking the drug in question. Common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code provides for joint criminal responsibility (see the seminal Privy Council case of Mahbub Shah v King Emperor [1945] LR 72 IA 148). Thus, if one person commits the actual offence, another person may also be liable for the same offence if it is shown that the offence of was committed “in furtherance of the common intention of all”. [38] However, we fail to see how the argument that there was no evidence of common intention can assist the defence of Zulazwan as he is the primary offender according to the evidence led by the prosecution. On the contrary, lack of evidence of common intention should assist the defence of Mahendara. Zulazwan was arrested as he carried the suitcase that contained the drugs in question at the Departure Lounge. Mahendara was nowhere near the Departure Lounge. He was arrested because Zulazwan told SP7 that he thought that Mahendara had put a Vespa spare part inside his suitcase. The police failed to tender any evidence of observation that can suggest that Zulazwan and Mahendara acted in concert in furtherance of a common intention. In the premises, whilst we would agree with counsel for Zulazwan that the prosecution failed tender evidence of common intention, it is not a ground of appeal that can absolve Zulazwan of guilt. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Alleged failure of prosecution to challenge defence of Zulazwan [39] We find no merit in this ground. Our perusal of the notes of proceedings shows that the prosecution cross-examined Zulazwan at length and challenged him in respect of his defence that he had no knowledge of the drugs in his suitcase. We reproduce below the concluding cross examination questions of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor: S : Sepanjang kamu duduk dalam kereta bersama dengan lelaki India ini, ada kamu bertanya namanya? J : Tidak ada. S : Langsung tidak ada berbual? J : Dia cuma cakap sudah makan atau belum. Itu sahaja. S : Setuju saya katakan bahawa semua keterangan yang kamu berikan hari ini adalah tidak benar? J : Tidak setuju. S : Setuju jika saya katakan bahawa kamu mereka-reka cerita yang kamu berikan hari ini? J : Tidak setuju. [40] For the above reasons, we found no merit in all the grounds of appeal canvassed by counsel for Zulazwan. We found no appealable error and we found the conviction to be safe. We therefore unanimously affirmed the conviction of Zulazwan and dismissed his appeal. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Appeal of Mahendara [41] As previously mentioned, Mahendara was nowhere near the drugs when it was discovered by the police. He was arrested when he came to the airport. His defence was that he came to the airport because he ferried passengers there. The prosecution’s case was that he came because of a phone call that he received from Zulazwan. In the premises, it was incumbent on the prosecution to tender compelling evidence linking him to Zulazwan and the drugs. However, no such evidence was provided. [42] The prosecution tendered evidence of CCTV still images of Zulazwan and another man who had come to fetch him at the airport earlier in the day. However, the prosecution witness (SP9) who tendered the photographs and the investigating officer himself admitted that the said photographs were quite blurry. Even in respect of the phone calls that Zulazwan allegedly made to Mahendara upon arriving in KLIA2, there were no call logs tendered despite the fact that their handphones were seized by the police. Thus, Zulazwan’s testimony is crucial in respect of the involvement of Mahendara. [43] Zulazwan told SP7 that “an Indian man” placed a Vespa spare part inside his suitcase. However, Zulazwan admitted during cross examination that he does not know the “Indian man’s name” since he never asked him. In court, Zulazwan also referred to “an Indian man”. However, he did not explicitly say that Mahendara who was present in court was that individual. In fact, it is telling that when Zulazwan was questioned by counsel for Mahendara, he said he never met Mahendara S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 and denied that he was the “Indian man” he had referred to. The exchange between counsel for Mahendara and Zulazwan is as follows: S : Adakah lelaki India itu OKT 2 yang datang memandu kereta Proton Wira silver dan datang mengambil kamu? J : Tidak S : Adakah kamu kenal OKT ini? J : Tidak kenal. S : Jadi, sebelum kamu ditangkap, kamu memang tidak pernah dan tidak kenal OKT ini? J : Langsung tidak kenal. [44] Thus, Zulazwan’s court testimony cannot assist the prosecution to convict Mahendara. Even, if it could, as it would amount to accomplice evidence, the rule of prudence would require corroboration in the form of independent evidence. But as we said earlier there was none. [45] The learned Judicial Commissioner found that Mahendara acted in concert with Zulazwan in furtherance of a common intention to traffic the drugs in question. We disagreed with the learned Judicial Commissioner and as pointed out earlier there was no evidence of common intention between Zulazwan and Mahendara. In the premises, there was no evidence to link the drugs in the suitcase to Mahendara. Thus, we find merit in the submission of counsel for Mahendara that his client should not have been called to enter his defence in the first place. For the above reasons, we find the conviction of Mahendara to be unsafe. The appeal of Mahendara is allowed and we set aside his conviction and sentence. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Conclusion [46] In conclusion, we dismissed the appeal of Zulazwan and affirmed his conviction and sentence by High Court. As for Mahendara, we allowed his appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. SGD (RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU) Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia Bertarikh: 4 Disember 2023 Peguam Cara: Bagi Rayuan No. B-05(M)-54-02/2020 Bagi Pihak Perayu: Änwar bin Abdul Rauf [Tetuan Anwar Rauf & Co.] Bagi Pihak Responden: Leo anak Saga Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Jabatan Peguam Negara S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Bagi Rayuan No. B-05(M)-55-02/2020 Bagi Pihak Perayu: Lim Woi Kang [Tetuan Rao & Kamal] Bagi Pihak Responden: Leo anak Saga Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Jabatan Peguam Negara S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

MA-A52NCC-60-10/2021

PLAINTIF KEZERK INNOVATIONS SDN BHD DEFENDAN 1. ) CHRISTINA GOO WAN ROU 2. ) MOHD FIKRY BIN MOHD YUSOF

UNDANG-UNDANG KONTRAK: Tiada perjanjian bertulis dimeterai antara pihak-pihak. - Ia tidak bermakna tiada perjanjian dimasuki antara pihak-pihak kerana pihak-pihak telah bersetuju dengan Sebut Harga bertarikh 10.1.2019 bernilai RM486,700.00 melalui emel Defendan bertarikh 19.1.2019. Tanpa perjanjian bertulis, terma-terma dalam sebut harga bertarikh 10.1.2019 adalah perjanjian antara pihak-pihak. Sama ada terdapat kontrak yang mengikat antara pihak-pihak - Ia bergantung bukan pada keadaan pemikiran yang subjektif tetapi pada pertimbangan apa yang disampaikan antara pihak-pihak dengan perkataan atau kelakuan dan sama ada itu membawa secara objektif kepada kesimpulan bahawa mereka berniat untuk mewujudkan hubungan undang-undang dan telah bersetuju dengan semua syarat yang mereka perincikan atau undang-undang memerlukan sebagai penting untuk pembentukan hubungan yang mengikat secara sah.

12/12/2023

Tuan Mohd Sabri Bin Ismail

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=a29b1faf-530c-451c-bc13-6e58c0f68f1c&Inline=true

12/12/2023 11:21:21 MA-A52NCC-60-10/2021 Kand. 79 S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rxbogxTHEW8E25YwPaPHA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

B-05(M)-55-02/2020

PERAYU MAHENDARA RAO A/L SURUNARAYANA RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

Trafficking in drugs - Whether evidence of carrying proven - Whether wilful blindness defeats defeats defence of innocent carrier? - Whether statement of co-accused can be used to call for defence without any other independent evidence?

12/12/2023

YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l ParamaguruKorumYA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin MeeraYA Datuk Ravinthran a/l ParamaguruYA Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=999b859f-a51b-494f-9495-dafa04e3f10a&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B-05(M)-54-02/2020 ANTARA MOHAMAD ZULAZWAN BIN SAALI … PERAYU (NO. K/P: 870111-13-5119) LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Shah Alam Perbicaraan Jenayah No. BA-45A-38-04/2018 Di Antara Pendakwa Raya Lawan 1. Mohamad Zulazwan Bin Saali 2. Mahendara Rao a/l Surunarayana] DIDENGAR BERSAMA DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B-05(M)-55-02/2020 12/12/2023 10:25:56 B-05(M)-55-02/2020 Kand. 41 S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 ANTARA MAHENDARA RAO A/L SURUNARAYANA … PERAYU (NO. K/P: 790101-10-5055] LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Shah Alam Perbicaraan Jenayah No. BA-45A-38-04/2018 Di Antara Pendakwa Raya Lawan 1. Mohamad Zulazwan Bin Saali 2. Mahendara Rao a/l Surunarayana] KORAM: VAZEER ALAM BIN MYDIN MEERA, HMR RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU, HMR HASHIM BIN HAMZAH, HMR S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The appellants were charged with the offence of trafficking a large quantity of methamphetamine at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport 2 (KLIA 2). The appellant in Appeal B-05(M)-54-02/2020 is Mohamed Zulazwan bin Saali (Zulazwan) whereas the appellant in Appeal B-05(M)- 55-02/2020 is Mahendara Rao A/L Surunarayana (Mahendara). Zulazwan and Mahendara were the first and second accused persons before the High Court. At the conclusion of the trial both appellants were convicted of the offence and sentenced to death and hence these appeals. We heard their respective appeals together. [2] We set out the charge below for ease of reference: “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 6/11/2017, jam lebih kurang 7.25 petang di Mesin No. 5 di Pelepasan Domestik, Aras 3, KLIA 2 di dalam daerah Sepang, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 1415.2 gram, dan dengan itü kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan”. Summary of case for prosecution [3] The prosecution called a total of ten witnesses. The crucial witness in respect of the element of possession against Zulazwan was SP5 (Mhd Norazlan bin Abdul Aziz). He is an auxiliary policeman. SP5’s duty was to S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 scan passenger bags through the X-Ray machine at the Domestic Departure Lounge of KLIA2. [4] At the material time, he scanned an Elegant brand black suitcase at Scanner Machine No. 5. He noticed suspicious images on the screen. He asked for the owner of the suitcase. Zulazwan stepped forward and said that it is his suitcase. He was asked to open and remove its contents. After Zulazwan removed a plastic bag containing bread, SP5 noticed a Milo box and a Koko Kruch box inside the suitcase and requested that they be emptied. Unexpectedly, Zulazwan walked away, leaving the suitcase and its contents behind. He was subsequently arrested when he queued up again at Scanner Machine No. 6. [5] He was brought to SP5, who continued with the inspection of the black suitcase in question. Zulazwan removed a transparent plastic bag from the Milo box. It contained a white crystalline substance. SP5 said Zulazwan became nervous and attempted to flee again but was restrained with the assistance of another auxiliary policeman. He was then handed over to the Police Narcotics Division at KLIA 2 where inspection of the suitcase continued in the presence of ASP Mohamad Syairazi bin Mohamad Shapuzi (SP7). The police also found white crystalline substance in the Koko Kruch box. SP7 suspected that the crystalline substance was methamphetamine. [6] Zulazwan told SP7 that the Milo and Koko Krunch boxes had been given to him earlier in the day by an Indian man at a petrol station near the airport. He was told that the boxes contained vehicle spare parts namely that of a Vespa that was ordered by someone named Dahlan. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Zulazwan was going back to Miri that evening. SP7 requested Zulazwan to call the Indian man to come to the airport. Zulazwan was asked to feign that he missed his flight and needed money to purchase another ticket. [7] When Mahendara arrived at the airport with two other individuals, the police arrested all of them. The police did not find any incriminating substance on Mahendara or on the other two individuals. However, the police discovered a plastic packet on the dashboard of the vehicle they had arrived in. It contained ketamine. The crystalline substance found in the Milo and Koko Krunch boxes was sent to the Chemistry Department for analysis. The chemist (SP6) confirmed that the crystalline substance found in both boxes was methamphetamine with a total weight of 1415.4 grammes. That is the case for the prosecution in a nutshell. High Court finding at end of case for the prosecution [8] The learned Judicial Commissioner considered whether there was evidence to support the following elements of the charge: (a) That the drug that was seized was methamphetamine; (b) That Zulazwan and Mahendara were in possession of the drugs; (c) That they were trafficking the drugs; (d) Common intention. [9] The learned Judicial Commissioner considered the evidence of SP5 who told the court that prior to arrest, Zulazwan admitted being the S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 owner of the black suitcase in question in which the drugs were found. No one else apart from Zulazwan handled the suitcase in question at the material time. He also considered the evidence that the DNA material taken from the towel found in the suticase matched the DNA profile of Zulazwan. Since Zulazwan attempted to run away during the inspection at the Departure Lounge, the learned Judicial Commissioner said that it can be inferred that he knew that his suitcase contained drugs. [10] The learned Judicial Commissioner also invoked the presumption of possession from custody under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. This presumption was invoked against both appellants, although Mahendara was not present at Scanner Machine No. 5 when the drugs were discovered. [11] In respect of the element of trafficking, the learned Judicial Commissioner applied the broad definition of “trafficking” in section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 which includes “carrying”. As there was evidence that Zulazwan carried the suitcase that contained methamphetamine at the Departure Lounge en route to Miri, the learned Judicial Commissioner found that there was direct evidence of trafficking. [12] As for the case against Mahendara, the learned Judicial Commissioner considered the evidence of SP7. He said that according to Zulazwan, the Milo and Koko Krunch boxes were placed in his suitcase by Mahendara. Zulazwan was told that it contained vehicle spare parts. The learned Judicial Commissioner also had regard to the evidence of the closed-circuit television (CCTV) still images that showed the appellants leaving the airport area together and later returning with a black suitcase. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 The learned Judicial Commissioner concluded that this constituted evidence of common intention. [13] For the above reasons, the learned Judicial Commissioner found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the appellants and called for their defence. Both appellants elected to give sworn evidence. Defence of Zulazwan [14] He is from Sarawak. At the material time, he lived in Miri. On 3.11.2017, a friend of his by the name Dahlan requested him to collect a vehicle (Vespa) spare part from KLIA 2 and bring it back to Miri. Zulazwan was informed that sending the spare part via post might result in damage. Zulazwan agreed to Dahlan’s request. On 6.11.2017, Zulazwan met Shanmuga, who is an employee of Dahlan in Miri. Shanmuga provided Zulazwan with an Airasia return ticket to KLIA 2, a suitcase filled with clothes, and pocket money of RM150.00. [15] Following Dahlan’s instructions, Zulazwan flew to KLIA 2 that evening and awaited a call on his handphone. Mahendara contacted him and arranged to meet him at Door No. 2, on the third level of KLIA 2. Zulazwan was invited to join him for a smoke and a meal. Zulazwan told the court that Mahendara took his suitcase and placed it in the boot of his car. They then proceeded to a nearby petrol station. Upon arrival, Zulazwan left the car to buy bread while Mahendara remained in the car. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [16] When Zulazwan returned to the car, Mahendara told him that he had placed the vehicle spare part inside his suitcase. He then drove him back to the airport. Upon arrival, he took Zulazwan’s suitcase from the boot and handed it to him. Zulazwan proceeded to the Departure Lounge and queued at the security clearance counter. After his suitcase was scanned, he was asked about the suitcase and ordered to open it. No caution was administered to him. At that moment, Zulazwan decided to go to the toilet. When he returned, he queued up again unperturbed, because he was not aware that there were any drugs inside his suitcase. [17] Upon opening the suitcase at the request of the security officers, he noticed a Milo box inside it. He was shocked and became nervous because it contained a crystalline substance instead of a vehicle spare part. He told the security officers that the Milo box did not belong to him. He explained that Mahendara was supposed to have put a vehicle spare part inside his suitcase. He would not have stood in line at the security clearance counter if he had known that it contained drugs. SP7 instructed him to call Mahendara, pretending he had missed his flight and requesting another ticket. He followed instructions, and as a result, two individuals, whom he never met before, and Mahendara came to meet him at the airport. They were all arrested by the waiting police. Thus, his defence was that he had no intention to traffic the drugs in question, as he had no knowledge of what Mahendara had put inside his suitcase. Defence of Mahendara [18] He worked as a taxi driver with an income of RM100 to RM300 a day. The vehicle he used was a red Proton Pesona bearing registration S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 number HWE 4374. On the day in question, he picked up two passengers in the Bukit Bintang area around 9.20 p.m. and drove them to KLIA 2. The two passengers asked him to wait while they went inside the airport. About 10 minutes later, the police ordered him out of his taxi and handcuffed him. He said the police found a small quantity of drugs in his taxi that was meant for his personal consumption. He was brought to the airport police station, where he noiced that the two passengers he had ferried to the airport had also been arrested. He also noticed a Malay man, whom he never met before, had been arrested. [19] Mahendara denied driving a silver Proton Wira car to KLIA 2 as claimed by Zulazwan. He said that he only drove his taxi. He denied meeting Zulazwan earlier in the day or putting drugs inside his suitcase. However, he admitted that the ketamine that the police found in his car belonged to him. Decision of High Court at end of case [20] The learned Judicial Commissioner directed himself that Zulazwan and Mahendara must be acquitted if they rebutted the presumption of possession on a balance of probabilities or raised a reasonable doubt regarding the trafficking element of the charge. [21] In respect of the case against Zulazwan, the learned Judicial Commissioner addressed the evidence that he was seen by the auxiliary policeman (SP5) carrying the suitcase that contained the drugs in question. Zulazwan was found to have custody of the drugs, and for this reason, the presumption of possession was invoked at the close of the S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 prosecution’s case. The learned Judicial Commissioner disbelieved Zulazwan, who claimed that he thought the suitcase contained a vehicle spare part. His Lordship found it improbable that Zulazwan did not examine his own suitcase and was thus an innocent carrier. Moreover, the DNA profile developed by the chemist (SP4) from genetic material found on the towel in the suitcase matched that of Zulazwan. The fact that Zulazwan ran away during inspection of the suitcase by the auxiliary policeman (SP5) was also considered by the High Court. His Lordship said that it can be inferred that he had knowledge of the contents of the suitcase. However, the learned Judicial Commissioner also invoked the presumption of possession from custody. As Zulazwan carried a large quantity of drugs at the airport on his way to Miri, the learned Judicial Commissioner held that his actions fell within the definition of trafficking under section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. For the above reasons, he found that Zulazwan did not rebut the presumption of possession on a balance of probabilities and that he did not raise a reasonable doubt on the whole of the prosecution’s case. [22] As for the case against Mahendara, learned Judicial Commissioner relied heavily on the evidence of Zulazwan to convict him. He considered Zulazwan’s defence that Mahendara met him at the airport when he arrived from Miri earlier in the day and brought him to the nearby petrol station. Zulazwan said that Mahendara told him that he had put a vehicle spare part in his suitcase. His Lordship also took into account the evidence of SP7 who said that Mahendara came to the airport with two other individuals after Zulazwan called him, pretending that he missed his flight. The discovery of ketamine in Mahendara’s car was also deemed relevant. His Lordship disbelieved Mahendara’s testimony that he had S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 nothing to do with the methamphetamine that was recovered from Zulazwan’s suitcase. For these reasons, the learned Judicial Commissioner held that Zulazwan and Mahendara had common intention in trafficking the drugs in question. In the result, he convicted both Zulazwan and Mahendara and sentenced them to death. Issues in the appeal [23] Counsel for Zulazwan raised the following issues: (a) That there was no evidence that Zulazwan was in possession of the suitcase and that the learned Judicial Commissioner failed to consider that SP5 and SP7 did not administer caution on Zulazwan; (b) That the learned Judicial Commissioner erred in rejecting the defence of innocent carrier; (c) That there was no evidence of common intention between Zulazwan and Mahendara; (d) That the learned Judicial Commissioner did not consider the fact that the prosecution failed to challenge the defence of Zulazwan and Mahendara. [24] Counsel for Mahendara, on the other hand, argued that his client should not have been called to enter his defence in the first place. He submitted that Mahendara was arrested over three hours after the arrest of Zulazwan. He was not at the security clearance counter of the Departure Lounge with Zulazwan. He was arrested after he came to the S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 airport with two passengers in his taxi. The learned Judicial Commissioner relied on CCTV still images that purportedly showed Zulazwan going into a car much earlier. However, the CCTV still images were blurry and do not show clearly that Mahendara was inside the car. Appeal of Zulazwan [25] We shall first address the issues pertaining to the appeal of Zulazwan. Custody of suitcase [26] It must be recalled that learned Judicial Commissioner invoked the presumption of possession from custody against Zulazwan. The main argument of counsel for Zulazwan was that the prosecution failed to prove possession. His reasons are as follows. He argued that when Zulazwan was arrested by SP5, the suitcase was on the table near the scanner machine and not with him. The related argument is that the admission of Zulazwan to SP5 that the suitcase belonged to him is not admissible as no caution was administered. Counsel for Zulazwan also argued that SP5 failed to identify his client. [27] We see no merit in the above grounds for the following reasons. The learned Judicial Commissioner had good grounds to make a finding that the appellant was in possession of the suitcase. SP5 testified that when he saw suspicious content on the scanner machine monitor screen, he enquired generally about the owner of the suitcase. Zulazwan stepped forward and admitted that it belonged to him. It must be noted that S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Zulazwan was not arrested that time. Neither was Zulazwan asked if he would confess to any wrongdoing. No drugs were mentioned. He merely admitted to SP5 that the suitcase belonged to him. The suitcase had not even been inspected at that time. Thus, the argument that the statement is not admissible because it was a confession elicited without the necessary caution under section 37B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is without merit. However, during the inspection process, Zulazwan left the area. He was arrested when he queued up again at Scanner Machine No. 6. This time, he was specifically asked whether he was the owner of the suitcase. As he was under arrest by then, his statement would not be admissible especially in relation to the contents of the suitcase. However, it must be noted that SP5 very clearly said that he was owner of the suitcase on the earlier occasion when the former enquired from the passengers near the scanner machine about the owner of the suitcase in question. In our view this evidence was correctly admitted by the learned Judicial Commissioner. [28] Counsel for Zulazwan also raised the point that SP5 could not identify his client when he queued up for a second time at Scanner no. 6. It was suggested that SP5 and his colleague arrested the wrong person. This suggestion was refuted. SP5 agreed that he did not take a close look at Zulazwan during the initial encounter. However, he clarified that after Zulazwan fled, he promptly reported the incident to the Security Operations Centre whose staff reviewed the CCTV footage, identified the person who left the area during inspection and provided SP5 with a detailed description. As mentioned earlier, Zulazwan, was subsequently arrested when he came to Scanner No. 6. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [29] Furthermore, the DNA test conducted on a towel taken from the suitcase in question proved that the profile developed from it belonged to Zulazwan. Counsel for Zulazwan suggested that his DNA stains from either skin cells or saliva got transferred to the towel when Zulazwan opened the suitcase for inspection. Although, the chemist (SP4) who conducted the examination said that DNA stains can be transferred easily depending on the length of time a person handles exhibits, she did not say that mere touching of the contents of the suitcase to remove the Milo box could have resulted in such a situation. There was no evidence either from SP5 that Zulazwan handled the towel for a period of time during inspection or used it in anyway. The evidence was that he opened the suitcase and he removed the Milo box and its contents. [30] For the above reasons, we find no merit in the submission that Zulazwan was not in custody of the suitcase when he attempted to get past the security clearance counter at the Departure Lounge. In the premises, the presumption of possession was correctly invoked by the learned Judicial Commissioner. Defence of innocent carrier [31] After defence was called, as we said earlier, Zulazwan did not deny that the suitcase in which the drugs were found belonged to him. He only said that no caution was administered on him and that he left to go to the toilet in the midst of the inspection. We note that at the material time he was not arrested. He said as follows in his witness statement: 25. Saya telah meletakkan beg saya di dalam kotak untuk diimbas. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 26. Setelah itu saya telah dipanggil oleh polis bantuan di situ dan bertanyakan mengenai beg saya. Sebelum beliau bertanyakan kepada saya, tiada apa-apa kata amaran yang diberikan kepada saya. 27. Beliau telah mengarahkan saya untuk membuka beg tersebut dan saya telah di arahkan untuk mengeluarkan kotak tersebut. 28. Pada masa iitu saya terus beredar untuk mencari tandas di dalam kawasan perlepasan dan telah meningalkan beg tersebut di mesin pengimbas. (emphasis ours). [32] However, Zulazwan said that he thought that Mahendara had put a Vespa vehicle spare part inside when he was brought out of the airport area to a nearby petrol station. He told the same story to SP7 during interrogation immediately after arrest. [33] The learned Judicial Commissioner rejected the defence of innocent carrier. In our opinion, there is no merit in the argument of counsel for Zulazwan that the His Lordship erred in doing so. The defence of innocent carrier is frequently raised by accused persons who are caught with drugs in their possession. These accused persons would assert that they did not know that the bag they were asked to carry contained drugs. It may well be that in some cases, there is truth in this defence. It is the duty of the trial court to thoroughly examine each case on its own facts to determine the applicability of the defence. In Munuswamy Sundar Raj v PP [2016] 1 CLJ 357, the Federal Court said as follows in respect of the duty of the trial court: [11] In order not to throttle the discretion of judges, let alone no cases are similar, we are loath to lay down restrictive guidelines for courts to consider prior to deciding whether the defence of innocent carrier can prevail. We leave it to the better judgment of the presiding judge. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [34] However, wilful blindness on the part of accused persons as to what they carried would defeat the defence of innocent carrier. In other words, if the circumstances surrounding the case indicate that the accused persons knew or should have known the contents of the items they were tasked with carrying, or if they consciously chose to remain uninformed when they ought to have inquired, the defence will fail. In the well-known case of Public Prosecutor v Herlina Purnama Sari [2017] 1 MLRA 499, the Federal Court, speaking through Raus Sharif PCA (later CJ), said as follows: The doctrine of ‘wilful blindness’ can be summarised to be applicable to a situation where the circumstances are such as to raise suspicion sufficient for a reasonable person to be put on inquiry as to the legitimacy of a particular transaction. To put it another way, if the circumstances are such as to arouse suspicion, then it is incumbent on a person to make the necessary inquiries in order to satisfy himself as to the genuineness of what was informed to him. Should he fail to embark upon this course of action, then he will be guilty of ‘wilful blindness’. In other words, he is then taken to know the true situation. He then cannot be said to have either rebutted the presumption of knowledge or have raised a reasonable doubt as to his knowledge of the situation. [35] The learned Judicial Commissioner gave his reasons in paragraphs [135] to [148] of his grounds of judgment why he found that Zulazwan exhibited wilful blindness as to the contents of the suitcase and was therefore ineligible to avail the defence of innocent carrier. In summary, his reasons are as follows. The learned Judicial Commissioner noted that Mahendara, who was a stranger, had come to the airport to meet Zulazwan and deliver a Vespa spare for transportation to Miri. Zulazwan did not witness Mahendara putting said Vespa spare part inside his suitcase as he stepped out of the car to buy some food at the petrol S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 station. Nevertheless, Zulazwan accepted Mahendara’s assertion that the Vespa spare part was already inside the suitcase without bothering to verify it for himself. Zulazwan had ample time and opportunity to do so as Mahendara left the airport after dropping him off to board the plane. The learned Judicial Commissioner also found it peculiar that Zulazwan was not at all curious whether the Vespa spare part, presumably a heavy or bulky object, was suitable to be placed inside his suitcase that contained his clothes. [36] We wholly agree with the reasons given by the learned Judicial Commissioner for finding that Zulazwan exhibited wilful blindness in respect of the contents his suitcase. As the learned Judicial Commissioner noted, it is improbable for anyone in Zulazwan’s position not to inspect the suitcase after entrusting it to a stranger for the purpose of placing an item inside. After all, the sole reason Zulazwan came from Miri to KLIA2 was to collect a Vespa spare part on behalf of Dahlan. Hence, it defies belief that Zulazwan would passively accept the word of Mahendara, a stranger, regarding the placement of the Vespa spare part inside the suitcase. He could have easily verified the assertion of Mahendara by simply opening the suitcase. Unless, of course, as the learned Judicial Commissioner inferred, Zulazwan already knew that there were drugs inside the suitcase. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned Judicial Commissioner did not err in rejecting the defence of innocent carrier as submitted by counsel for Zulazwan. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Common intention [37] Counsel for Zulazwan argued that the learned Judicial Commissioner erred in finding that there was common intention between his client and Mahendara. Counsel for Mahendara similarly contended that there was no common intention between his client and Zulazwan in respect of the offence of trafficking the drug in question. Common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code provides for joint criminal responsibility (see the seminal Privy Council case of Mahbub Shah v King Emperor [1945] LR 72 IA 148). Thus, if one person commits the actual offence, another person may also be liable for the same offence if it is shown that the offence of was committed “in furtherance of the common intention of all”. [38] However, we fail to see how the argument that there was no evidence of common intention can assist the defence of Zulazwan as he is the primary offender according to the evidence led by the prosecution. On the contrary, lack of evidence of common intention should assist the defence of Mahendara. Zulazwan was arrested as he carried the suitcase that contained the drugs in question at the Departure Lounge. Mahendara was nowhere near the Departure Lounge. He was arrested because Zulazwan told SP7 that he thought that Mahendara had put a Vespa spare part inside his suitcase. The police failed to tender any evidence of observation that can suggest that Zulazwan and Mahendara acted in concert in furtherance of a common intention. In the premises, whilst we would agree with counsel for Zulazwan that the prosecution failed tender evidence of common intention, it is not a ground of appeal that can absolve Zulazwan of guilt. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Alleged failure of prosecution to challenge defence of Zulazwan [39] We find no merit in this ground. Our perusal of the notes of proceedings shows that the prosecution cross-examined Zulazwan at length and challenged him in respect of his defence that he had no knowledge of the drugs in his suitcase. We reproduce below the concluding cross examination questions of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor: S : Sepanjang kamu duduk dalam kereta bersama dengan lelaki India ini, ada kamu bertanya namanya? J : Tidak ada. S : Langsung tidak ada berbual? J : Dia cuma cakap sudah makan atau belum. Itu sahaja. S : Setuju saya katakan bahawa semua keterangan yang kamu berikan hari ini adalah tidak benar? J : Tidak setuju. S : Setuju jika saya katakan bahawa kamu mereka-reka cerita yang kamu berikan hari ini? J : Tidak setuju. [40] For the above reasons, we found no merit in all the grounds of appeal canvassed by counsel for Zulazwan. We found no appealable error and we found the conviction to be safe. We therefore unanimously affirmed the conviction of Zulazwan and dismissed his appeal. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Appeal of Mahendara [41] As previously mentioned, Mahendara was nowhere near the drugs when it was discovered by the police. He was arrested when he came to the airport. His defence was that he came to the airport because he ferried passengers there. The prosecution’s case was that he came because of a phone call that he received from Zulazwan. In the premises, it was incumbent on the prosecution to tender compelling evidence linking him to Zulazwan and the drugs. However, no such evidence was provided. [42] The prosecution tendered evidence of CCTV still images of Zulazwan and another man who had come to fetch him at the airport earlier in the day. However, the prosecution witness (SP9) who tendered the photographs and the investigating officer himself admitted that the said photographs were quite blurry. Even in respect of the phone calls that Zulazwan allegedly made to Mahendara upon arriving in KLIA2, there were no call logs tendered despite the fact that their handphones were seized by the police. Thus, Zulazwan’s testimony is crucial in respect of the involvement of Mahendara. [43] Zulazwan told SP7 that “an Indian man” placed a Vespa spare part inside his suitcase. However, Zulazwan admitted during cross examination that he does not know the “Indian man’s name” since he never asked him. In court, Zulazwan also referred to “an Indian man”. However, he did not explicitly say that Mahendara who was present in court was that individual. In fact, it is telling that when Zulazwan was questioned by counsel for Mahendara, he said he never met Mahendara S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 and denied that he was the “Indian man” he had referred to. The exchange between counsel for Mahendara and Zulazwan is as follows: S : Adakah lelaki India itu OKT 2 yang datang memandu kereta Proton Wira silver dan datang mengambil kamu? J : Tidak S : Adakah kamu kenal OKT ini? J : Tidak kenal. S : Jadi, sebelum kamu ditangkap, kamu memang tidak pernah dan tidak kenal OKT ini? J : Langsung tidak kenal. [44] Thus, Zulazwan’s court testimony cannot assist the prosecution to convict Mahendara. Even, if it could, as it would amount to accomplice evidence, the rule of prudence would require corroboration in the form of independent evidence. But as we said earlier there was none. [45] The learned Judicial Commissioner found that Mahendara acted in concert with Zulazwan in furtherance of a common intention to traffic the drugs in question. We disagreed with the learned Judicial Commissioner and as pointed out earlier there was no evidence of common intention between Zulazwan and Mahendara. In the premises, there was no evidence to link the drugs in the suitcase to Mahendara. Thus, we find merit in the submission of counsel for Mahendara that his client should not have been called to enter his defence in the first place. For the above reasons, we find the conviction of Mahendara to be unsafe. The appeal of Mahendara is allowed and we set aside his conviction and sentence. S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Conclusion [46] In conclusion, we dismissed the appeal of Zulazwan and affirmed his conviction and sentence by High Court. As for Mahendara, we allowed his appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. SGD (RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU) Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia Bertarikh: 4 Disember 2023 Peguam Cara: Bagi Rayuan No. B-05(M)-54-02/2020 Bagi Pihak Perayu: Änwar bin Abdul Rauf [Tetuan Anwar Rauf & Co.] Bagi Pihak Responden: Leo anak Saga Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Jabatan Peguam Negara S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Bagi Rayuan No. B-05(M)-55-02/2020 Bagi Pihak Perayu: Lim Woi Kang [Tetuan Rao & Kamal] Bagi Pihak Responden: Leo anak Saga Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Jabatan Peguam Negara S/N n4WbmRulT0mUldr6BOPxCg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AC-A53KJ-109-11/2021

PLAINTIF 1. ) YUSOF BIN YACOB 2. ) SAMSIAH BINTI MOHD TAHIR DEFENDAN 1. ) SINITHARAN A/P KRISHNAN 2. ) MHC PLANTATIONS BHD

Plaintif-Plaintif telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan saya yang diberikan pada 17/11/2023 melalui Notis Rayuan bertarikh 21/11/2023 (Lamp 39).Rayuan adalah terhadap isu liabiliti sahaja.Dalam keadaan sedemikian, saya mendapati Plaintif-Plaintif gagal membuktikan kes atas imbangan kebarangkalian.Oleh itu, tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif ditolak dengan kos.

12/12/2023

Tuan Gan Peng Kun

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=25b6651a-1656-414e-9985-e6ff52f17e65&Inline=true

12/12/2023 16:31:24 AC-A53KJ-109-11/2021 Kand. 42 S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GmW2JVYWTkGZheb/UvFZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal fl W N Gmvui./vvvrrkszn-ta/uvrzn Ac—As3KJ—1n9—11/2021 Kand. 42 12/11/222; mu-za pug» MAHKAIMH sssvfiu pl vswx mun mum «Esau PERAK mam. n gz; AN uuuuu snvn. no. Al:-A§§K .1»:-w:uz1 ANYARA vusar am ucoa sunsllm sum MOHD um»: .. PLAINTIFPLAINTIF um smmuuuu AIL xnnsuum mm: PLANYAYION Bun DEFEMDAMVDEFENDAN ALAsA§ gsugnmmnm Pfimym LUAN Plamm F'\amm lelah memoaum layman (emadzp ksvmusan says yang dmenkan plda 17/H/2023 me\alm mm; Rlyuin zpmm 21/H/201: (Lamp 39) Rayuan nflmah lemadapwsuMab\hlwsar1a;.n ma ;, 1 Fans tun/2020 [am mum knrang 3 on pevang, Plavml mam. menunggang moms-ks‘ AEP7646 nan am a hendak bahk x. mmlh m Bam 9 Jz\an Manavapnexa mux man F'\amInY Keflua yang melvpxkzm men Plamfi Panama mambmmeng m\os:ka\ lersebut P\amM Kzdua mam ke mankam-h map. um naval memhenkan kevatzngzu kerana keadaan kesmatan henna ynng xmk mengmnkan um Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIZ mum puns! H :2 Ayabwla F1:mlfl—VlamlWsampaI m mu Jalan Yfluk lnun-Hum‘ Me\m\ung merzka xemnax dengan kemahnann dengnn Inn AKKWIY yang dlpandu duh Daflendan Valuma Vets: F'\amI|Y—PlamI:l ualah molasvkal merek: mlawgar flan avah Dawning uleh Dalendan Panama b.ma.sa«.n "pm Duh: 9 mnlFeIIamn(P21) P21 man: an . 14/7/2020 mm a bun mania xemamngnn Vsm Dsisndun Panama pula Iahh mmmiml wa.nw.m.mn.r mum mngmmpu Von behau um bergesa dengan p-nu nebular: mu Von behau. menyebabkan momma: Ierbahas flan pm. is summer. km Duimvdin Pamma mmmm ream nah; (D35) uaaa hen yang sama mm sebpas A9 mwrmkemalangan heflaku De9'endan»D:4end.nn dmnm mqnhan meraka mencabav versl P|amm—P\amM melaluv semn yam: mralatkzn man Dr mum Nnwx @ Nunn Huda am 0nNuan(SP2}da\am1:pman pumbaun (P4) Dalam Sejalah F4‘ swz Ie\ah msncaulkin mammal levgehnclv keraru mum Penama mevasa Femng samun menunqgang spz «em. dlpanmll memhsnkan kehemngan flan belpzlunng manbenkln Den|Blasan,Yan§ nxdanenaavalsaya memuaskan SP2 berpendavalhahnwa kecedzuan yang dmlamn oleh P\aml\l Panama manyebalskan new mix mm: mengmgal uermn now» up: yang sebenmnyn berhku svz juga berpamang mervyemak Vavflfan Vapnrin danpada Jabman Fembedahan Am (>22) din Jabatan Bsdah Mmu1(P23JdIn menywmpulkan bahawa vava doklor yang msmm Flamm mam. berseluyu hnhawl Plamm Panama uemnax dalam kemihnqan man vaya cuma udak push mekamsme bevlakmvyi ksmahnqnn man var: lersabnl 2 sm Gmwixvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 13 u :5 1a 17 1s Saya menenmn penjeiasnn yang dwbsnkan man SP2 bahawn se.am. ylrvn am.-mun behau mam Po Ialah oenla yang mm. mm: ukah mbenkan aleh Plamm mum. lanpa memenkn dmgan mendalam keoademnn yang mahml ob?! wnamm Panama Soiepas nemenkuan Varum du.a\ank.In Xe max Namln Pannm-I, $92 berpsfldapal ucmeman yang dmamv ulnh Plamm Penama boleh menyeblhkan beinau membenknn cum: yang be¢uI>ah—u|7nh Owl Ilu‘ k.ema\anaan ylng belllku bukamah dnsablhkm Nah Plalnlfl Pananu yang m. I penmg semngan meuyebabkin mmomunya ne.geu..cn Wahupun detmkxan‘ »=u..nm=:amm:masm mermkulbahan umuk memhukuknn kg. tzmadap Dalandanrhelendnn Ila: mangan Kzbnvnngknlun Dalam kes Mend Shllmtfin Aou mm H V Mmummu Salwin Abu sum [mm 1 ms Au, Mafvkamah Ymggw msmumskan sedemvkun -ms mm was bmugm by my Plarnlrfl and the human L: on me mum 1.; nmva his mum, based on the balance 0/prubabalrl/es ma burden 0! wave rest: WI!!! WV: mum and me Pmmvflrs lo drsmama .1: onus m prove rt: cause a( swan Hymns! mo Defendant as mm by Ms Fads»-al Cour! m lire case M Letchumwvsn Chumar Alaqappan {A5 Execumr m SIA/amelaa Acm mscsasecm &Anor V Secure Planlnlron S117! and (201715 cm 415 1201714 MUSE? Based on Lelmumanan Chemnr ysuplu) cue, sec!/on V01 arm Evraoncv As! 1950 um referred holdmg Ina! the burden la maam the cm rvsls mrouqmm on m pany who assens the alflrmntrve onna Issue “ Sepem ying dmyatakan m alas‘ F\amm-Plmrml den Devena. Dalundan membenksn veal yang namm tenlang hagamuna xernalangan baflaku 3 sm Gmwixvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 19 over. nu, say: memnurwm kewappalv umuk mengkau flan menelm kgiemua kalerawan ‘(nun mkmwkakan‘ -mg... menglmbvl kw: bdrm memhuku artmah Imlatak alas bum PI:mM—F1aInIr1 2:» Dawn Kes Naarilnlil-inol Alldln a on v Tnnv LeIND¢[1PIWl 2 cu Rev 545, Mahkamah memmuskan sedzrmkwan ‘u rs usslul mum. him iura momsnt to say: low words rsgammq in- approach winch a mu Judge shun/:1 mm NI mmrmg ms tvrdsnc: adduced .2 a ma! u Ila: been slated m Mmerou: case: mu: m m4 that me swdence gvvan by I!» wrlnsssss olonepany was unshsken or unbruwn rs ml per as an EN .mIfc«’mIncn1:e:I nlcvcdmmly and mm M: .m..n: pmoanmryanmpmm.my aims /acun Issue must be memme wnsrdelslmn . :65 Ior mstumx Mummy 5 Ors, v pp (vase; 1L/vs 1 H7[1E66]1MLJ 257, Dale Makhrnrbm Hoslwm V 2:: pm; cu map) 1:71 nu ma» V um Wan Kev (195411 ms 1351195511 ML] 135 at p 372 /1 ha: 515» mm. sud that . my Judge mom not approach we. cm upon me am oldacadrng mm mm; Ma conflwtwg stuns: n. should mm mu rather an me am oicarmdenng mm vclsian rs whale/VW promos mmpmmm . sac (nr Instance Kmay wk cm» 5. 07: V Rug [1956] ML./ 52 wmn mess pnncrpaes m mmd I man now an-es: en. awaam: m Inc pmssnl cars - 21 Keterangan yang dukemukakan man ueaumua Ion dnn mo(auka\ belgevak dnlnm haluin ‘(lug sama‘ um can bawah ks aha mevunkul .3.» (P1; 22 mamm Panama menyzlikan Van nemaan Panama man mmanggavnya dan my. hawking lap: mm m langahrlallgah kerana sewany: pelanggaran herlaku dlbflhaglan|eIIglh,muInl1ka\dan bahauakan Ielmasuk K2 mm. hn 23 Say: mmapau vam m. max msoknng Men kemeakan yang malarm (den mmumkal am buying ms-mavawkan man mm. penymsm LSP‘UdalIm 5:9 wssw 2 sm Gmvaxvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 .2 may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 24 25 25 27 23 29 an nae: keroiakandlsenarawkan oleh SP1 pad: manawuanabahigxan dwan Van. um: la: a. cam Inn hucu hadapnn km dun kanan‘ dun bnhaqmn belakang mnlaswkal Kemsikan melnsvkm . an m hahngmn kznan rump... mm. name kanan‘ brek laugan can laIn—\am manakala karvsakzn hm walah m pm samun km senammya. kemsakan yang malerm mulunkzl an Inn kanswslen danflin vars! uemnm Panama. -am: malaria! lelah bergesemengarv pmln xahallh km mu yang 4«pu-cum lalu tevhabn: am pluh Wa\au nagaxmanapun, say: «mu dapal meneman same ad: mnluslul yang nwngmmpn Ion atau Ion ylng mengmmnI| mmomu km kekumngnn bukm yxng awkemulukan semis: pemlcavaan Wflaupun mm-, behan membukn admzh xemxaus um FlamlxV—P\a|rml Pamyatann mum plus menyacaxan kemxmngan benaku m man: km mexanggav manusuw flan amh behking Say: mcmnpam kerosakzn pad: mulomkal am Lon um menyokurvg vevsw seaemmn Kalelingan Phlnlfl Panama pma bnvslal SAN-sarvmg Mxnakah kefimangnn sm ada\ah dengxlcakfia danaersnrat vendapilsarnalr Mala Dalam kes Llm Juh Nnurv Nlclcolu mum» *p A Amzr[2D19] 1 ms 1:mManum.n memumskzn sedermknan ‘The court showd mu attach any wmgm in Ms swoence clan ro mm: psmcular many has been negligent or Hat [Ar ward: In line! also!) Dacause m whemsra partyrs name larneqlrgsrvca oramsrwlss rs to be deemed ny the mull. (2) an ro has no yersanz! mwvaag. Iigarvmg m. ncmdern The I0‘: knawlldge allhe acmden.‘ rs derwcd mmyrmm me resulls arm to‘: 5 sm Gmwixvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! mvsatrgnlmn m ulhar wards, m. 10': avrdsncl ragirdnng who .5 H5911?” ‘M ML calvsnlufss nsmay ewdenae 7 lab’ on the /aflawmf ,ua.7m.m of o..., Hm Thy: Ag ox ma»-y-» Ismmg .5 . Hag» Cum Judgw m mm Pvoascalor V Stew Sung[1955] 1 ms um Imeslv ML./ 145, at1l5,as VaI1ows— 'YheInspec1n(ssw'derv:.a Mathis ....;m.s Izdmmln :..».v.»..: we accused was owner oflns macluma. was ugh!/y ma. our .5 hursnv. MW" Oblactvorv rarred by nfiisncu nouns»/.' fsmphams nddn-17, and 13» an 10's swdervcs rsqanimv who ,5 new/mm oromsrwrsa u amely ms or her apmn ma cowl cam: now apm-on swdenca mum Mars 1: s mam: we balms Ins mm mm rs n.,.:..a m. mun‘: wmbatsnce wnsrum the court may accspl M sxpen apvman undo! g 45m EA Sacborv 451115»: prvwdu as ?ol1uws— 'Op»munA' olsxpefl: 45(1) Men the court has to lawn an Owmon upon 5 Dom! cl «Wyn Aim/urofxctsnca own, are: twdqnmy organumsnsss or handwntmg or finger rmorsurons, me opmmns upmv mm pom! of Person: spewalry when m Ina! Iomgiv law mm or 8/1, 0. m quaxlmns I! :9 mm, mgenmrvnness of nandwnlmq vvfingsr rmbmxxrms, any raievanl mm “ 31 Dalam ksadaan uedemlkml uya mendlpall mamumamm max membukhkan kes alas vmbangan Keharanfikahan :2 cm Nu twwtuun P\:\nlfl-Fmlnlfl dnohk dengin In: (El KUANTIJM 33 Saplm yang dmyiliknn m alas. rnyuan mmmvv idahh lamadw Am nanum mm Nnmunaemxknan say: membamangkaruuqa takumn g.m.mgm.sw unmk kesenanqan Mukan v». Hakwm Illankamah Tmggw :4 am. mg! um P\mnMFerIama mxamxan sepem henkut a sm Gmvaxvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! Loss ul cousmousnzsa‘ ralvogmde annasa, mun lraumllm Dram Vruury mm um: "um pnnmal subuznclvuoid hamomvaqa, ngM oocwpwm enae|>hn\uma\au-I — mm mo «:7 Fracluve anmemvwau ngm maxulalysmuswxlh rmmma\ llmdlevellng and an pockzls wmm V wzuauo (C) Mumpxe nhvixmn wound. sun lusue wmv ngm chul mu Ind right mgn — mama (a) Commumly anquved pneumuma — mink ammm gm‘ dxnpada kemalarvian ml (5) Fraclum M n-lama! Valera! merygosd plate — Rmsmn (nuuk P247 (n Muuzls waslmg :71mer\uNu>n\l:nd\>ugh . mzwno 35 Gaul! mg! am Plamln Kenna drlnkxlrxan upam mm (a) Loss cl mnscmuxness — RM5.5D0 (:3) Mullxph am. on wound over rluhl shuuman ngm mda amsarsume ac tongue Vacerauen wmmfl uvlv ugh! lerehead. lammlmn wnund aver scam — wmmmo 4:) Demovlwg wmma n| nghllhngh axposmy llama — Rmumo my Ohmuzlwe hydrocephalus mvo\vmg mm \aIua\ and mum venlndes samndary ta mmpresslan av cerebm aquedlm hy quadngeawlil aracnnma cyst. non dlsvlaued lradure ngm zygmm avch. nun mswaced lmcmve snuamous null .24 um temponl bone extzndmg mlo emnummpmau sum lraumahc ngm wnmm sinus Vmclure 7 sm Gmvaxvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm (2) (0 wllh air pockets at r-gm ‘mm: omnlal mum, mm suhmxamn ul nghl spnemzyqamm Mme . Rmsoao M-me wishing uflhe "gm uwm m._;n — mm mm Scar- nmmouo as sann mm khas PIamMFeflama mmsmn izpem hsvlkm (at M Le) Aer to (97 m Nunmq care -mink a.m.xmn Kerasakzn pikanan. lam tanvan nu-apt-one dan xasm — max mbukukan P=rbe1an|iin pengllanlnn an an pembnlan — mm no (Pea) . mm 55 0:12) » Rmsn 00 (Pan Kn: wawan pemnanan paku . mssuao (bzetab :1... M; Km mwman fIsnIzrapx—1fA x RMZBBD M960 . P\a|nM~Pmrmf um menumnkkan bahzwa rawahn fiuzyluvarfl «mu now.» awanem a. manual »m,a.n Olah nu‘ hnnyl we mam anggnran kas dnbenarkan Kus pemnenan lavovan Pambalan (V27{a) Gan mm ~ man on n ma) ~ awn no Kai Dembelun dokumen Pohs — bawalv kns Kai vsrmn... lipavin mm 37 Gum rug! ms mum Kzdua mlaksnrkan sevem mm 1:) «:7 re» (at m Nursmfl cave — um dlbukhkan Ksvasakan pikamn ‘am moan, hnndphflrle mm mm _ hdak mbukllkan Pevbemnliafl Dengubatan uan ml perubaiin — mzsso (mo) . museums» Kus Vapnrln nembilan pm:— mam an (F1343) dan um Km rawalan nsmevaw — m x wzaan = RM950 :4 sm Gmwixvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm , F'\aInnI—PlamInI max menuruukkan mam rawalan Iiuol:up4 um wan dwpevmem .4. mane: karajaarv oxen Mu hanya us flanpada angqavan kos ammuxan (:7 Kn: pembelllvv Wauulan pembnlnn (P15)—RM200 an Faedan I 2 5% setamm ms garm W khas dan mun Iramalangan sehmgga mu penghaknman 5% sen’-mun alas germ mg. am flan lankh penyaahan saman sahlnggi tankh penghlklmzm , 5% mm alas purmah pengnaman davltankhpervgmkxman sehmgga lankh penyelesaxan penuh Kn: mengnkul max. 12 msEMaER zuzs F-uulmclv-I PllinIfl—PlaIrm! u luau Tlluan an... 5 Cu Ptnutmcara :1. ndan-Dalevldln Rum Kumr Ynluan xx: 1. Kumar . wan.--.. g sm Gmvaxvvvmxszn-uuvrzn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-24NCvC-1396-07/2023

Land law – right to sell land – settlement agreement signed between proprietor and lender – terms of settlement agreement – interpretation – contract term in vague or general wording allowing lender to assist proprietor to sell land at price not lower than a stated amount – whether contract clause divesting the proprietor of his proprietary right to sell the land – no power of attorney was signed – no trust was created – obligation of the lender under clause on assistance to sell land – whether lender can sell land much below its fair market value – discretionary remedy of specific performance – whether should be granted to enforce the lender’s request to sell land at a price much less than its fair market value.

12/12/2023

YA Tuan Tee Geok Hock

WA-12BC-4-04/2023

PERAYU TANG HANG TOW RESPONDEN FIXUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Enclosure 1. In the Appeal before me, the Appellant had by way of a Notice of Appeal dated 30.3.2023 (“Appeal”) appealed against the entire decision of the Session Court dated 27.3.2023 (“Judgment”) in dismissing its claim against the Respondent and granting the Respondent’s counter claim (“CC”) for inter alia the sum of RM301,192.69 and for damages to be assessed for rectification of works.

12/12/2023

YA Tuan Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=937bfcc7-e81a-46c3-8342-1bb51a61c97f&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN RAYUAN DAN KUASA-KUASA KHAS) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. WA-12BC-4-04/2023 ANTARA TANG HANG TOW (NO. K/P: 870128-14-5241 (Berniaga di bawah nama TANG CONSTRUCTION) (No. Perniagaan: 001797697-D) …PERAYU DAN FIXUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1161281-M) …RESPONDEN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 1) Appeal [1] In the Appeal before me, the Appellant had by way of a Notice of Appeal dated 30.3.2023 (“Appeal”) appealed against the entire decision of the Session Court dated 27.3.2023 (“Judgment”) in dismissing its claim against the Respondent and granting the Respondent’s counter claim (“CC”) for inter alia the sum of RM301,192.69 and for damages to be assessed for rectification of works. 12/12/2023 17:11:23 WA-12BC-4-04/2023 Kand. 34 S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [2] The Appellant had in support of its Appeal argued that the Learned Sessions court Judge (“SCJ”) had erred in her decision when, amongst others, the SCJ had decided: 2.1 not to award the Appellant its claim for RM334,571.64 under Progress Claim no 4 (PC 4) of which RM117,899.52 was certified by the Consultant and it claim for quantum meruit under Progress Claim no 5 (PC 5) for RM166, 679.37 for works completed and the return of the retention sum of RM49, 992.75; 2.2 granted the CC, which CC amounted to an unjust enrichment; 2.3 the damages to be assessed under the CC included the clearing of defective works or rectification works, losses and cost for the delay; 2.4 to award progress claim no 5 dated 7.1.2021 in the CC when the same was not approved by the Consultant as per the Letter of Award (“LA”); 2.5 the LA was terminated by the Respondent when the Appellant had themselves surrendered the site back to the Respondent and thus the CC has no merit or basis; 2.6 taken into account the costs for the ‘cold room’ in the Appellants Progress Claims when the rectification of works done by the Appellant did not concern any works with regards the installation of the cold room; 2.7 the delay in the Works was not caused by the Appellant but was in fact due to the Respondent being unable and/or failed to obtain the approval of the Consultant on the type of tiles etc which led to the said works being unable to be executed. S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Issues [3] The issues to be decided by this Court based on the grounds for the Appeal is in essence as follows:- a) was there a delay in the Project; b) was Progress Claim no 4 and 5 payable to the Appellant; c) was the LA terminated; d) whether there were Rectification Works. Brief Background Facts [4] The Appellant was appointed by the Respondent vide Letter of Award (“LOA”) dated 24.2.2020 whereby the Plaintiff was appointed as the sub-contractor to complete works in relation to Project “4 Unit Makmal Teknologi Makanan Satu Tingkat di Institut Teknologi Makanan Mara (Intem)” (“Project Works”) (“MARA”). [5] The LOA is for five (5) months from 26.2.2020 until 27.7.2020 as stated under Clause 2 LOA. [6] Project works commenced on 16.3.2020, however due to the enforcement of the Movement Control Order (“MCO”) by the Malaysian Government on 18.3.2020, the work had to stop and it was continued on 1.5.2020 after obtaining approval from the Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (“MITI”). [7] On 17.7.2020, the Respondent obtained an extension of time under the LOA until 17.11.2020 from MARA. S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [8] The 2nd Extension of Time was given until 21.12.2020 by MARA; [9] During the duration of the Project Works there were frequent delays of payment of the ‘Progress Claim’ by the Respondent resulting in outstanding payments for Progress Claim No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5; [10] The LOA was terminated after the parties held a meeting on 16.12.2020 to discuss the issues of delay in payment from the Respondent and delay in the completion of the Project Works; [11] The parties then reached an agreement whereby the work site will be handed over to the Respondent on the condition that the Respondent settles all outstanding payment; [12] On 17.12.2020, The Appellant handed over the work site to the Respondent; [13] The Appellant conducted a “Joint Inspection” with the Respondent on 7.1.2021 and identified defective works; [14] After the said Joint Inspection, the Appellant agreed to carry out remedial works and cleaned the said Premise on the condition the Respondent would settle all outstanding payments; [15] However, the Appellant claims that the Respondent had allegedly breached the agreement and failed to make any payment despite the fact that the Appellant had allegedly done the rectification works and cleaned up the said Premise; S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [16] Despite repeated demands, the Respondent owes the Appellant the sum of RM334,571.64 as at 12.12.2020 [17] The Appellant has filed a suit against the Respondent to claim for the sum of RM334,571.64 being the outstanding sum for Progress Claim No. 4 and 5. Courts Analysis and Findings [18] It is trite that an appellate court should not interfere in the finding of facts by the court below, as per the Federal Court in China Airlines Ltd V Maltran Air Corp Sdn Bhd (Formerly Known As Maltran Air Services Corp Sdn Bhd) And Another Appeal [1996] 2 MLJ 517 save where the instances referred to by the Court of Appeal in Aseambankers Malaysia Bhd & Ors v Shencourt Sdn Bhd & Anor [2014] 4 MLJ 619 where Abdul Malik Ishak JCA (as His Lordship then was) in delivering the judgment of the said Appellate Court held; “[52] An appellate court will interfere where the trial court had misdirected itself and applied the wrong principles of law. The appellate court will not hesitate to interfere with findings made by the court of first instance where there was insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence or where the findings do not accord with the probabilities of the case. [19] Thus, in coming to my decision herein, I have had to read the written grounds of the SCJ and in doing so, I have made my findings and my decision on the appeal is as per my written grounds herein below. S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [20] I have also read the LOA in particular: a. clause 4.1 which speak of progress claims to be submitted on the 25th of each month and that the same ‘must be valued by our Project Manager or Quantity surveyor’ and which ‘will be honoured within 30 days of certification of value of work done’ and failure to do so will not entitle the Appellant for compensation for loss and/or expense save the amount certified’; b. the Respondent is entitled by clause 4.2 to ‘make any correction or modification in any previous progress payment’ issued and authority ‘to omit or reduce the value of such work in any progress payment’; c. Under clause 4.3 the Appellant shall receive no payment for unsatisfactory work. Delay [21] It is undisputed that the Project was suspended due to the Movement control Order (“MCO”) imposed by the government during the Covid- 19 epidemic. [22] There were various documents produced before the SCJ which allegedly showed or evidenced the Appellant’s delay in work progress which consisted of inter alia: (i) Laporan Kemajuan sometime in August 2020 at 365/RR7; (ii) a letter from MARA dated 18.9.2020 at 167/RR7; S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (iii) Delayed in Physical Work Progress dated 21.9.2020 (“Warning 1”) (169 – 173/RR6); (iv) On 22.9.2020, requesting the Plaintiff for Full Time Site Representative (175/RR6); (v) On 22.9.2020, requesting the Plaintiff for submission of M&E Shop Drawing and Its Infra Detail (176/RR6); (vi) On 23.9.2020, requesting the Plaintiff for Recover Plaint and New Work Program due to delayed site progress by the Plaintiff so that the Project can be completed by EOT 1 (177/RR6); (vii) On 26.9.2020, requesting the Plaintiff for All Approved Materials to be Arrived at Site on 30th September 2020 (178/RR6); (viii) On 30.9.2020, for the Plaintiff to supply Additional Workers at Site as committed by the Plaintiff himself (179/RR6) on 30.9.2020; and (ix) Delayed in Physical Work Progress No. 2 dated 2.10.2020 in respect of the Plaintiff’s continuous delay of the work [23] It was alleged that the Appellant did not respond to the aforesaid letters and this was agreed to by the SCJ as shown at enclosure 13 i.e the Rekod Rayuan Tambahan (“RRT”) and that the SCJ had relied on the authority of the Court of Appeal case of David Wong Hon Leong v Noorazman Adnan [1995] 4 CLJ 155 “the person who receives the letter must answer it if he means to dispute the fact that he did so agree”. [24] In the trial, the witness for the Respondent DW1, had also testified that the Appellant’s work progress particularly in the demolition works was slow and caused a delay in the timeline. S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [25] Following from this, I do not find any error in the SCJ’s decision on this issue of there being a delay in the work progress of the Appellant which led to a second extension of time (EOT 2) until 21.12.2020 which EOT 2 was confirmed in the trial by the Appellants sole witness PW1. [26] After EOT 2 was granted, the evidence shows that the Appellant had still delayed in achieving the timeline given for EOT 2 which led to the Warning 3 letter dated 10.12.2020 issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at page 168, RR5 and the Appellant via PW1 admitting that the Appellant surrendered the Project voluntarily to the Respondent. [27] Thus, the SCJ was correct in her findings that the failure of the Appellant in completing the Project was due to the Appellants own doing (‘tingkah laku Plaintif sendiri’) which amounted to a breach of the LA and not for the reason of the Respondent’s non payment for Progress Claim nos. 3 and 4. Progress Claim Nos. 4 and 5 [28] I had in coming to a decision on this issue also considered the Appellant’s argument that they were entitled for works carried out under Progress Claim no 4 and 5 which the Respondent argues were in breach of the LA and the non compliance with the Bills of Quantities (“BQ”). [29] In this respect I had perused clauses 7.3 and 12.3 of the LA which stated at clause 7.3 that the Appellant was to indemnify the S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Respondent of ‘any claim, damage, loss or expense due to …negligence or breach’, and at clause 12.3 that the Respondent shall have the right to ‘recover or to deduct from or set off against any amount’ due to any damages or loss and expenses suffered by the Respondent due to the same which was relied on by the SCJ in coming to her decision. [30] I have also noted the SCJ had decided that there was no failure by the Respondent to make payment under Progress claim no 4 and 5 as the Appellant had amongst others changed the brands for the tiles and epoxy only provided the sample tiles and epoxy on 30.11.2020 and that DW3 had testified that it would take MARA’s consultant at least 2 weeks to approve the said items. After looking at the evidence, I agree with the SCJ that there was no failure by the Respondent to make payment under Progress claim no 4 and 5. [31] In this respect, I have observed that the Appellant had contended that a progress claim has to be approved by a consultant in accordance with clause 4.1 of the LA, but in the trial it was in evidence that DW4, the Respondent’s Quantity Surveyor, had testified that for Certificate no. 5, was done in March 2021, after taking into consideration the joint inspection on 7.1.2021 where the Appellant had acknowledged the said defects and the works yet to be done. [32] The SCJ had held that there was no evidence before the Court that the Appellant had completed the works in Progress Claim no.5 and that the Appellant did not challenge the assessment of the same as averred by PW 1 in cross examination and only challenged the right S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 of the Respondent to do so. This would rightly lead to the conclusion that the Appellant had failed to prove their quantum meruit claim. [33] This Court agrees with the SCJ that the Respondent is entitled by clause 4.2 to ‘make any correction or modification in any previous progress payment issued’ and authority ‘to omit or reduce the value of such work in any progress payment.’ and clause 12.3 of the LA that the Respondent shall have the right to ‘recover or to deduct from or set off against any amount’ due to any damages or loss and expenses suffered by the Respondent due to the same. This is reflected in the re assessment and the evidence of the failure of the Appellant to rectify all its defective works which were then captured in Certificate no. 5. Failure to give Notice [34] It was argued by the Appellant that the Respondent did not give any notice of their intention to re-evaluate the works completed and certified under Progress Claim no. 4 pursuant to clause 4.2 of the LA. I note that issue of the notice appears not to have been decided by the SCJ but I agree with the Respondent that the Appellant had agreed at the trial that the re assessment of work done will be carried out as the LA had been terminated and that in lieu of clause 4.2 and 12.4 of the LA, which is referred to below, notice was no longer relevant. [35] I am therefore unable to agree with the Appellant that the SCJ had made an error in this issue of her findings that the Appellant were not entitled for works carried out under Progress Claim no 4 and 5. S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 Termination [36] On the issue of termination of the contract, I find that the evidence at trial points to a meeting on 16.12.2020 (16.12.2020 Meeting) as seen in a letter of 17.12.2020 from the Respondent to the Appellant whereby the Respondent denied amongst others the Appellant’s suggestion that the Appellant had agreed to surrender the Project as was allegedly suggested by the Respondent. [37] PW1 under cross examination had also alluded to the fact that the Appellant was unable to complete the Project by EOT 2 and agreed to surrender the same. [38] I agree with the SCJ when she came to a finding inter alia that the Appellant had failed to satisfy her that the Appellant had agreed to surrender the Project as was directed by the Respondent and pointed to various letters issued by the Respondent to that effect as well as to a lack of evidence before the Court of this contention by the Appellant apart from the PW1’s own admission that the Appellant had ‘..reached an agreement for my company to hand over the project”. [39] The Respondent also claims that they had reserved their rights under clause 12.4 of the LA which states that upon determination of the LA, the Respondent was not entitled to avoid the LA or be released of their obligations and liabilities under the same. [40] The SCJ had, in her grounds, agreed with the same as being operative in the circumstances as well as holding that the Project was S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 surrendered back to the Respondent at the said 16.12.2020 Meeting and that the Respondent had reserved its rights under the LA pre- termination as well as its rights to claim from the Appellant such rectification of defective works by a third party. [41] The SCJ’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pembenaan Leow Tuck Chui & Sons Sdn Bhd v Dr Leela’s Medical Centre Sdn Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 57 of the Contractor’s entitlement to refuse payment on the grounds of a cross claim on this point is in my view correctly cited and reflects the law on this issue. [42] Once again, I find cogent reasons from the evidence at trial as indicated above, and agree with the SCJ and find no error on this part of the SCJ’s decision. Rectification Works [43] On the issue of rectification works, the SCJ had held that she was satisfied that it was proven that the works were defective and that the Appellant had failed to complete the same. [44] I find that evidence was led on the above at the trial which consisted of a joint inspection, which was agreed by the Appellant, between the parties and MARA on 7.1.2021 at the Site. This was reflected in Certificate no.5 as averred to by DW 4 and a further joint inspection on 22.1.2021 where there were still defective works uncompleted as shown in the List of Defects which was acknowledged by the Appellant. This of course puts to rest the Appellant’s contention that S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 the process of re-evaluation was not done vis a vis Progress Claim 4 and 5. [45] There is also evidence of an admission by PW1, that the Plaintiff had failed to complete its works, particularly with regards to the wiring works and that the Certificate of Non-Completion (“CNC”) was then issued on 21.12.2020. [46] The above eventually led to the SCJ determining that there were defective works and that the Respondent had to engage a third party contractor, Pro Track Engineering Sdn Bhd (“TP Contractor”) to remove the Appellants defective works. I find from the evidence, that the SCJ was correct in arriving to such a decision which was consistent with the evidence at trial. [47] I therefore agree with that the SCJ had correctly decided on this issue that the Appellant had failed to complete rectification of the defective works. Counter Claim [48] The SCJ had allowed the Counter Claim (“CC”) at the trial after looking into at the evidence before the Session’s Court after satisfying herself there was: (i) no delay in payment of Payment Claim nos. 4 and 5; (ii) there was delay in the Appellant’s work progress; and S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 (iii) that the Appellant had voluntarily surrendered the Project to the Respondent as they were unable to complete the same by EOT 2 and had breached the LA by failing to complete the Project. [49] After consideration of the SCJ’s grounds for allowing the Counter Claim, I agree with her reasonings and find no error in her grounds thereto on this issue. It is beholden upon an Appellate Court to be reminded as per UEM Group Bhd (Previously Known As United Engineers (M) Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2018] Supp MLJ 363 that:- “[40] …. that a trial judge has the advantage over an appellate court in hearing the witness and observing his demeanour. Thus, a finding on a witness’s credibility based on his demeanour is a personal opinion of a trial judge who had the audio-visual advantage of the performance of witnesses. It should not, ordinarily be disturbed at the appellate stage. This is especially so in the instant case where the trial judge had found that Seow, the only witness put forth by GIE, was not a witness of truth. The trial judge had given reasons as to why he found that ‘Seow’s evidence is bristled with inconsistencies and half truth’. We think in the circumstances of the reasons given by the trial judge, the findings are entitled to great respect.” Assessment of Damages & Retention Sum [50] The SCJ in her grounds had held that there was no overlap in the Respondent’s claim for the removal of defective works of RM11,500 as well as loss and expenses of RM42,222.34 which according to the S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 SCJ were to coordinate (‘menyelaraskan’) with the claims for the period March of 2021 onwards, do not overlap with the Respondent’s claim for assessment which was due to the delay in the Works. [51] The Respondent submits the claim for the assessment for the period of March 2021 was never disputed by the Appellant in the trial and based on Wong Swee Chin v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 212; [1980] 1 LNS 138 I hold that this would amount to an ‘acceptance of the witness testimony’. [52] Premised on the same, the assessment on the Respondent’s counter claim for work done was certified as RM393,409.18 and that the retention sum was RM39,340.92 as determined by the SCJ after assessing and accepting the evidence of DW2 and DW 4 on this point and concluding that as the Appellant had failed to complete the works under the Project, clauses 5.2 and 5.3 in the LA with regards the release of the retention sum was no longer applicable. [53] DW4’s evidence on the issue of the retention sum was unchallenged by the appellant where DW4 had testified that based on Certificate No. 5 it was stated that they would retain 10% of the progress claim up to 5% of the total contract and since the said Certificate No. 5 was cumulative, thus 10% of the progress claim was retained and not 5% of the total contract sum amounting to RM49,992.75 since the Appellant had not completed its works. Back Charge re Cold Room S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [54] The SCJ had found that PW1 had under cross examination agreed that the Cold Room was in its contract and that the said Respondent’s claim was pursuant to clause 6.1 of the LA claimable. [55] The SCJ had also accepted DW2’s testimony that the back charge was required to be taken into account in the amounts due to the Appellant and that the Appellant had requested the Respondent to purchase the same although they were supposed to have supplied the said Cold Room; thus the SCJ concluded that the Respondent was entitled to back charge for the Cold Room based on percentage of work done and not the costs of the Cold Room and relied on Brunsfield Construction Sdn Bhd v LDE Aluminium Industries Sdn Bhd [2019] MLJU 516. [56] On this point, it is noted that the Appellant admits that they had requested the Respondent to purchase the Cold Room materials and there was evidence at the trial, which was shown via the testimony of DW3, that the Respondent had made such purchases. [57] I have looked at clause 6.1 of the LA which states that ‘As for the materials which was purchased through our company…it shall be back charged to you company with an additional 2% administration charges.’ and the testimony of DW2, DW3 and PW1’s admission under cross examination as well as the aforesaid case authority and agree with the findings of the SCJ that the purchase of the materials constitute a progress in the Project which was translated to percentage of work done in Certificate No. 5. S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [58] I therefore hold and agree with the Respondent that there is no merit on the appeal on this issue. Unjust Enrichment [59] On the issue of unjust enrichment raised by the Appellant, I find no allegation of the same in the Statement of Claim and thus this issue must be dismissed. Decision [60] As the learned SCJ was in the best position to assess the witnesses and the evidence at trial; and after this Court has itself perused the evidence which was produced at trial and the testimony of the witnesses referred to from the Notes of Proceedings, I find no reason to disturb the findings and decision of the SCJ. [61] Therefore, based on my reasons above, this Court finds no merit in the Appeal before me and I hereby dismisses the same with costs. Dated: 2nd day of October 2023 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mahendran a/l Shunmugam Sundaram and Kamal Ishmael bin Mohd Ariff [Messrs Izauddin, Firdaus & Mahendran] COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Lim Ke Xin (Messrs Cheang & Ariff] S/N x/x7kxrow0aDQhu1GmHJfw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22NCvC-435-06/2019

PLAINTIF DEVONPORT SDN. BHD. DEFENDAN COLONIAL BEACH AND SPA RESORT SDN. BHD

HeadnotesContract – despite the presence of a no-oral-modification clause it is open to the contracting parties to effect an oral variation to the contractCivil procedure – a judgment can be expressed to be in a foreign currency but is to be expressed in the local currency at the time of enforcement of the judgment which would generally coincide with the date of the pronouncement of the judgment

12/12/2023

YA Tuan Su Tiang Joo

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=baaa7de7-cead-48c5-bd70-8d3c8eeebab3&Inline=true

12/12/2023 14:07:43 WA-22NCvC-435-06/2019 Kand. 89 S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 532quq3OxUi9cI08ju66sw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

B-05(M)-54-02/2020

PERAYU MOHAMAD ZULAZWAN BIN SAALI RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

Trafficking in drugs - Whether evidence of carrying proven - Whether wilful blindness defeats defeats defence of innocent carrier? - Whether statement of co-accused can be used to call for defence without any other independent evidence?

12/12/2023

YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l ParamaguruKorumYA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin MeeraYA Datuk Ravinthran a/l ParamaguruYA Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=9f3c4a7a-7ff7-4efd-a742-5d049439a959&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B-05(M)-54-02/2020 ANTARA MOHAMAD ZULAZWAN BIN SAALI … PERAYU (NO. K/P: 870111-13-5119) LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Shah Alam Perbicaraan Jenayah No. BA-45A-38-04/2018 Di Antara Pendakwa Raya Lawan 1. Mohamad Zulazwan Bin Saali 2. Mahendara Rao a/l Surunarayana] DIDENGAR BERSAMA DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. B-05(M)-55-02/2020 12/12/2023 10:18:03 B-05(M)-54-02/2020 Kand. 42 S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 ANTARA MAHENDARA RAO A/L SURUNARAYANA … PERAYU (NO. K/P: 790101-10-5055] LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Shah Alam Perbicaraan Jenayah No. BA-45A-38-04/2018 Di Antara Pendakwa Raya Lawan 1. Mohamad Zulazwan Bin Saali 2. Mahendara Rao a/l Surunarayana] KORAM: VAZEER ALAM BIN MYDIN MEERA, HMR RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU, HMR HASHIM BIN HAMZAH, HMR S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The appellants were charged with the offence of trafficking a large quantity of methamphetamine at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport 2 (KLIA 2). The appellant in Appeal B-05(M)-54-02/2020 is Mohamed Zulazwan bin Saali (Zulazwan) whereas the appellant in Appeal B-05(M)- 55-02/2020 is Mahendara Rao A/L Surunarayana (Mahendara). Zulazwan and Mahendara were the first and second accused persons before the High Court. At the conclusion of the trial both appellants were convicted of the offence and sentenced to death and hence these appeals. We heard their respective appeals together. [2] We set out the charge below for ease of reference: “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 6/11/2017, jam lebih kurang 7.25 petang di Mesin No. 5 di Pelepasan Domestik, Aras 3, KLIA 2 di dalam daerah Sepang, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu Methamphetamine seberat 1415.2 gram, dan dengan itü kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan”. Summary of case for prosecution [3] The prosecution called a total of ten witnesses. The crucial witness in respect of the element of possession against Zulazwan was SP5 (Mhd Norazlan bin Abdul Aziz). He is an auxiliary policeman. SP5’s duty was to S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 scan passenger bags through the X-Ray machine at the Domestic Departure Lounge of KLIA2. [4] At the material time, he scanned an Elegant brand black suitcase at Scanner Machine No. 5. He noticed suspicious images on the screen. He asked for the owner of the suitcase. Zulazwan stepped forward and said that it is his suitcase. He was asked to open and remove its contents. After Zulazwan removed a plastic bag containing bread, SP5 noticed a Milo box and a Koko Kruch box inside the suitcase and requested that they be emptied. Unexpectedly, Zulazwan walked away, leaving the suitcase and its contents behind. He was subsequently arrested when he queued up again at Scanner Machine No. 6. [5] He was brought to SP5, who continued with the inspection of the black suitcase in question. Zulazwan removed a transparent plastic bag from the Milo box. It contained a white crystalline substance. SP5 said Zulazwan became nervous and attempted to flee again but was restrained with the assistance of another auxiliary policeman. He was then handed over to the Police Narcotics Division at KLIA 2 where inspection of the suitcase continued in the presence of ASP Mohamad Syairazi bin Mohamad Shapuzi (SP7). The police also found white crystalline substance in the Koko Kruch box. SP7 suspected that the crystalline substance was methamphetamine. [6] Zulazwan told SP7 that the Milo and Koko Krunch boxes had been given to him earlier in the day by an Indian man at a petrol station near the airport. He was told that the boxes contained vehicle spare parts namely that of a Vespa that was ordered by someone named Dahlan. S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Zulazwan was going back to Miri that evening. SP7 requested Zulazwan to call the Indian man to come to the airport. Zulazwan was asked to feign that he missed his flight and needed money to purchase another ticket. [7] When Mahendara arrived at the airport with two other individuals, the police arrested all of them. The police did not find any incriminating substance on Mahendara or on the other two individuals. However, the police discovered a plastic packet on the dashboard of the vehicle they had arrived in. It contained ketamine. The crystalline substance found in the Milo and Koko Krunch boxes was sent to the Chemistry Department for analysis. The chemist (SP6) confirmed that the crystalline substance found in both boxes was methamphetamine with a total weight of 1415.4 grammes. That is the case for the prosecution in a nutshell. High Court finding at end of case for the prosecution [8] The learned Judicial Commissioner considered whether there was evidence to support the following elements of the charge: (a) That the drug that was seized was methamphetamine; (b) That Zulazwan and Mahendara were in possession of the drugs; (c) That they were trafficking the drugs; (d) Common intention. [9] The learned Judicial Commissioner considered the evidence of SP5 who told the court that prior to arrest, Zulazwan admitted being the S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 owner of the black suitcase in question in which the drugs were found. No one else apart from Zulazwan handled the suitcase in question at the material time. He also considered the evidence that the DNA material taken from the towel found in the suticase matched the DNA profile of Zulazwan. Since Zulazwan attempted to run away during the inspection at the Departure Lounge, the learned Judicial Commissioner said that it can be inferred that he knew that his suitcase contained drugs. [10] The learned Judicial Commissioner also invoked the presumption of possession from custody under section 37(d) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. This presumption was invoked against both appellants, although Mahendara was not present at Scanner Machine No. 5 when the drugs were discovered. [11] In respect of the element of trafficking, the learned Judicial Commissioner applied the broad definition of “trafficking” in section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 which includes “carrying”. As there was evidence that Zulazwan carried the suitcase that contained methamphetamine at the Departure Lounge en route to Miri, the learned Judicial Commissioner found that there was direct evidence of trafficking. [12] As for the case against Mahendara, the learned Judicial Commissioner considered the evidence of SP7. He said that according to Zulazwan, the Milo and Koko Krunch boxes were placed in his suitcase by Mahendara. Zulazwan was told that it contained vehicle spare parts. The learned Judicial Commissioner also had regard to the evidence of the closed-circuit television (CCTV) still images that showed the appellants leaving the airport area together and later returning with a black suitcase. S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 The learned Judicial Commissioner concluded that this constituted evidence of common intention. [13] For the above reasons, the learned Judicial Commissioner found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the appellants and called for their defence. Both appellants elected to give sworn evidence. Defence of Zulazwan [14] He is from Sarawak. At the material time, he lived in Miri. On 3.11.2017, a friend of his by the name Dahlan requested him to collect a vehicle (Vespa) spare part from KLIA 2 and bring it back to Miri. Zulazwan was informed that sending the spare part via post might result in damage. Zulazwan agreed to Dahlan’s request. On 6.11.2017, Zulazwan met Shanmuga, who is an employee of Dahlan in Miri. Shanmuga provided Zulazwan with an Airasia return ticket to KLIA 2, a suitcase filled with clothes, and pocket money of RM150.00. [15] Following Dahlan’s instructions, Zulazwan flew to KLIA 2 that evening and awaited a call on his handphone. Mahendara contacted him and arranged to meet him at Door No. 2, on the third level of KLIA 2. Zulazwan was invited to join him for a smoke and a meal. Zulazwan told the court that Mahendara took his suitcase and placed it in the boot of his car. They then proceeded to a nearby petrol station. Upon arrival, Zulazwan left the car to buy bread while Mahendara remained in the car. S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [16] When Zulazwan returned to the car, Mahendara told him that he had placed the vehicle spare part inside his suitcase. He then drove him back to the airport. Upon arrival, he took Zulazwan’s suitcase from the boot and handed it to him. Zulazwan proceeded to the Departure Lounge and queued at the security clearance counter. After his suitcase was scanned, he was asked about the suitcase and ordered to open it. No caution was administered to him. At that moment, Zulazwan decided to go to the toilet. When he returned, he queued up again unperturbed, because he was not aware that there were any drugs inside his suitcase. [17] Upon opening the suitcase at the request of the security officers, he noticed a Milo box inside it. He was shocked and became nervous because it contained a crystalline substance instead of a vehicle spare part. He told the security officers that the Milo box did not belong to him. He explained that Mahendara was supposed to have put a vehicle spare part inside his suitcase. He would not have stood in line at the security clearance counter if he had known that it contained drugs. SP7 instructed him to call Mahendara, pretending he had missed his flight and requesting another ticket. He followed instructions, and as a result, two individuals, whom he never met before, and Mahendara came to meet him at the airport. They were all arrested by the waiting police. Thus, his defence was that he had no intention to traffic the drugs in question, as he had no knowledge of what Mahendara had put inside his suitcase. Defence of Mahendara [18] He worked as a taxi driver with an income of RM100 to RM300 a day. The vehicle he used was a red Proton Pesona bearing registration S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 number HWE 4374. On the day in question, he picked up two passengers in the Bukit Bintang area around 9.20 p.m. and drove them to KLIA 2. The two passengers asked him to wait while they went inside the airport. About 10 minutes later, the police ordered him out of his taxi and handcuffed him. He said the police found a small quantity of drugs in his taxi that was meant for his personal consumption. He was brought to the airport police station, where he noiced that the two passengers he had ferried to the airport had also been arrested. He also noticed a Malay man, whom he never met before, had been arrested. [19] Mahendara denied driving a silver Proton Wira car to KLIA 2 as claimed by Zulazwan. He said that he only drove his taxi. He denied meeting Zulazwan earlier in the day or putting drugs inside his suitcase. However, he admitted that the ketamine that the police found in his car belonged to him. Decision of High Court at end of case [20] The learned Judicial Commissioner directed himself that Zulazwan and Mahendara must be acquitted if they rebutted the presumption of possession on a balance of probabilities or raised a reasonable doubt regarding the trafficking element of the charge. [21] In respect of the case against Zulazwan, the learned Judicial Commissioner addressed the evidence that he was seen by the auxiliary policeman (SP5) carrying the suitcase that contained the drugs in question. Zulazwan was found to have custody of the drugs, and for this reason, the presumption of possession was invoked at the close of the S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 prosecution’s case. The learned Judicial Commissioner disbelieved Zulazwan, who claimed that he thought the suitcase contained a vehicle spare part. His Lordship found it improbable that Zulazwan did not examine his own suitcase and was thus an innocent carrier. Moreover, the DNA profile developed by the chemist (SP4) from genetic material found on the towel in the suitcase matched that of Zulazwan. The fact that Zulazwan ran away during inspection of the suitcase by the auxiliary policeman (SP5) was also considered by the High Court. His Lordship said that it can be inferred that he had knowledge of the contents of the suitcase. However, the learned Judicial Commissioner also invoked the presumption of possession from custody. As Zulazwan carried a large quantity of drugs at the airport on his way to Miri, the learned Judicial Commissioner held that his actions fell within the definition of trafficking under section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. For the above reasons, he found that Zulazwan did not rebut the presumption of possession on a balance of probabilities and that he did not raise a reasonable doubt on the whole of the prosecution’s case. [22] As for the case against Mahendara, learned Judicial Commissioner relied heavily on the evidence of Zulazwan to convict him. He considered Zulazwan’s defence that Mahendara met him at the airport when he arrived from Miri earlier in the day and brought him to the nearby petrol station. Zulazwan said that Mahendara told him that he had put a vehicle spare part in his suitcase. His Lordship also took into account the evidence of SP7 who said that Mahendara came to the airport with two other individuals after Zulazwan called him, pretending that he missed his flight. The discovery of ketamine in Mahendara’s car was also deemed relevant. His Lordship disbelieved Mahendara’s testimony that he had S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 nothing to do with the methamphetamine that was recovered from Zulazwan’s suitcase. For these reasons, the learned Judicial Commissioner held that Zulazwan and Mahendara had common intention in trafficking the drugs in question. In the result, he convicted both Zulazwan and Mahendara and sentenced them to death. Issues in the appeal [23] Counsel for Zulazwan raised the following issues: (a) That there was no evidence that Zulazwan was in possession of the suitcase and that the learned Judicial Commissioner failed to consider that SP5 and SP7 did not administer caution on Zulazwan; (b) That the learned Judicial Commissioner erred in rejecting the defence of innocent carrier; (c) That there was no evidence of common intention between Zulazwan and Mahendara; (d) That the learned Judicial Commissioner did not consider the fact that the prosecution failed to challenge the defence of Zulazwan and Mahendara. [24] Counsel for Mahendara, on the other hand, argued that his client should not have been called to enter his defence in the first place. He submitted that Mahendara was arrested over three hours after the arrest of Zulazwan. He was not at the security clearance counter of the Departure Lounge with Zulazwan. He was arrested after he came to the S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 airport with two passengers in his taxi. The learned Judicial Commissioner relied on CCTV still images that purportedly showed Zulazwan going into a car much earlier. However, the CCTV still images were blurry and do not show clearly that Mahendara was inside the car. Appeal of Zulazwan [25] We shall first address the issues pertaining to the appeal of Zulazwan. Custody of suitcase [26] It must be recalled that learned Judicial Commissioner invoked the presumption of possession from custody against Zulazwan. The main argument of counsel for Zulazwan was that the prosecution failed to prove possession. His reasons are as follows. He argued that when Zulazwan was arrested by SP5, the suitcase was on the table near the scanner machine and not with him. The related argument is that the admission of Zulazwan to SP5 that the suitcase belonged to him is not admissible as no caution was administered. Counsel for Zulazwan also argued that SP5 failed to identify his client. [27] We see no merit in the above grounds for the following reasons. The learned Judicial Commissioner had good grounds to make a finding that the appellant was in possession of the suitcase. SP5 testified that when he saw suspicious content on the scanner machine monitor screen, he enquired generally about the owner of the suitcase. Zulazwan stepped forward and admitted that it belonged to him. It must be noted that S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Zulazwan was not arrested that time. Neither was Zulazwan asked if he would confess to any wrongdoing. No drugs were mentioned. He merely admitted to SP5 that the suitcase belonged to him. The suitcase had not even been inspected at that time. Thus, the argument that the statement is not admissible because it was a confession elicited without the necessary caution under section 37B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is without merit. However, during the inspection process, Zulazwan left the area. He was arrested when he queued up again at Scanner Machine No. 6. This time, he was specifically asked whether he was the owner of the suitcase. As he was under arrest by then, his statement would not be admissible especially in relation to the contents of the suitcase. However, it must be noted that SP5 very clearly said that he was owner of the suitcase on the earlier occasion when the former enquired from the passengers near the scanner machine about the owner of the suitcase in question. In our view this evidence was correctly admitted by the learned Judicial Commissioner. [28] Counsel for Zulazwan also raised the point that SP5 could not identify his client when he queued up for a second time at Scanner no. 6. It was suggested that SP5 and his colleague arrested the wrong person. This suggestion was refuted. SP5 agreed that he did not take a close look at Zulazwan during the initial encounter. However, he clarified that after Zulazwan fled, he promptly reported the incident to the Security Operations Centre whose staff reviewed the CCTV footage, identified the person who left the area during inspection and provided SP5 with a detailed description. As mentioned earlier, Zulazwan, was subsequently arrested when he came to Scanner No. 6. S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [29] Furthermore, the DNA test conducted on a towel taken from the suitcase in question proved that the profile developed from it belonged to Zulazwan. Counsel for Zulazwan suggested that his DNA stains from either skin cells or saliva got transferred to the towel when Zulazwan opened the suitcase for inspection. Although, the chemist (SP4) who conducted the examination said that DNA stains can be transferred easily depending on the length of time a person handles exhibits, she did not say that mere touching of the contents of the suitcase to remove the Milo box could have resulted in such a situation. There was no evidence either from SP5 that Zulazwan handled the towel for a period of time during inspection or used it in anyway. The evidence was that he opened the suitcase and he removed the Milo box and its contents. [30] For the above reasons, we find no merit in the submission that Zulazwan was not in custody of the suitcase when he attempted to get past the security clearance counter at the Departure Lounge. In the premises, the presumption of possession was correctly invoked by the learned Judicial Commissioner. Defence of innocent carrier [31] After defence was called, as we said earlier, Zulazwan did not deny that the suitcase in which the drugs were found belonged to him. He only said that no caution was administered on him and that he left to go to the toilet in the midst of the inspection. We note that at the material time he was not arrested. He said as follows in his witness statement: 25. Saya telah meletakkan beg saya di dalam kotak untuk diimbas. S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 26. Setelah itu saya telah dipanggil oleh polis bantuan di situ dan bertanyakan mengenai beg saya. Sebelum beliau bertanyakan kepada saya, tiada apa-apa kata amaran yang diberikan kepada saya. 27. Beliau telah mengarahkan saya untuk membuka beg tersebut dan saya telah di arahkan untuk mengeluarkan kotak tersebut. 28. Pada masa iitu saya terus beredar untuk mencari tandas di dalam kawasan perlepasan dan telah meningalkan beg tersebut di mesin pengimbas. (emphasis ours). [32] However, Zulazwan said that he thought that Mahendara had put a Vespa vehicle spare part inside when he was brought out of the airport area to a nearby petrol station. He told the same story to SP7 during interrogation immediately after arrest. [33] The learned Judicial Commissioner rejected the defence of innocent carrier. In our opinion, there is no merit in the argument of counsel for Zulazwan that the His Lordship erred in doing so. The defence of innocent carrier is frequently raised by accused persons who are caught with drugs in their possession. These accused persons would assert that they did not know that the bag they were asked to carry contained drugs. It may well be that in some cases, there is truth in this defence. It is the duty of the trial court to thoroughly examine each case on its own facts to determine the applicability of the defence. In Munuswamy Sundar Raj v PP [2016] 1 CLJ 357, the Federal Court said as follows in respect of the duty of the trial court: [11] In order not to throttle the discretion of judges, let alone no cases are similar, we are loath to lay down restrictive guidelines for courts to consider prior to deciding whether the defence of innocent carrier can prevail. We leave it to the better judgment of the presiding judge. S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [34] However, wilful blindness on the part of accused persons as to what they carried would defeat the defence of innocent carrier. In other words, if the circumstances surrounding the case indicate that the accused persons knew or should have known the contents of the items they were tasked with carrying, or if they consciously chose to remain uninformed when they ought to have inquired, the defence will fail. In the well-known case of Public Prosecutor v Herlina Purnama Sari [2017] 1 MLRA 499, the Federal Court, speaking through Raus Sharif PCA (later CJ), said as follows: The doctrine of ‘wilful blindness’ can be summarised to be applicable to a situation where the circumstances are such as to raise suspicion sufficient for a reasonable person to be put on inquiry as to the legitimacy of a particular transaction. To put it another way, if the circumstances are such as to arouse suspicion, then it is incumbent on a person to make the necessary inquiries in order to satisfy himself as to the genuineness of what was informed to him. Should he fail to embark upon this course of action, then he will be guilty of ‘wilful blindness’. In other words, he is then taken to know the true situation. He then cannot be said to have either rebutted the presumption of knowledge or have raised a reasonable doubt as to his knowledge of the situation. [35] The learned Judicial Commissioner gave his reasons in paragraphs [135] to [148] of his grounds of judgment why he found that Zulazwan exhibited wilful blindness as to the contents of the suitcase and was therefore ineligible to avail the defence of innocent carrier. In summary, his reasons are as follows. The learned Judicial Commissioner noted that Mahendara, who was a stranger, had come to the airport to meet Zulazwan and deliver a Vespa spare for transportation to Miri. Zulazwan did not witness Mahendara putting said Vespa spare part inside his suitcase as he stepped out of the car to buy some food at the petrol S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 station. Nevertheless, Zulazwan accepted Mahendara’s assertion that the Vespa spare part was already inside the suitcase without bothering to verify it for himself. Zulazwan had ample time and opportunity to do so as Mahendara left the airport after dropping him off to board the plane. The learned Judicial Commissioner also found it peculiar that Zulazwan was not at all curious whether the Vespa spare part, presumably a heavy or bulky object, was suitable to be placed inside his suitcase that contained his clothes. [36] We wholly agree with the reasons given by the learned Judicial Commissioner for finding that Zulazwan exhibited wilful blindness in respect of the contents his suitcase. As the learned Judicial Commissioner noted, it is improbable for anyone in Zulazwan’s position not to inspect the suitcase after entrusting it to a stranger for the purpose of placing an item inside. After all, the sole reason Zulazwan came from Miri to KLIA2 was to collect a Vespa spare part on behalf of Dahlan. Hence, it defies belief that Zulazwan would passively accept the word of Mahendara, a stranger, regarding the placement of the Vespa spare part inside the suitcase. He could have easily verified the assertion of Mahendara by simply opening the suitcase. Unless, of course, as the learned Judicial Commissioner inferred, Zulazwan already knew that there were drugs inside the suitcase. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned Judicial Commissioner did not err in rejecting the defence of innocent carrier as submitted by counsel for Zulazwan. S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Common intention [37] Counsel for Zulazwan argued that the learned Judicial Commissioner erred in finding that there was common intention between his client and Mahendara. Counsel for Mahendara similarly contended that there was no common intention between his client and Zulazwan in respect of the offence of trafficking the drug in question. Common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code provides for joint criminal responsibility (see the seminal Privy Council case of Mahbub Shah v King Emperor [1945] LR 72 IA 148). Thus, if one person commits the actual offence, another person may also be liable for the same offence if it is shown that the offence of was committed “in furtherance of the common intention of all”. [38] However, we fail to see how the argument that there was no evidence of common intention can assist the defence of Zulazwan as he is the primary offender according to the evidence led by the prosecution. On the contrary, lack of evidence of common intention should assist the defence of Mahendara. Zulazwan was arrested as he carried the suitcase that contained the drugs in question at the Departure Lounge. Mahendara was nowhere near the Departure Lounge. He was arrested because Zulazwan told SP7 that he thought that Mahendara had put a Vespa spare part inside his suitcase. The police failed to tender any evidence of observation that can suggest that Zulazwan and Mahendara acted in concert in furtherance of a common intention. In the premises, whilst we would agree with counsel for Zulazwan that the prosecution failed tender evidence of common intention, it is not a ground of appeal that can absolve Zulazwan of guilt. S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Alleged failure of prosecution to challenge defence of Zulazwan [39] We find no merit in this ground. Our perusal of the notes of proceedings shows that the prosecution cross-examined Zulazwan at length and challenged him in respect of his defence that he had no knowledge of the drugs in his suitcase. We reproduce below the concluding cross examination questions of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor: S : Sepanjang kamu duduk dalam kereta bersama dengan lelaki India ini, ada kamu bertanya namanya? J : Tidak ada. S : Langsung tidak ada berbual? J : Dia cuma cakap sudah makan atau belum. Itu sahaja. S : Setuju saya katakan bahawa semua keterangan yang kamu berikan hari ini adalah tidak benar? J : Tidak setuju. S : Setuju jika saya katakan bahawa kamu mereka-reka cerita yang kamu berikan hari ini? J : Tidak setuju. [40] For the above reasons, we found no merit in all the grounds of appeal canvassed by counsel for Zulazwan. We found no appealable error and we found the conviction to be safe. We therefore unanimously affirmed the conviction of Zulazwan and dismissed his appeal. S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Appeal of Mahendara [41] As previously mentioned, Mahendara was nowhere near the drugs when it was discovered by the police. He was arrested when he came to the airport. His defence was that he came to the airport because he ferried passengers there. The prosecution’s case was that he came because of a phone call that he received from Zulazwan. In the premises, it was incumbent on the prosecution to tender compelling evidence linking him to Zulazwan and the drugs. However, no such evidence was provided. [42] The prosecution tendered evidence of CCTV still images of Zulazwan and another man who had come to fetch him at the airport earlier in the day. However, the prosecution witness (SP9) who tendered the photographs and the investigating officer himself admitted that the said photographs were quite blurry. Even in respect of the phone calls that Zulazwan allegedly made to Mahendara upon arriving in KLIA2, there were no call logs tendered despite the fact that their handphones were seized by the police. Thus, Zulazwan’s testimony is crucial in respect of the involvement of Mahendara. [43] Zulazwan told SP7 that “an Indian man” placed a Vespa spare part inside his suitcase. However, Zulazwan admitted during cross examination that he does not know the “Indian man’s name” since he never asked him. In court, Zulazwan also referred to “an Indian man”. However, he did not explicitly say that Mahendara who was present in court was that individual. In fact, it is telling that when Zulazwan was questioned by counsel for Mahendara, he said he never met Mahendara S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 and denied that he was the “Indian man” he had referred to. The exchange between counsel for Mahendara and Zulazwan is as follows: S : Adakah lelaki India itu OKT 2 yang datang memandu kereta Proton Wira silver dan datang mengambil kamu? J : Tidak S : Adakah kamu kenal OKT ini? J : Tidak kenal. S : Jadi, sebelum kamu ditangkap, kamu memang tidak pernah dan tidak kenal OKT ini? J : Langsung tidak kenal. [44] Thus, Zulazwan’s court testimony cannot assist the prosecution to convict Mahendara. Even, if it could, as it would amount to accomplice evidence, the rule of prudence would require corroboration in the form of independent evidence. But as we said earlier there was none. [45] The learned Judicial Commissioner found that Mahendara acted in concert with Zulazwan in furtherance of a common intention to traffic the drugs in question. We disagreed with the learned Judicial Commissioner and as pointed out earlier there was no evidence of common intention between Zulazwan and Mahendara. In the premises, there was no evidence to link the drugs in the suitcase to Mahendara. Thus, we find merit in the submission of counsel for Mahendara that his client should not have been called to enter his defence in the first place. For the above reasons, we find the conviction of Mahendara to be unsafe. The appeal of Mahendara is allowed and we set aside his conviction and sentence. S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Conclusion [46] In conclusion, we dismissed the appeal of Zulazwan and affirmed his conviction and sentence by High Court. As for Mahendara, we allowed his appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. SGD (RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU) Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia Bertarikh: 4 Disember 2023 Peguam Cara: Bagi Rayuan No. B-05(M)-54-02/2020 Bagi Pihak Perayu: Änwar bin Abdul Rauf [Tetuan Anwar Rauf & Co.] Bagi Pihak Responden: Leo anak Saga Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Jabatan Peguam Negara S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Bagi Rayuan No. B-05(M)-55-02/2020 Bagi Pihak Perayu: Lim Woi Kang [Tetuan Rao & Kamal] Bagi Pihak Responden: Leo anak Saga Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Jabatan Peguam Negara S/N eko8n/d//U6nQl0ElDmpWQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-24NCVC-1346-07/2023

PEMOHON As-Salihin Trustee Berhad RESPONDEN Muhammad Aizaruddin bin Kamaruddin

Caveat – private caveat lodged by a beneficiary of deceased’ estate – trustee’s application to remove caveat – deceased’s Deed of Gift and Trust (Deklarasi Hibah) declaring gift and trust of a specific property in favour of his wife – trustee corporation appointed under Deed of Gift and Trust – trustee corporation was given a Power of Attorney by the deceased proprietor – whether a beneficiary has locus standi to challenge the Deed of Gift & Trust signed by the deceased proprietor – whether a beneficiary has locus standi to lodge private caveat on the title of deceased’s land – balance of convenience – whether private caveat should be removed – whether a beneficiary has a caveatable interest in the deceased estate’s land.

12/12/2023

YA Tuan Tee Geok Hock

WA-11BNCvC-40-06/2022

PERAYU GMSTAR TRADING SDN BHD RESPONDEN WADOODUN CORPORATION SDN BHD

This appeal is dismissed. The order and judgment by the Magistrate are hereby affirmed. Costs of RM5,000 is awarded to the Respondent.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=253a46fc-8d89-4150-bb8d-ba9baa8f9013&Inline=true

11/12/2023 13:48:58 WA-11BNCvC-40-06/2022 Kand. 28 S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—11mlcvc—au—o6/2022 Kand. 28 11/12/2023 13:4-52 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAVA Ar KUALA LUMFUR IN THE FEDERAL IERRIIORV, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT No: WA-11BNCvC-40-06/2022 EETWEEN GMSTAR TRADING sou BHD ....APFELLANT (comwmv NO: 1:msa2o2.x) AND WADODDUN conrmunou sun am: ....RE§PONDENT (COMPANY NO: 1049414) JUDGMENT m On 1 s 2022 the MagIs(rsle‘s order and Judgment are — as follows" m) The Appeuam to pay me Respondent RMJSDOD bemg me outstanding remal from October to December 2020 wnn -mevesos ov5% fvam me dale nllhe Wm ov Summons 1: 1 2021 Imlil (max sememenn 1 sm :zmw..Nuzs7.amaqz.. m. smm ...m.mm .. .4... w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! lb) The Appellant to pay the Respondent RM11,DOO belng the rasruraaon costs for the premises wmr rnterest or 5% lrnm tlre dale dune Wm of Summons 131 2021 urml final selllemenlr to) coals ufRM4,325 (d) The Appellarrrs courrlerelalrn wasdlsmlssed with no order as to 00215 [21 The Magistrate rrad deeded to allow the Respondents clalm and drsrmss Ihe Aapellarrrs coumer clarrrr as ar me day at me rrral, me Appellant was oanaldered net present and not ready to pmaeed wilh lrial in aaaurdance to Order 32 rule 1(3) Rules of Court 2ot2 (Rec) [31 Ire background 0! this case belore lrre Maglstrale was that a Judgment In aelaun had been lecarded ag:IrmIheAppeHanl on 4.3 2o2t. However, hat was set aslde an 5 I 2022 and an 8 4 2022 8 NH Mal was «xed «am 14 6 21122 It was also ordered that all documemsfmlrlal were to be med belure 11.5 ma. [4] At me aase management on 17 5 2022 me Appellanfs lnrmer lawyels rnlarmed me Msglslrate Counlhstlhsy had med in an appllcalton Ia dlscharge merrrselues a few days earlrer (on 12 52u22) They were men ordered to serve me same on the Appellant and to ensure the lillng at all cause papers as ordered was done pnnr Io me trial dates The rreanrrg oltheappllcallorl lo dtschalge was In be heard on 24 5 2022 alter ll was served on ma Appellant. ru IEvMvmNuEG7lbqmrIQEw «mu. a.r.r mmhnrwlll a. med w my r... urwlrullly mm. dnuuvlml Vfl urlurta war dalam psrblcaraan lersebm kemrla uelenaan, sabagar sebuah syankal, hanya boleh drwakrll alen peguamcara /15} Semasa msmsrinluhka/l agarkss ml dilerusklsll (ssperfl yang dinyatsksn er alas), aaya velsh merlgambl/klm Atumll 35 kesdah 1(2) Kasdalrkaedall Mahkamah (KKM) 21712 saya jugs bsrselu/u derlgan nuranan peguarncara Plainnr rerpelarar ballawa walaupurl wakil Defender: nadir tslapl dslsm llndang-undang, die tidak dapat mswskrli Dereman kerana Dela/man rranya laolen diwskill‘ oleh psguamvara Kesannya, De/endan blleh dlkatakan man hadlr dalarn Perblcalaan mi " (25) we Court agrees wan «ma mle legal poslllnn and «hue, me Maglstrate was correct ln applylng Order 35 rule 112; Rue as us Ills! mndmon on me nonawearance 01 lhe party who 45 a may corporate ls fulfilled Ills uovrecl to have ruled VII law that me Nlbellanl dld not appear when me mall «or me actian was called upon an 1 s.2o22. Yheveicre, ii is irnmanenal wnelher me Maglsilale took me aparoaen that me Appellants lnlmev lawyers were SH“ on record on the reason that the lslred order In aeenarge was nomlea, nor sealed As atlhe end oflhe day, me Appellanl knew ma: ms former lawyers naa dlschalged Ihemserva and had la-led to appmnl another (M the mal [27] As per me eaurrs recoma, mus knawledge max Ihe Appeuam was required In appulnl a new lawyer In wndua me lrlal was emcrauy wrllllmed me rls lener dated 20.5.2022 when n sought tor a lmszponenlem of lnal var we in wee mmllhs la appoln new aollcllors Tne Appellant nan opted nol lo be presem an 24 5 2022 al me calm neanng 0! me appllcallan lo mscnarge me Appenanrs lormer lawyers lo rNlEvMvn.NuEs7lbqnlrlQEw “ «ma. Sam! nuvlhnrwm a. met! a may r... annlnallly -mm: dnuuvlml Vfl .nuna wax snsuva that the case (against VI and to! as aeunterulaim) was attended t0. In rid, the Appellant’: conduct an the day 01 tllal showed that it did not (Ike the case seriously — rl sent a representative who came to calm iate Mia had again asked to! n pos1ponement at trial and had reitisea tn proceed wnh tllal. Neither aia such canatia show any respect In the court proceedings [213] To the aigiiinern by the Apiieiiarn that the Magistrate erred when she entered the itiitgnient when nDeX—vII1etrIa\ was mnducted. Ovder35 rule 112) Rut: that pmvided three options to the courts — the iuctge riisy pnweed with mil in the absence at that party (ex-pane trial) OR without that given judgment nrdisniiss the action OR make any other order as the iuage thinks ht [29] It was entirely up to the niscietion at the Magistrate to exemlse the options sveilatite In an appeal to set aetde whichever oider the Iowa! courts had aecidad, an appellant must demonstrate that the itisizetion was not exemted iuaiaiausly — which here the Appellant had failed to demonstrate so {so} The Appeiiant had cned set Jnig Shim sitii rang Scl—Tecn Pnarmlccuficalco LIdvBanKah on-tsaii BhI:lLtd(supIa) That case eonoerned an sppiicetian to re-near a case where iuagineiit was en|eled ex—pane trial pursuant to a rion-allendarice of the applicant The tlial was inniauy iixeit on ieta a 2017 on 93.2017 the iawyeis had applied ta dtscharge as had rlol obtained sulficient instructions The com had allnwed the discharge but had ttirectea the applicant to appoint new BDHCIIDF and aflev 3 law case management dates In noun, the coun had directed that the applicant be untamed that the mat had been rhtixed on rNtEvMvniNuEs7im-inuaqzw *1 “Nair s.n.i mnrihnrwm be UIQG M my i... aniin.iin MVMI dnuuvinnt Vfl .riiina Wm! 2021 tt 2017 and I5-191 zeta Al the wrrtrrtencemerrt r71 man an 2011 2017 the apnttearrt was absent and the court trad proceeded mm the that and dismissed the apaltcants eaunterclairrt Four months later. the appttnt snugtrt an eflenslmw of ttme Ia set aside the judgement and resetttremunterclarm turtnat Mme hearrng otthe appItcatian_ thetudge found tttatttte appttcants absence was ncldue to an accraent or nrtstake but “/1 was dslibsrsls due to the noncha/nnce and apathy af GPZ In a nutshe//, Yantal hadna good reason to be absent at tnal " [31] Thts case at hand was rrrtttated In January 2021 Amer settrng astde the Judgment tn default amatned against the Appellant, it had over one year to prepare car that However, even he t:cut1‘s dtretman In file an cause papers. pteadrrtgs, duwmenls to prepare tor that was not adneled to The eaurt had ctearty iterated several ttmes that the mat was given pdomy and that it would run he puslpuned. [32] Thrs court ands that there awearad tn be a taett of effort that shwwed the Appeltant was nonchatant about the sutt arm ataa he aounteruaim. The ecnducl at the Appettant showed and not take the case sertousty and look tor granted that the wurl would grant pustponement ol the that ttttetr request was tor three ta tour months) just by stating that they were not reaay with new soltmor the Magtstrata mum at paras 26- 27 “Tmdakan Defsndan dart/atau peguamcara Delendan dl dalam Imdakan rm aaa/an ndak munasabalt dart max wa,ar apatar/a pennoimnan pamanxan dm I-tanya amuat da/am mass 2 mmggu ssbslum (ankn pemlcarasll panun Alasan yang dtberrkan oterr peguamcsla Delandnn adslah anakguam memks tattu Datanaan rNIEvMvn.NuEG7tbqhrrIQEw “ «was. amt mmhnrwm s. u... a may r... mmnaflly am. dnuuvtmt Vfl artutta mat mm membaysr yum/l gunman Inl pada Ilemaf mahkamah adalall urusan da/amen dl arltam peglmmcara Defendan darl oevsnuen nnaexen Defender: yang gagal member! helyasama kapafla peguamcara merska yang telsh dilanrlk /ugls adslah fldak berlarlgqu/lgkawah flan max seaarulnya bsllsku selamrlya Dslandarl bsrpondillarl bailawa Defender! memplmyal pal-nbe/sun yangbannsrit Surat pennohanan penarlgguharl pelblcaman Dsfslldan yang msmlnla psnangguhan selama 2-: bulan menurlmkkan bahsws Delandarl Ildak serlus aengan tulllutan yang driallkan aleh Plainlll clan lunlulan balas Delendan sendlrl apsblla mahkamah relan memberlkarl prlomy ulalrla kepada kes lI‘Il dangsn pensraparl tarlkh psrblcsman sssagsm yang mungklll ' [:33] The alsoreuon of the maglstrate to enler judgmenl wvlhoul cnal. which she legally had the nghl lo. seemed in have taken all facts and clvcumslances imn oonsldelallun Therelore, the cam IS reluctant Io lnlerlere with the Meglszrele‘s decyslan to enter me send judgment agalnsl the Appellant and dismissed as oaunlevulalm There does not seem to be any error on the pan al the Maglsllale when she had exercised her disoreuun acwrdlrlg to Older 35 rule 112) Rec [34] A legal ecnon ln eeun must be taken senausly by all panes. There must be mmpllame wllh all me durecuons lol trlal lo ensure that justice will be done aomrdlngly There was no explanaliurl as la why an adloumment al two la lhree months was vaquired or necessary for me Appellanl Io appmnl new snllcltm There also were no laws for me Maglslrale Io oensldev lhe eflons undertaken by me Anpellanl to ensure INlEVMVmNLlEG7lbqhuuQEw " «mm. Smnl mmhnrwlll .. H... e may he nflnlrullly -mm: dnuuvlml y. .nuna ml lrlal me mel would proceed but was handicapped by reasons mat eeuld not be avolded by veasonable dillgerloe or arms All |hal was proflersd lo me Magistrate was ml the Appellam wanted a few months lo appolnl new sahollcr and refused lo plooeed will. lrlal mal had been scheduled several months eanler An equally lmpananfleature In «ms case IS mam-e judgmem m default which was ublalned agalnsl the Appellant more than a year poor was set aside on me its appllcallun agalnel ll was well appreclated [35] As held by me Fedeml Court in Lee M: Tee v Ong Tiaw Prmlg A ors[19u]1 ML! 107 at p109 “The dlsvvellon ollne Judge lo allow or re/use an app/icaoorl for adfuunlmerlf was sub/ac! dealr mm III depm lay me Calm 0/Appeal m Dick v Piller (19431 1 All ER 527 we agree (0 and adopt ms following pnnclplss as Isglsrds me drscretioll m allowmg arreluslng edloummenl — wwllerller or no: a party should be granlad an adjoummelll ls vmolly at me dlscrelioll cl me Judge He would sxemlse Ins dlsclutran solely upon me Vlew olme laels (2)Pnma lame this dlsclstloll is unfettered (3) me queslldn la ask m anypamculsr cm is whether on me /acts rllere are adequate OI slmclerll reasons to refuse Ills adjournment. (4)AI(IlolIgI-l an appellate court has me power tn inlanala mm llla .ludga's declslon In regard to me gl-ammg clan adjournment, ll would ralrsm (mm domg so unless I! appears that such dlsclsllorl has Dean Bxsmlssd m a way wmcn landed to show ma: al/ /NlEVMVmNLIEG7lbdhl;dQEw *5 “Nair ml nuvlhnrwm be u..a a may he nflmruflly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNa Wm! necessary matters wars not taken nlto consldelalmn or me dscismn was otherwise amlfrsnly made (5;Arl eppellele court ought lo be very slow to IIIIENEIE mm lne sxelclse orlne dlscrellon all: I1 I! appeals that me nesull ol rne order made below would be tn defeat the fights of {IVS names elmgemer or that there would be an llmlsfflve lo one ollne olluer oflns pemes men me eppellere court nee me power and lndeed a my lo IE1/rew me exerclse of me olemllon on v Pr//9! reviewed e number or eurnonlles on me exams ollne dlsclsllorl and amongst me cases med was Maxwell v Jean a 0/3 [1528] 1 KB 545 ln fhalcase, Alklrl Ll em out some nnponenr guldelmes in ms /udgmenr appeenng at pages 555 end 557 rsspsctlvely ll 75 uselul to repeal lnem end my are as folluws ‘The Calm ofAppeaI ollgn: to be V917 slow Indeed lo lnlerrele mm the discretion of me Ieamedjudge on Such a qussllorl as en adloummenrola lnel, and it IS very seldom does do so: but, on the olnerhand, mt appears that me lesull ollne ordermads beluw Is In defeat the rights ol me parties aftogevler, eno lo do mar wlllch lne Coal! 0/Appssl ls ssllsllad wnu/I1 be an lrlmsllce 10 one or omerol me pames, men me Court has power lo lavisw such an order, eno ll 75, to my mlnd, its my la :11: so ' -ln ms exemlse ole proper/udlcvlfl dlsclefloll no [Ildga ouglvl m mexe Such an under as would «else: (he rights ola parry and dsstmy mam ellogemer, llnlass he IS sallsfled me: ne nes been gullfy alsucll conduct melnlsllce can only pmpsny be done lo we olnerpeny by camlllg to lnel cancluslnn ' mlzmv...Nuzs7.eee.eezw *5 «we. sew lunhnrwm e. .l.... e may e. emu-y em. dnuamnl VI menu Wm! [36] Tms appeal Is dwsmlssed The mac and wdgment by me Magmrana we hereby alfirmed Cos1s av RM5,oo0 Is awarded In ma Respondent DATED 25 JANUARV 2023 R02 MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT or MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For ms Appellant rnayaran afl Moalmy T/n Dhsran L Thaya Fnl [Ive Respondent Mlsra /lsmarla Dlnll Mohamed F515! T/n The Chambers awaznee 5 Mtsla Aslnans sm IEvMvn.NuEG7:bqmrIQEw m. smm ...m.mm .. .4... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! [51 on 20 52u22 lrre Appellant personally had wrrlren la me eeun lo seek an alijaummem oflwc lp lnree rnpnllrs lp appornl a new eeunsel but The Magrslrale had alaled rn lrer grounds at ludgmenlt rnal lne Appellanl was rnlprrned or me pdurrs rereulpn pl suclr reduesr and mat me lnal would proceed Tlral was elsn lrre day may were served me 7101165 or applreallan lpr me dlscharge lrorn lrrair lprnrer lawyers. The reasons slated thereln were llre larlure to pay legal lees and me lailure lp respond/rnslrucr end ed-opernmon rd pdnrrnue wrln me sun [51 on 24 52022 ar me hearlng at me applrearren lo dlsdwarge‘ are former lawyers rrad srrown rlvougn an alnuaurr or servrae lrral proper servree on me Appellant mrs executed The Appellanr however dld nvl errend rrre lresnng. Tne Maglslme upon grarlllllg me drsenarge nad rnlernred me Appellanfs larnrer lawyers that ln apaenae ale sealed order, llrey would be deemed to sun on records represemrng lne Appellam The Respondent had submltled mar the Appellants lprrners lawyers nau confirmed wlm me cmlrl mar rrrey would nut arrend me Irlal and the court agiln rrrlarrned rnel lrre peerporrernem of me lnal would nor be allowed. [71 At lne day M the lnal an 1 (52022, are Appellants lprrner lawyers were not present almpuglr lne cleaned final order was yet In pe med rnrp pour: to be sealed rlelther were me Aupdlarrs. The ocurl was ready lpr lnal as was me Respondent The Appellarrrs lprrner lawyers mougrr eonlecreu py me epun rntprnred lrre eaun llrel lrrey would not allerld me rnal Al11am,a reprarsenlallve plllre Appellanlmmed up In calm and rred apugnl «or an adloummenl alme lnal Such requear was agarnrrl rejecled by rrre mud n lEvAIvrrrNuEG7lbqnlrIQEw “Nana s.r.r ...n.rwrrr .. UIQG M my r... prwlnallly mm: dnuurlml vn arlurm v-mxl [E] The Maglslrale, prerntead onorder 35 rule 1(2) Rot: had mhardered the Aopetlanrs reluctance to proceed with tnal and had allawed the Respondent's alarm and dtsnnssed the Appellant‘: counterclann The Magtstrate had also lrlvoked her powers under order 92 rule 4 Rot: [91 The Magtstlate lound that the conduct and ac1lohsvflheAppeHan€s lorrner lawyers were unreasonable and lnappropriate in dlscharglng thernselyea two weeks petore that was scheduled to commence. The court was not concerned wtth payment or rturhpayment of lees that was oiled as the reason for the discharge Nonetheless. the Magtshate lound that the Appellants conduct tn not coaperahhg wrth lts own counsel that it chase to aopotnt was lrrespnnsible and should not have happened it it had a nternpnpus detenee The Magistrate also found the request to adloum the tnal tor two at three months shewed that the Appellant was not serlous tn delendtng me Respondents alarm or V! oursutng tts oounterclalnr when the court had gtven the case pnority in hxlrrg the eartlest hearing dates. This appeal [10] The Appellam sought lot the deoteton ol the Maglstmte to be set aalde and the case to be re-heard It was suhmllled that the Magnstrate had mtsdtrected hersell in entertng the judgment as tf a lull that had been conducted when wttneaaes were not called, documents were not marked as exhlbits, when the test ol balance 01 prdpaplllties on the evtdenoe was not applred and that the Appellant was not glveh the nght to be heard [11] The Appellant contended that the Maglsllala had taken an lrlooned approach when she had assumed that the Aopellanta tanner lawyers rmemy...Nuse7.eaa.aasw ‘ «mm. and marlhnrwlll a. med w my r... pflnlnnllly sun. dnuurlml Vfl .nunc war were am: on record wnen «ney had lifled Io file m e «area order In be eeauea by me court order»: rule 7 R00 was re4srred to where a wdgmem or order Oakes eflen from the day a! ns dale and also to Palaniandy Sadayan v Aaku-h Greer. Enoryy Sdn Ehd [mu MLHRU m m submming me: me Appeuanrs vormer lawyers no ranger represented me Appellant an 24 5.2u22 orwnrds wrren we order for discharge was granted on me even dale nenoe, me Appeflant summed that me Magrsrrete had misdirected herself wnen she deemed Ihat mey wave sun on records as Ihelaived orderwas nut med oreeauea [121 u is me Appeuanrs conlemion mac reliance by me Magistrate an Order 35 Me 1 Rue was erroneous aslhe Appenam-e repreeerneme was in anendence when late — a!11am) The Nmellam compared In Bei Jiny Baa Shu rang 81:5-Tech Pnanrraesmicar Cu Ltd v Ban Kan ch.-I sun and A Anor[2019] 4 ML/U m where aner me ersenarge cl Vawyers was wowed, the court In that case amaurned the vial dates instead aiemering judgment The Aweflanl cned me loHarmng pan M me dedsion: -Trre preaomrrrarr: consrdelalron for me court was the reason by me appncanr [rad abserrzea n/rrrserl horn me mar. /I the absence was delmarale am not due (a aecruenr or mrslake, the court would be unllkelylc allow a reneerrrrg mere were (Wu avenues avatlab/e to the sheen! party who rmgm ertlrer appeal to me caurr of Appeal Ur allamsln/sly apply to sel asrae the/udgment rrr me Hm coun . Yanlals absence at me Ina! was not due to an aocmenz or mistake veruars sobcnols had ampre arms In prepare /or ma/. Even rr me sabcilors could not be lully ready, my mum nave appeared in cm”! as seek lur an adpummenl omre ma: " rNIEvAIvmNuEG7:bs:mrIQEw 5 “Nana saw mmhnrwm a. HIGH e mm .. mn.r-y mm: dnuumrrl _ murm mar [13] Tne Appellant submllled man there was no delay on its pan as tnis appeal was «led less than two weeks from the dale of the judgment oy tne Magislnala [14] Tire Respondents aocount was In oongmenl with the Magistrates oosrlron In mat on 24 52022 when she nad granted lne dlaonarge, the Appellants lonner lawyers were to me lne lalred order before 1 52022 wnere the iarlure to do so rnaant tnst Ihey were stlll acting for tire Appellant The Respondem oonlended mat the Magistrate nad ernonasrsed lnen tnaltnere would oe no postponement lor trial [15] on the day oi trial 1 s 2022, the lalred order had not been med Tire ooun men contacted me Appellant‘: fnmier lawyerswho lrad iniornred that may would not attend oodn for lrlal Tne Appellanfs representatne showed no late at 11am and trad sought lor a postponement lor three to tour nrontns to find new lawyers The Respondent had at all nralerlaltlmos attended calm and odnrpliad to all lnstructrons lor trial Thus, as me Appellant could not prooeed to delend the Respondent's clalnr, nor to pursue wllh its oounlemlalrn at lnal the Maglatrate allowed me Respondents alarm and dlsmlssed tne Appellants ommterdalm This Conn‘: conxidanlion [la] in exarnrnrng all «no documents and raoorda ol appeal, tnls court noted lnal trrat ttrere were some delems on me face at the Amended Nolloe ol Appeal dated 136.2022 First or all, ll was not sealed It also stated lnal lne Magrslrate rnade lts declsrdn atler lnal on 1 9.2022 when tne ludgmem was entered ex-pane lnnl Tne nollllcalion on wlrelnantwas rNlEvMvrnNuEG7lbqnlrIQEw 5 “None s.n.l nuvlhnrwlll rs. med m an r... nflnlrullly snn. dnumlmt Vfl aFluNa vtmxl an appeal agalnst me full judgment or only In pan Is also um clear Paragraph (0 whlch is me appeal egalnsr me dlsnllssal allne Appellanfs eeunreralainr nad been srruek oflbunhe Amended Nollce was run slgnedr nor sealed by me own [17] Thls matterwas nutdellberated durlng the neanng ollne arglnnenla allnearapeal Tne Federal courr ned ruled In R-«ang Paraaise Vacation Sdn Bhdv vap Chum Bin 5 Other Appeal: [2011] 1-7 cu m lnar ‘There rs no requrrerrrenl under Farm 111 «or any endorsement or sea! anrre calm la be placed on me nolree at appeal url/l'ke a wrrl or ongfnarillg process, are ln llgnl prom and oz arms Ros, rl ls nor an aplion Iarlhe courts lo slrlks nu! a rnaller lo: non-camplisrlce a! me rules wrrlrarn glwrlg an apporlumry la lrre lrtrganl lo ragulale ma prlweedlngs orlo condarle rrre rrregularrry by me nalonlre mun ll ls ullly in exnernely rare cases wrrere the Iran-comp/lance cannol be condone at all that the calm WIN D5 DD/Iged la sinks nu! Me matter. Those are live cases when the respondent can demonstrate pIE[udlDe as well as can establish that me braanh earn-lal be camper-saled by c0515.’ [18] The Federal cpun ruled lnal me Rec only requlred a aupllcale copy ol ma norms of appeal la be served wrlmn me we lrame ln aornpllanea wlm Order 55 rule 3(4) Rec and lnal [here was no legal raqurranrenl or rules mat requlred an endorsed rlcllce ol appeal |u be served wllhln me urne lrarne ol |he appeal. [19] ms caun nmed lnal llle Respondent was gwen sulrrclenl nmlce and was aware 0| ma appeal agalnal are daclzrlan el lna Maglslrale Tm: rNIEvAIvrnNuEG7lbqhlrIl2Ew 7 “Nana Smnl mmhnrwul a. n... m mm a. aflnlruflly mm: dnuuvlml vn aFluNa vtmxl Courl flnds trtatttra Appellants appeal re nnly agiirlinhe declsiun toallpw me Respprraerrrs appeal and nut agalnst lrre alamtaaal at the Appelterrts caunlerclalm The Respondent was also nmlfied at the paints ol appeal as apparent py lls submlsstcns and arguments up plejudloe had occurved [20] ms court now turns to the crux of the appeal whlch a trrat the Magistrate ervad in law by uivlng judgment to the Resparrttenta wrtrrput trtal even lhough ttte Appellarrra represemalive was present In own The Maprstrate lnvoked the powers under oruer 32 rule 112) Rot: that provide ‘If, wnsll metrralorarr acfloll ls called all, one party does rloteppaar, the Judge may pmcssd wllil the rival of me avtlon or any counlerplarm In trre absence of that party or wrrtrout me: give /udgmerlfurdlsmlsslhe aclmn, olmaks any olllemrderas rretrrrnlrs Ill." [71] Flrsl and lorerrraat, me Maglslrale was not In enor when she held tttat me Appellantdld not appear. me Appetlarrt had ta be represenrea Dy a solicnuv ln own as II was a body eerperate. On me date olthe trral, the Appellant had rrpt appointed a my sallcllnr The court had slood down the tnal arm contacted lts prevtpus lawyers as the sealed dram order to ttraeharge had yet ta be llled. upprr cprrtaa vlde me telephone‘ the Appellants tanner aelleltara lrltomtau the courl that may would nol be allerlding the "la! The Appellanrs leplesenlallve then came I0 cclurl late and had asked «or an adluummenl and trre Magratrata nan relteratea Ihal adloulrlmenl was not gmnled IN IEvAIvmNuEs7.bqnpaqEw “Nair a.r.l mmhnrwlll be .r.... e vuny r... nflglnlllly mm. dnuuvlnnl VI nFluNQ pans‘ [22] As the Appeunrn s a wmpany. order 5 Me 5(2) RoC requires me wmpany lmganl to be represented by a sulvcnor In own proceedings 'Excapl as expressly pnmdeu by m under any wntrsn «aw, a body corporate may no! begm or carry on any such proceecnngs on-erwrse Man by a soncuor " [23] The law as per Ifluslraled m (he Hrgn Cnurfs declswon In Jun cnsng Construction sun End y Shanlis Consvucfion mm (M) Sdn and (2015) uuu 229 Is that the enea of me Appeuanr in not appornmng schcnur Ia represent them an mar. though a represenrauya from me Appeuanrwar. pressnr, was mar rne Appellant was nvl represented’ ‘Semasa meme/vnlalrkan agar kss mr allsmskan (sepem mane dinyatakan di arasy, saya lelah mengamml km: Arman 35 kaedah 1(2) Kaeanmrneaan Mihkamah (KKM) 2912 Says yugn bersetupl dengan nuyansn psguamcara P/MM terpe/a/ar bahawa wslaupun wakll Defandan hadlr Iatapr da/am undang-undang, dra max dapa! mewak:/r Defendan kerana Defsndan hanya men drwakr/I wen peguarncara Kesannya, Dsfsndan be/sh drkslakan trdak hadrr dalam pemicaraan mi " [24] This cmm had looked me me mslcry D! me Me and loans! that me words “any person” reders re a “namml person who can be legally rdemrfiea‘. M Ivaced back to me pracmoe sxrsrea In England where a body eorporars cannm appear by as oflicels or mremors (map: wnere express\y psvmmed to as so unaer the lam) and may appenr omy by counyax Instructed on we {may corporates benan Thus‘ rnn. coun cannot accept me Appellanls argument mar there was a rnrsairecnon by way of rNIEvMvmNuEs7‘m-rnuuqiw '5 «mm. s.nn nmhnrwm .. U... w my r... nnnnnn mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-max non—diracnan hy the Maginrate when she did not \ake unto canswderalvon that me representanve oi (he Aflbellam had fiweaved an the max dale or I 6 2022. [25] m suhmmmg that the Magistrate dud nol err m law‘ the Reapmdem had alsn cited Jun chem; consuuczinn Sdn Bhd (supra) where Abdm Karim Abdul Jam J (as he then was) mled to proceed wmh me Inal even cmugh the some: for the defendant oumd nm repreaam the daleudam as he had not yet ub\aIned ms pracncmg oemrcate under me Lagax Prolesam An 1967 for me year and had sought ad admumment of he M31. The learned page ruled: ‘[8] Memandangkan kes ml zeran d/telapkan unmk permcamsn Penuh seawal bulan Oktober 2014‘ Dennononan unluk penanggunan yang drbuar 0/eh Encrk Mohd Azn-am‘ paaa nan psrbicarasn lsrsebur Isiah dim/ak dan perblcalaan dralahkan mtemskan Dalam msngarahkan ssdsmrklan aaya /uga re/an mengambil kua bahawa uada sebarang permanonan awn! drkemukikan o)eIv peguamcala Derendan senammya psguamcara Derendan nanya memaklumkan dan membual pemlohonan m saa!— aaar aklur sedsngkan pmak Plamul sudalv pun bersedta dengan saksr msrsks Kenapaksn psmak/uman Ielan dmuaz secam mangam m Mahkamah pada ha! Ivakrkat In: rslah sedra drkerahm unmk sekran lama senemm nen!ucaraan7 Sepsmmya poguamcars alau Derenaan membuat segala persrspan bag: mangnadap: kemungkmun Iorsebu! lermasuk me/an!/k peguamcara bani. Wu/aupun wakll Dsfenann, Encrk Pomngm Em Palan, msngnadllksn am namun ma lrdak dapal mewak//1 Derenuam 4/ rN1EvAIvmNuEG7:bqnwQEw «mm. saw nmhnrwm .. U... w my me mm-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-max

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-45A-72-05/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA ] TERTUDUH 1. ) JEFFERY WONG CHOW CHUEN 2. ) HONG DE XIAN 3. ) CHEAH WEI SHENG 4. ) AARON FREDRICK D'ALMEIDA 5. ) Nguyen Thi Thu Thao

Perbicaraan jenayah - pertuduhan kesalahan seksyen 39B(1)(a) dan seksyen 12(2) ADB 1952;Kelompangan dalam rantaian keterangan berkenaan barang kes dadah, kegagalan membuktikan jagaan, kawalan serta pengetahuan, kegagalan membuktikan elemen niat bersama dan kelemahan siasatan;Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie. Oleh itu Tertuduh-Tertuduh telah dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada semua pertuduhan kesalahan.

11/12/2023

YA Tuan Hasbullah bin Adam

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=11419671-9501-4d8d-90fa-642bc4a026a5&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO. BA-45A-72-05/2021 & BA-45-15-05/2021 PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN 1. JEFFERY WONG CHOW CHUEN [750818-07-5029] 2. HONG DE XIAN [970309-01-5743] 3. CHEAH WEI SHENG [830510-10-5535] 4. AARON FREDRICK D’ALMEIDA [Passport: K1779011E] 5. NGUYEN THI THU THAO [Passport: C8847623] ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Jeffery Wong Chow Chuen (“Tertuduh 1”), Hong De Xian (“Tertuduh 2”), Cheah Wei Sheng (”Tertuduh 3”), Aaron Fredrick D’Almeida (“Tertuduh 4”) dan Nguyen Thi Thu Thao (“Tertuduh 5”) (secara kolektif dirujuk sebagai “Tertuduh-Tertuduh”) telah dituduh bersama-sama dalam 2 kes dengan jumlah tiga (3) pertuduhan iaitu pertuduhan yang pertama bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) 11/12/2023 10:10:32 BA-45A-72-05/2021 Kand. 260 S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234] (“ADB”) serta pertuduhan yang kedua dan pertuduhan yang ketiga bagi kesalahan-kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB, yang mana kesemua pertuduhan kesalahan tersebut dibaca bersama dengan seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan. [2] Ketiga-tiga pertuduhan terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh adalah seperti berikut: Pertuduhan Pertama [ekshibit P4] “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 10 Julai 2020 jam lebih kurang 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bagi mencapai niat bersama telah memperedarkan dadah berbahaya iaitu 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) seberat 90.29 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.” Pertuduhan Kedua [ekshibit P5] “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 10 Julai 2020 jam lebih kurang 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bagi mencapai niat bersama telah memiliki dadah berbahaya iaitu Nimetazepam seberat 0.39 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.” Pertuduhan Ketiga [ekshibit P6] “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 10 Julai 2020 jam lebih kurang 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bagi mencapai niat bersama telah memiliki dadah berbahaya iaitu Ketamine seberat 26.73 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.” [3] Pada 23.6.2023, Mahkamah ini memutuskan di akhir kes pendakwaan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh atas ketiga-tiga pertuduhan S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 kesalahan tersebut. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini telah memerintahkan supaya Tertuduh-Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri. [4] Pihak pendakwaan telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini dalam kedua-dua kes tersebut melalui notis-notis rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia yang mana kedua-duanya bertarikh 4.7.2023. Ringkasan Kes Pendakwaan [5] Perbicaraan kes pendakwaan telah bermula pada 9.8.2022 dan pihak pendakwaan telah menutup kes pendakwaan pada 21.3.2023 setelah memanggil seramai 13 orang saksi pendakwaan seperti berikut: SP1: Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap (Ahli Kimia Narkotik) SP2: Sjn. Shahrom bin Md Saad (Jurustor) SP3: Insp. Darwis bin Aripin (rakam gambar / sampel darah) SP4: Robert Ong Thien Cheng (Pemilik rumah) SP5: Wong Heong Leng (Isteri dan pemilik bersama rumah) SP6: ASP Shaiful Hezreen bin Shariman (Pegawai serbuan) SP7: Sjn. Nik Abdullah bin Zakaria (Jurufoto) SP8: Izrin John a/l Jebasingam Issace (Penyewa bilik) SP9: Insp. Prabu a/l Avadiappan (Peg dan anggota serbuan) SP10: Hong Joon Wei (Kawan Tertuduh 1) SP11: Siti Hajar binti Hussin (Ahli Kimia Forensik) S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 SP12: Insp. Mohamad Amir Asrah bin Mohamed Ariffin (Peg Forensik PDRM) SP13: ASP Sukri bin Ahmad (Pegawai Penyiasat). [6] Kronologi kes ini bermula daripada maklumat yang diterima oleh ASP Shaiful Hezreen bin Shahriman (SP6) tentang sebuah rumah yang dijadikan tempat pengedaran dan memproses dadah serta kemudiannya telah membuat taklimat penugasan pada 10.7.2020 jam lebih kurang 12.00 tengahari dan seterusnya membentuk 4 pasukan serbuan. Serbuan telah dijalankan pada jam 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (“Rumah Serbuan”). [7] Rumah Serbuan tersebut merupakan sebuah rumah teres 3 tingkat dan tidak berpagar. Secara lebih jelas, susun atur Rumah Serbuan tersebut adalah seperti mana lakaran tempat kejadian [ekshibit P104] oleh Pegawai Penyiasat, ASP Sukri bin Ahmad (SP13). Malahan lakaran tempat kejadian tersebut disahkan oleh Robert Ong Thien Cheng (SP4), pemilik rumah tersebut. Susun atur Rumah Serbuan tersebut adalah seperti berikut: (a) Tingkat bawah Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Tingkat Satu’ terdapat pintu masuk (tanpa grill), ruang tamu, stor dan tandas di hadapannya, sebuah meja kayu di ruang tamu, ruang dapur, rak almari besi, bilik di bahagian belakang menerusi ruang dapur dengan tandas serta sebuah meja di dalam bilik tersebut; S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (b) Tingkat atas Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Tingkat Dua’ terdapat 3 buah bilik iaitu bilik yang bertanda ‘C’ mengandungi bilik mandi dan tandas, bilik yang bertanda ‘D’ yang mengandungi tandas dan bilik yang bertanda ‘E yang mengandungi tandas; dan (c) Tingkat paling atas Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Tingkat Tiga’ terdapat 2 buah bilik iaitu bilik yang bertanda ‘A’ dan bilik yang bertanda ‘B’ yang mengandungi tandas dan bilik mandi. [8] Menurut SP6, semasa menyerbu masuk ke Rumah Serbuan tersebut, pintu depan rumah tersebut adalah bertutup tetapi tidak berkunci. SP6 telah membuat tangkapan ke atas Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 yang sedang berbaring di ruang tamu di Tingkat Satu. Manakala Tertuduh 4 ditangkap di kawasan tangga untuk naik ke tingkat atas dan Tertuduh 5 ditangkap semasa didapati sedang berbaring atas katil dalam bilik yang ditanda sebagai ‘E’ di Tingkat Dua. Pemeriksaan tubuh badan ke atas Tertuduh-Tertuduh tidak menjumpai apa-apa barang salah. [9] SP6 telah membuat rampasan di Rumah Serbuan tersebut seperti yang disenaraikan dalam Borang Senarai Geledah [ekshibit P123] yang meliputi barang kes dadah dan barang kes bukan dadah. Rampasan barang kes dan semua tangkapan telah dibawa balik ke pejabat Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik (BSJN) IPD Petaling Jaya. SP6 telah S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 membuat 2 laporan polis iaitu Damansara Report No. 8123/20 [ekshibit P105] dan Damansara Report No. 8138-8141/20 [ekshibit P106]. [10] Menurut SP6 lagi, semasa di BSJN IPD Petaling Jaya, semua tangkapan telah dibuat ujian saringan awal urin dan hasil ujian mendapati bahawa Tertuduh 1, 2 dan 3 adalah positif dadah jenis Ketamine. Manakala hasil ujian saringan urin ke atas Tertuduh 4 dan 5 adalah negatif dadah. [11] SP13 selaku Pegawai Penyiasat telah dimaklumkan tentang rampasan serta tangkapan tersebut pada hari yang sama iaitu 10.7.2020 jam lebih kurang 5.30 petang. SP13 telah pergi dan sampai di Rumah Serbuan pada jam lebih kurang 6.45 petang. [12] Insp. Mohamad Amir Asrah bin Mohamed Ariffin, Pegawai Forensik PDRM (SP12) telah sampai ke Rumah Serbuan atas permintaan SP13 pada jam lebih kurang 8.45 malam hari yang sama, bagi membantu siasatan dan menjalankan pengambilan sampel DNA dan juga dusting cap jari. SP12 akhirnya telah menyerahkan barang-barang kes yang dipungut di tempat kejadian kepada SP13 pada jam lebih kurang 1.00 pagi 11.7.2020 seperti mana dinyatakan dalam Akuan Serah/Terima Barang Kes [ekshibit P166] dan menyediakan Laporan Pemeriksaan Tempat Kejadian [ekshibit P167]. [13] SP13 telah menerima semua rampasan barang kes, tangkapan- tangkapan dan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan pada 11.7.2020 jam lebih kurang 10.00 pagi seperti mana dalam Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [ekshibit P124]. SP13 juga telah membuat tandaan beliau sendiri ke atas barang-barang kes tersebut. [14] Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap, Ahli Kimia Narkotik (SP1) telah menjalankan pemeriksaan ke atas rampasan barang-barang kes atas permintaan SP13 pada 14.7.2020 di pejabat narkotik IPD Petaling Jaya dan akhirnya telah meminta SP13 menghantar item-item yang telah dikenalpasti (sebanyak 19 item iaitu item No. 1, 4-13, 18, 19, 47-50, 55 dan 58 dalam Laporan) supaya dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk tujuan analisis. Laporan pemeriksaan oleh SP1 tersebut adalah seperti mana dilaporkan dalam Laporan No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-12987 [ekshibit P8]. [15] Lanjutan daripada itu, pada 15.7.2020 SP13 telah menyerahkan 1 kotak bertanda ‘SA’ yang mengandungi item-item yang telah dikenalpasti untuk analisis oleh Ahli Kimia menurut borang Polis 31 [ekshibit P10] dan disahkan penerimaannya oleh SP1 serta dikeluarkan Resit Rasmi Jabatan Kimia Malaysia [ekshibit P9]. [16] SP1 telah menjalankan analisis dan hasil analisis beliau adalah seperti mana dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-12988 [ekshibit P11]. Antara lain, hasil analisis SP1 mendapati tablet-tablet dan serbuk berwarna putih daripada item yang dijalankan analisis tersebut adalah mengandungi 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), Ketamine dan Nimetazepam yang merupakan dadah berbahaya seperti mana yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual Pertama ADB. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Hujahan Pihak-Pihak Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan Pihak Pendakwaan [17] Pihak pendakwaan telah menghujahkan berkenaan elemen- elemen pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan iaitu: (a) Dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti yang tersenarai dalam ADB dengan berat bersih seperti mana dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan; (b) Dadah tersebut berada dalam milikan (possession) Tertuduh- Tertuduh; (c) Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah yang dirampas; dan (d) Tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatan mengedar (trafficking) dadah tersebut. [18] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa elemen pertama berkenaan identiti dadah berbahaya tersebut telah berjaya dibuktikan melalui keterangan Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap, Ahli Kimia (SP1) yang melakukan analisis terhadap barang kes dadah tersebut. SP1 mengesahkan bahawa barang kes dadah tersebut merupakan dadah berbahaya jenis Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), Nimetazepam dan Ketamine. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [19] SP1 juga turut mengesahkan bahawa jenis dadah yang dianalisis adalah sebagai mana yang ditakrifkan di bawah seksyen 2 dan tersenarai dalam Jadual Pertama ADB. Lanjutan daripada analisis yang telah dijalankan, SP1 telah menyediakan Laporan Kimia No. 20-FR-B-12987 bertarikh 24.2.2021 [ekshibit P8] dengan sedikit pindaan. [20] Selanjutnya pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan (control and custody) terhadap barang kes dadah tersebut berdasarkan yang berikut: (a) Kedudukan barang kes dadah yang ditemui di aras bawah Rumah Serbuan tersebut iaitu: (i) di atas meja di ruang tamu; (ii) di atas meja di bilik stor; (iii) di atas meja aluminium di sebelah kanan belakang ruang dapur; (b) Dadah dalam keadaan terbuka, tidak disorok serta boleh dilihat; (c) Gambar-gambar tempat kejadian [ekshibit P93] adalah merujuk kepada kedudukan asal barang-barang kes yang ditemui di atas meja kayu di ruang tamu dan di atas meja aluminium di ruang dapur; (d) Kedudukan meja kayu dalam gambar [ekshibit P93 (6) dan (7)] jelas menunjukkan kedudukan meja kayu di ruang tamu S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 itu yang berhadapan dengan pintu masuk utama dan tangga Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang mana Tertuduh-Tertuduh boleh melihat dengan jelas meja kayu itu dan barang-barang di atasnya, apabila mereka membuka pintu untuk masuk ke dalam Rumah Serbuan tersebut atau ketika turun/naik menggunakan tangga rumah tersebut; (e) Pintu bilik di bahagian belakang dapur di mana dadah yang dijumpai daripada atas meja aluminium juga tidak bertutup dan tidak berkunci ketika serbuan dijalankan di mana Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai akses ke dalam bilik tersebut dan satu-satunya laluan ke tandas di aras bawah tersebut hendaklah melalui meja aluminium yang terdapat dalam bilik tersebut; (f) Mana-mana individu yang tinggal bersama ataupun hadir sebagai tetamu dalam Rumah Serbuan tersebut pasti mempunyai kebebasan bergerak ke seluruh bahagian rumah tersebut walaupun perjanjian sewa Rumah Serbuan tersebut adalah antara Tertuduh 1 dan Robert Ong Thien Cheng, pemilik rumah (SP4). [21] Mengenai elemen pengetahuan pula, pihak pendakwaan telah menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah-dadah yang ditemui tersebut melalui inferens yang berikut: S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (a) Reaksi Tertuduh-Tertuduh ketika serbuan (i) Reaksi Tertuduh 1 yang gelisah dan berulang kali mengulangi percakapannya “Kita cerita luar boleh, tuan”; (ii) Reaksi Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 yang kelihatan shaking atau menggeletar; (iii) Reaksi Tertuduh 4 dan Tertuduh 5 yang kelihatan gelisah pada wajah mereka. (b) Kedudukan Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 ketika serbuan (i) Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 berada di ruang tamu tidak jauh atau berdekatan dengan meja kayu di ruang tamu yang dibuat inferens mereka mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah atas meja kayu tersebut; (ii) Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 5 adalah pasangan kekasih dan merupakan tetamu dalam Rumah Serbuan itu. Namun ketika serbuan, Tertuduh 2 tidak berada bersama Tertuduh 5 di dalam bilik tetapi berada di ruang tamu; S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (iii) Tertuduh 3 dikatakan tinggal sementara di Rumah Serbuan tersebut dan hanya menumpang tinggal di ruang tamu di aras bawah; (iv) Keputusan saringan urin Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 didapati positif dadah jenis Ketamine. (c) Kedudukan dadah Kedudukan dadah dalam keadaan terdedah, terbuka dan boleh dilihat atau tidak disorokkan. Gambar-gambar tempat kejadian [ekshibit P93] dihujahkan sebagai gambar kedudukan asal dadah ditemui semasa serbuan. Maka dihujahkan suatu inferens bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan dadah tersebut yang tidak perlu disorokkan pun. (d) Keberadaan Tertuduh 2, Tertuduh 3, Tertuduh 4 dan Tertuduh 5 di Rumah Serbuan Ketika serbuan tersebut dijalankan, ia masih dalam tempoh Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan Pemulihan (PKPP) oleh sebab pandemik di Negeri Selangor yang mana aktiviti rentas negeri telah dibenarkan. Pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa alasan Tertuduh 2, Tertuduh 3, Tertuduh 4 dan Tertuduh 5 menumpang Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang disewa oleh Tertuduh 1 adalah tidak masuk akal dan keberadaan mereka S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 bersama dalam Rumah Serbuan ketika serbuan itu bukanlah suatu kebetulan tetapi adalah untuk satu tujuan yang sama (aktiviti dadah). [22] Mengenai elemen pengedaran (trafficking) pula, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa terdapat keterangan langsung yang menunjukkan Tertuduh-Tertuduh melakukan perbuatan ‘pengedaran’ (trafficking) menurut takrifan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB berdasarkan perbuatan-perbuatan ‘menyimpan’ (keeping) dadah tersebut di atas meja kayu di ruang tamu dan atas meja aluminium di ruang dapur. Selain itu, pihak pendakwaan juga menghujahkan wujud elemen pengedaran dadah itu berdasarkan inferens kepada kuantiti dadah yang besar iaitu 90.29 gram bagi dadah 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) yang dikatakan merupakan jumlah yang besar dan Tertuduh-Tertuduh menyimpannya bagi tujuan pengedaran. Dalam masa yang sama, pihak pendakwaan juga mengguna pakai anggapan statutori di bawah seksyen 37(d) ADB bagi elemen mengedar dadah tersebut. [23] Pihak pendakwaan juga menghujahkan bahawa rantaian keterangan barang kes dadah tersebut adalah tidak terputus daripada mula pemeriksaan dan penemuan oleh pegawai serbuan SP6 yang telah menyediakan Borang Senarai Geledah [ekshibit P23] bertarikh 11.7.2020 dan seterusnya menyerahkan kepada ASP Sukri bin Ahmad selaku Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13). [24] SP13 juga telah menerima semua rampasan barang kes, tangkapan-tangkapan dan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan pada 11.7.2020 S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 jam lebih kurang 10.00 pagi seperti mana dalam Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes [ekshibit P124]. SP13 juga telah membuat tandaan beliau sendiri ke atas barang-barang kes tersebut. [25] Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap, Ahli Kimia Narkotik (SP1) telah menjalankan pemeriksaan ke atas rampasan barang-barang kes atas permintaan SP13 pada 14.7.2020 dan akhirnya telah meminta SP13 menghantar item-item yang telah dikenalpasti (sebanyak 19 item iaitu item bernombor 1, 4 hingga 13, 18, 19, 47 hingga 50, 55 dan 58) supaya dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk tujuan analisis. Laporan pemeriksaan oleh SP1 tersebut adalah seperti mana dilaporkan dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-12987 [ekshibit P8]. [26] SP13 pula telah menghantar barang kes dadah yang dimasukkan ke dalam satu kotak bertanda ‘SA’ kepada Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk tujuan analisis yang mana telah diserahkan oleh beliau pada 15.7.2020 kepada Ahli Kimia bernama Abd Rahim bin Ismail (SP1) berserta Borang Pol 31 [ekshibit P10] dan dikeluarkan resit rasmi Jabatan Kimia Malaysia bertarikh 15.7.2020 sebagai bukti penerimaan [ekshibit P9]. [27] Selepas analisis oleh Ahli Kimia (SP1) disempurnakan, SP13 telah mengambil dan menerima semula barang kes dadah tersebut sebelum disimpan di setor barang kes dan didaftarkan dalam Buku Daftar Barang Kes [ekshibit P12]. [28] Oleh yang demikian, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan berdasarkan keterangan di atas rantaian keterangan barang kes adalah S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 tidak terputus dan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah kredibel, konsisten dan saling menyokong antara satu sama lain. [29] Kesimpulannya, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan dengan membuat penilaian dan mempertimbangkan keterangan-keterangan yang ada secara keseluruhan, suatu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan berkenaan telah berjaya dibuktikan terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh dan memohon Tertuduh-Tertuduh dipanggil membela diri. Pihak Pembelaan [30] Secara ringkasnya, pihak pembelaan menghujahkan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh ke atas ketiga-tiga pertuduhan kesalahan tersebut. [31] Peguambela Tertuduh 1 dalam penghujahannya telah membangkitkan antara lain, isu-isu berikut: (a) Percanggahan keterangan pegawai serbuan (SP6) dengan keterangan saksi pendakwaan yang lain; (b) Rangkaian keterangan yang terputus (break in the chain of evidence) terutamanya apabila Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13) mengesahkan dalam keterangannya bahawa SP6 ada meninggalkan Rumah Serbuan antara jam 6 hingga 8 malam pada 10.7.2020 untuk membuat laporan polis. Oleh yang S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 demikian menimbulkan lompang ke atas pemerhatian dan pemantauan barang kes yang belum dibuat penandaan; (c) Bahawa Tertuduh 1 tidak mempunyai milikan (possession) ke atas dadah yang ditemui di atas meja di ruang tamu yang merupakan ruang terbuka dan di bilik stor yang tidak berkunci yang mana individu lain juga mempunyai akses; (d) Bahawa semua peralatan dan bahan-bahan yang ditemui adalah untuk tujuan pembuatan ‘bath bomb’; (e) Kewujudan individu lain yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Moon’ yang ditimbulkan nama itu oleh saksi pendakwaan, Izrin John a/l Jebasingam Issace (SP8) iaitu seorang penyewa bilik di Rumah Serbuan tersebut; (f) Inferens pihak pendakwaan bahawa perbuatan Tertuduh 2, 3, 4 dan 5 pindah masuk dan tinggal dalam rumah sewa bersama dengan Tertuduh 1 sebagai bukti ‘pre-planning’ adalah merupakan suatu spekulatif dan tidak berasas; (g) Penyiasatan yang tidak memuaskan seperti pengambilan sampel DNA dan pengesanan cap jari di tingkat bawah di mana dadah tersebut ditemui dalam Rumah Serbuan yang dihuni oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh; (h) Tiada niat bersama (common intention). S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [32] Peguambela Tertuduh 2 pula telah membangkitkan dalam hujahannya yang berikut: (a) Terputus rantaian keterangan; (b) Ketiadaan jagaan, kawalan dan pengetahuan Tertuduh- Tertuduh ke atas dadah yang ditemui; (c) Adanya akses ke atas Rumah Serbuan tersebut oleh orang lain; (d) Ketiadaan keterangan Tertuduh yang sedang melakukan ‘overt act’ memproses dan/atau mengedar dadah tersebut; (e) Tiada niat bersama; (f) Siasatan yang tidak lengkap; dan (g) Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi (Moon) menimbulkan ‘adverse inference’. [33] Manakala peguambela Tertuduh 3 pula menghujahkan isu Tertuduh 3 yang tiada kaitan dengan dadah yang dirampas dan hanyalah hadir sebagai pelawat Rumah Serbuan. [34] Seterusnya peguambela Tertuduh 4 pula menghujahkan kegagalan pihak pendakwaan membuktikan suatu kes prima facie berdasarkan alasan-alasan berikut: S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 (a) Kegagalan membuktikan intipati-intipati pertuduhan; (b) Siasatan yang tidak sempurna; (c) Percanggahan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan; (d) Pergerakan barang-barang kes yang meragukan; dan (e) Tertuduh 4 tidak mempunyai pengetahuan tentang dadah yang dijumpai. [35] Akhirnya peguambela Tertuduh 5 pula menghujahkan isu-isu yang berikut: (a) Tertuduh 5 yang tidak mempunyai milikan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai; (b) Kegagalan memanggil atau menawarkan saksi yang bernama “Moon”; (c) Borang Senarai Geledah yang cacat dan defektif; (d) Buku Daftar Barang Kes yang cacat dan defektif; (e) Kegagalan membuktikan niat bersama Tertuduh 5; (f) Siasatan yang tidak lengkap dan menyeluruh. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Tugas Mahkamah Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan [36] Tugas Mahkamah di akhir kes pendakwaan adalah bagi memutuskan samada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie seperti mana yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 180(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. “When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.” [37] Suatu kes prima facie dikatakan berjaya dibuktikan hanyalah apabila pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya mengemukakan keterangan- keterangan yang kukuh bagi membuktikan setiap dan tiap-tiap intipati/elemen kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan yang mana sekiranya gagal dipatahkan akan membawa kepada sabitan, seperti mana diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 180(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah: “For the purpose of this section, a prima facie is made out against the accused where the prosecution had adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction.” (Penekanan ditambah) [38] Prinsip-prinsip tugas mahkamah di akhir kes pendakwaan ini telah dijelaskan dalam beberapa kes tersohor termasuklah PP v Mohd Radzi S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 yang mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan: “[15] For the guidance of the court below, we summarise as follows the steps that should be taken by trial court at the close of the prosecution’s case: (i) the close of the prosecution’s case, subject the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinise the credibility of each of the prosecution’s witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. If the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused; (ii) ask yourself the question: if I call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that question is “Yes”, then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is “No” then, a prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted;” (Penekanan ditambah) S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [39] Elemen-elemen (ingredients) pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan adalah: (a) Perkara atau ‘subject matter’ yang terlibat bagi pertuduhan kesalahan-kesalahan tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya menurut jenis dan kuantiti seperti berikut: (i) 90.29 gram 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); (ii) 0.39 gram Nimetazepam; dan (iii) 26.73 gram Ketamine. (b) Tertuduh mempunyai pemilikan (jagaan atau kawalan dan pengetahuan) ke atas kesemua dadah berbahaya tersebut pada tempat, masa dan tarikh yang dipertuduhkan; (c) Tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatan mengedar dadah atau ‘trafficking’ (bagi pertuduhan kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); dan (d) Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai niat bersama dalam perbuatan mengedar dadah berbahaya dan memiliki dadah berbahaya seperti mana dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan tersebut. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Analisa dan Dapatan Mahkamah Identiti Dadah Berbahaya [40] Adalah dapatan (finding) Mahkamah ini di akhir kes pendakwaan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan elemen pertama bahawa perkara sabjek kepada pertuduhan ke atas Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti mana dipertuduhkan seperti mana keterangan lisan dan keterangan dokumentar Laporan Kimia (ekshibit P11) oleh Ahli Kimia (SP1) yang gagal dicabar atau dipatahkan oleh pihak pembelaan. [41] Tiada sebarang cabaran yang serius oleh peguambela terhadap identiti dadah berbahaya yang telah diterima dan dianalisis oleh SP1. Peguambela Tertuduh-Tertuduh lebih banyak mencadangkan kepada SP1 tentang kewujudan bahan-bahan lain yang bukan dadah (seperti palmitic acid, octadecanol/stearyl alcohol, oleic acid dll) dan mencadangkan kegunaannya dalam industri pembuatan kosmetik dan sabun. Begitu juga dengan kegunaan mesin ‘Pinch Points’ yang dicadangkan kegunaannya untuk membuat ‘bath bomb’. [42] Walaupun ada cubaan mencabar keterangan SP1 berkenaan proses analisis yang dijalankan, Mahkamah ini masih berpuas hati dan menerima keterangan lisan oleh SP1 dan keterangan dokumentar melalui ekshibit P11 tersebut. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [43] Di dalam kes Munusamy Vengadasalam v PP [1987] CLJ (Rep) 221, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “…the Court is entitled to accept the opinion of the expert of its face value, unless it is inherently incredible of the defence calls evidence in rebuttal by another expert to contradict the opinion. So long as some credible evidence is given by the Chemist to support his opinion, there is no necessity for him to go into details of what he did in the laboratory, step by step.” (Penekanan ditambah) [44] Malahan peguambela Tertuduh 3 dalam hujahan bertulisnya di perenggan 8 telah menyatakan bahawa tiada isu berkenaan elemen pertama di mana Ahli Kimia (SP1) telah memberi keterangan bahawa dadah yang dianalisa adalah merupakan dadah berbahaya seperti mana yang disenaraikan di bawah Jadual Pertama, ADB. [45] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya mengemukakan keterangan yang kukuh bagi membuktikan barang kes yang menjadi subject matter dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan ke atas Tertuduh-Tertuduh adalah merupakan dadah berbahaya (3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), Nimetazepam dan Ketamine) seperti mana ditakrifkan dan tersenarai dalam Jadual Pertama ADB. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 Rantaian keterangan [46] Adalah menjadi hujahan pihak pembelaan khususnya oleh Tertuduh 1 dan Tertuduh 2 bahawa terdapat kelompangan dalam rantaian keterangan (break in the chain of evidence) berkenaan dengan barang kes dadah yang dirampas sehinggalah ia dikemukakan ke dalam Mahkamah ini semasa perbicaraan. [47] Merujuk kepada ringkasan kes pendakwaan dalam perenggan 9 hingga 16 di atas, rampasan barang kes telah dibuat hasil serbuan pada 10.7.2020 yang meliputi barang kes dadah dan barang kes bukan dadah oleh SP6 dan disenaraikan dalam Borang Senarai Geledah [ekshibit P123]. Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13) telah menerima rampasan barang- barang kes tersebut daripada SP6 pada keesokan harinya iaitu 11.7.2020 seperti mana dalam Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes [ekshibit P124]. [48] Selanjutnya SP13 hanya memanggil SP1 bagi membuat pemeriksaan barang kes pada 14.7.2020 di pejabat narkotik IPD Petaling Jaya, iaitu selepas beberapa hari SP13 menerima semua barang kes tersebut. Setelah SP1 membuat pemeriksaan dan mengenalpasti beberapa barang kes dadah, SP13 telah menyerahkan 1 kotak bertanda ‘SA’ yang mengandungi barang-barang kes yang telah dikenalpasti kepada SP1 di Jabatan Kimia Malaysia bagi tujuan analisa pada 15.7.2020. [49] Peguambela Tertuduh 1 dan Tertuduh 2 telah membangkitkan isu kelompangan dalam rantaian keterangan berkenaan barang-barang kes S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 dadah tersebut dengan menghujahkan tiada rekod pergerakan barang kes dan tempat di mana barang kes disimpan dalam tempoh antara 11.7.2020 hingga 14.7.2020. Dalam kes Mohd Osman bin Pawan v. PP [1989] 2 MLJ 110, antara lain penghakiman Supreme Court menyatakan: “In a serious case such as this it is pertinent to emphasize again that investigation officers should not treat the custody of exhibits lightly so as to leave a gap in the chain of evidence relating to the exhibits before their production in court.” (Penekanan ditambah) [50] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti keterangan SP13 yang menjelaskan bahawa dalam tempoh 11.1.2020 hingga 14.7.2020, barang-barang kes tersebut tidak pun disimpan atau didaftarkan dalam stor barang kes atas alasan ruang stor yang telah penuh/padat dan sebaliknya meletakkan barang-barang kes tersebut di atas lantai dalam biliknya. [51] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa SP13 telah menyebabkan barang-barang kes/ekshibit tersebut terdedah kepada risiko tercemar dan kebarangkalian dikacau ganggu. Adalah amat meragukan bagi Mahkamah ini untuk mempercayai tiada sesiapa orang lain pun yang akan keluar dan masuk ke dalam bilik SP13 atau untuk mempercayai bahawa SP13 tidak akan meninggalkan biliknya dalam tempoh tersebut atau beberapa hari. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [52] Adalah lebih mengecewakan lagi apabila dirujuk kepada buku Pendaftaran Barang-Barang Kes [ekshibit P96] ada mencatatkan bahawa barang-barang kes tersebut didaftar simpan dalam stor pada 11.7.2020 yang mana amat bercanggah dengan keterangan SP13 bahawa ia disimpan dalam bilik pejabat beliau. Semasa pemeriksaan balas, SP13 menjawab bahawa tarikh yang sepatutnya dicatat dalam ruang (2) buku Pendaftaran Barang-Barang Kes tersebut ialah 15.7.2020. Walau bagaimanapun, apabila dicadangkan oleh peguambela Tertuduh 1 bahawa tarikh 15.7.2020 adalah merupakan tarikh barang kes dadah dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, SP13 telah bersetuju dan akhirnya menyatakan tidak pasti bilakah masa atau tarikh sebenar barang-barang kes disimpan dan didaftarkan dalam stor barang kes seperti dalam ekshibit P96. [53] Malahan juga, SP13 semasa pemeriksaan balas telah bersetuju bahawa item-item yang didaftarkan dalam ruang (5) ekshibit P96 wujud kesilapan kerana ia merujuk kepada keseluruhan barang kes yang dirampas sedangkan terdapat sebahagian barang kes yang sebenarnya telah dihantar kepada Ahli Kimia (SP1) untuk dijalankan analisis. [54] Dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. SIM, ODITA, Muhammad Architects Sdn. Bhd. [2008] 3 CLJ 623 telah diputuskan seperti berikut: “[10] It was also the contention of the defence that there is break in chain of evidence, as during the testimonies of the prosecution and the defence witnesses, evidence tends to show that there is opportunity for tampering to S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 exist, if the opportunity of tampering existed, there would be a break in the chain of evidence, irrespective of whether the opportunity was taken or not.” (Penekanan ditambah) [55] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini mendapati wujud kelompangan ke atas rantai keterangan berkenaan dengan barang kes khususnya barang kes dadah yang menjadi perkara sabjek dalam kes ini yang menimbulkan keraguan ke atas kes pendakwaan. Milikan (possession) ke atas dadah berbahaya [56] Bagi membuktikan elemen milikan, dua unsur utama yang perlu dibuktikan ialah elemen fizikal iaitu milikan yang merujuk kepada jagaan dan kawalan fizikal (control and custody) ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut serta elemen mental iaitu pengetahuan (knowledge). [57] Di dalam kes Chan Pean Leon v PP [1956] 22 MLJ 237, Hakim Thomson telah menjelaskan tentang kedua-dua unsur tersebut pada muka surat 239 seperti berikut: “A movable thing is said to be in possession of a person when he is situated with respect to it that he has the power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other persons and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need. To put it otherwise, there is a physical element and S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 mental element which must both be present before possession is made out.” (Penekanan ditambah) [58] Berpandukan kepada nas yang dinyatakan di atas, adalah menjadi suatu prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa bagi membuktikan seseorang itu mempunyai “milikan”, perlulah dibuktikan melalui keterangan bahawa seseorang itu mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan ke atas sesuatu barang tersebut dan bebas berurusan atau mengendalikan barang tersebut sepenuhnya tanpa penglibatan orang lain (power of disposal to the exclusion of others) dan mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas sesuatu barang tersebut. [59] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh telah mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan ke atas dadah-dadah berbahaya tersebut dan seterusnya mempunyai pengetahuan melalui inferens yang dibuat berdasarkan faktor reaksi, kedudukan dadah, kelakuan (conduct) dan keberadaan Tertuduh-Tertuduh seperti mana dinyatakan dalam perenggan 21 di atas. [60] Walau bagaimanapun, berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan, Mahkamah ini mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai milikan atau kawalan dan jagaan serta pengetahuan ke atas dadah-dadah berbahaya tersebut. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [61] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan serta pengetahuan ke atas dadah-dadah berbahaya tersebut atas alasan- alasan yang berikut: (a) Tempat rampasan barang kes dijumpai adalah berkisar di meja kayu, rak almari besi dan meja dalam bilik belakang yang mana semuanya berada di tingkat bawah atau ‘Tingkat Satu’ dalam Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang boleh diakses oleh sesiapa jua yang memasuki Rumah Serbuan tersebut; (b) Keadaan Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang sememangnya tidak berpagar dan tiada pintu grill. Malahan pintu rumah tersebut adalah tidak berkunci semasa serbuan dijalankan; (c) Tiada apa-apa penemuan cap jari yang boleh mengkaitkan akses Tertuduh-Tertuduh kepada barang kes dadah tersebut atau mana-mana barang lain yang bukan dadah; (d) SP13 sendiri semasa dicadangkan oleh peguambela Tertuduh 3 bersetuju bahawa Tertuduh 3 tidak mendiami mana-mana bilik dalam rumah tersebut dan hanya menumpang tidur di rumah tersebut. Malahan saksi pendakwaan iaitu Izrin John a/l Jebasingam Issace (SP8) yang merupakan salah seorang penyewa di rumah tersebut juga mengesahkan perkara ini; S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 (e) Malahan seorang lagi saksi pendakwaan iaitu Hong Joon Wei (SP10) juga mengatakan pernah dan biasa pergi ke rumah tersebut untuk minum-minum; (f) Laporan DNA hanya menyatakan tentang penemuan profil DNA ke atas sampel yang dipungut yang mana bukanlah daripada mana-mana item rampasan yang mengandungi dadah; (g) Tiada sebarang rampasan atau penemuan apa-apa kunci Rumah Serbuan tersebut dan berpadanan dengan keterangan SP8 yang merupakan salah seorang penyewa dalam rumah tersebut bahawa beliau tidak pernah diberikan dengan kunci bagi rumah tersebut; (h) Terdapat keraguan tentang kegunaan barang-barang rampasan lain atau bahan kimia untuk membuat ‘bath bomb’ atau sabun. Malahan Ahli Kimia (SP1) juga bersetuju dan tidak menafikan cadangan oleh pihak pembelaan tersebut. Niat Bersama oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh [62] Mahkamah ini juga mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan niat bersama (common intention) antara Tertuduh- Tertuduh bagi perbuatan kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya ‘3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)’ dan/atau kesalahan memiliki dadah berbahaya ‘Nimetazepam’ serta ‘Ketamine’ seperti mana S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 maksud peruntukan seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan, ‘in furtherance of the common intention which presupposes permutation or pre-concept of mind’ bersama-sama oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut. [63] Mahkamah ini merumuskan bahawa dengan hanya setakat keberadaan Tertuduh-Tertuduh di suatu tempat dan masa yang sama sahaja adalah tidak mencukupi bagi membuktikan ‘premeditation or prearranged plan’ oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh (Re case Ram Nath Madhoprasad & Ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh Air [1953] SC 420 atau pun bagi membuktikan bahawa wujud suatu perancangan (plan) atau ‘meeting of mind’ antara Tertuduh-Tertuduh (Re case Krishna Rao Gurumurthi v PP & Another Appeal [2009] 2 CLJ 603). [64] Mahkamah ini tidak mendapati apa-apa keterangan yang boleh menunjukkan atau membuktikan wujudnya suatu perancangan (plan) atau ‘meeting of mind’ antara Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut. Pihak pendakwaan sekadar membuktikan keberadaan Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut dalam Rumah Serbuan itu pada masa yang material sahaja. Pengedaran (trafficking) dadah berbahaya [65] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh bersama-sama terlibat dalam kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) berdasarkan tafsiran ‘trafficking’ di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952 dengan bergantung kepada unsur atau elemen ‘menyimpan’ (keeping) ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut (rujuk perenggan 66 dan 67 penghujahan bertulis pihak S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 pendakwaan). Malahan lagi pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa tindakan Tertuduh-Tertuduh ‘menyimpan’ dadah tersebut di atas meja kayu di ruang tamu serta di atas meja aluminium di dapur Rumah Serbuan tersebut dan memandangkan jumlah berat dadah 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) iaitu 90.29 gram yang dianggap sebagai suatu jumlah yang besar, maka dihujahkan bahawa ia terjumlah kepada perbuatan pengedaran secara langsung menurut definisi pengedaran di bawah seksyen 2 ADB. [66] Namun Mahkamah ini tidak mendapati apa-apa keterangan lain yang dapat menunjukkan aktiviti Tertuduh-Tertuduh dengan pengedaran dadah atau melakukan apa-apa ‘overt act’ selain daripada sekadar perbuatan ‘menyimpan’ yang boleh dikaitkan sebagai pengedaran dadah. [67] Selain itu, pihak pendakwaan juga dalam perenggan 65 penghujahan bertulisnya mengguna pakai anggapan statutori di bawah seksyen 37(d) ADB bagi elemen mengedar dadah. Walau bagaimanapun, berdasarkan dapatan terdahulu Mahkamah ini bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan elemen milikan (possession) Tertuduh-Tertuduh ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut, maka anggapan statutori mengedar di bawah seksyen 37(d) ADB adalah tidak terpakai. Anggapan statutori tersebut hanyalah terpakai apabila elemen jagaan, kawalan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 Kelemahan siasatan [68] Mahkamah ini juga mendapati kelemahan siasatan yang dijalankan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13) seperti berikut: (a) Gagal mengarahkan pihak forensik supaya menjalankan ‘dusting’ ke atas semua barang kes yang mana boleh membantu mengenal pasti individu sebenar yang mempunyai akses kepada dadah tersebut; (b) Gagal menyimpan semua barang rampasan di dalam stor atau tempat yang sesuai bagi mengelakkan timbul keraguan tentang barang kes tersebut daripada tercemar atau dikacau ganggu; (c) Gagal memastikan pendaftaran kemasukan barang kes secara tepat dan betul; (d) Gagal memastikan pergerakan keluar/masuk barang kes dengan tepat dalam Buku Daftar Barang Kes [ekshibit P96]; (e) Gagal membuat siasatan lebih mendalam terhadap individu bernama ‘Moon’ seperti mana yang dibangkitkan dalam keterangan saksi pendakwaan sendiri atau merakam percakapannya; S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 (f) Gagal menyiasat sama ada Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai kunci Rumah Serbuan tersebut atau tidak; (g) Gagal menyiasat sama ada pintu belakang Rumah Serbuan itu berkunci atau tidak pada hari kejadian; dan (h) Gagal untuk meneliti hasil laporan kimia DNA [ekshibit P165] yang telah diterima oleh beliau sendiri. Keputusan [69] Setelah meneliti dan membuat penilaian maksimum ke atas keterangan-keterangan yang telah dikemukakan, Mahkamah ini telah merumuskan pada akhir kes pendakwaan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan sepenuhnya elemen-elemen kesalahan seperti mana dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan tersebut. [70] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini memutuskan berdasarkan alasan-alasan dan dapatan Mahkamah ini seperti mana dinyatakan di atas serta dengan mengguna pakai test/ujian untuk membuktikan kes prima facie seperti mana dijelaskan dalam kes PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar (supra), Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh- Tertuduh bagi pertuduhan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 tersebut. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-682-04/2022

PERAYU 1. ) YAP KIM HIN 2. ) LIM GEOK KIM RESPONDEN 1. ) CHUA BOON HOCK 2. ) CHUA YOK SIN 3. ) LIM KIEN HUAT

(a) whether the Court of Appeal (CA) - (i) is functus officio and cannot extend the time period to perform an earlier peremptory order made by the CA (Previous CA’s Order); or(ii) has a discretionary power under r 93 read with r 1A of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 (RCA) to extend the time period stipulated in the Previous CA’s Order; (b) can the CA vary the Previous CA’s Order pursuant to -(i) r 105 RCA; and(ii) s 69(4) and (5) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964?

11/12/2023

YA Datuk Wong Kian KheongKorumYA Dato' Lee Swee SengYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=882e34e7-0fcd-4e37-9e1e-2fbe1d640d47&Inline=true

11/12/2023 12:42:33 W-02(IM)(NCvC)-682-04/2022 Kand. 34 S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w—n2(m) (ncvc)—sa2—ua/2022 Kand. 34 n/:2/mu 12:42-:4 m we count or ADPiM. or muvsu wrmuas Junlanlcnom M APP w :4 1 «main aawszn I up KIM mu man: No. sunm.m.a:m) 2. uuGEoKKIM(NmCNo:a2o4:n-106524) .. APPELLANTS AND 1. cum soon nacxmmc ND:6m2nb1fl—Ml1) 2. mun vox sm wuc no: 501214-Incas) a um KIEN numumc ma; sunszsntsaas) xzsvcmneurs mm-H umlum r r.a.un.mm gm: 5 No w»2z~cvm9~.m@;q Between mm: soon How mmc No canine-vn43Ae7) 2 mm. m Sm (Nmc No swzwvnuais) 3 mm nu mm mm: Nu 690523055169) Pmrmrvs AMI Yap Km: Hm mm Na 59052149-szm 2 hm Gum: Km (NRVC No azmmmssm n.~.nuams1 memo voazmzk mm m me count or upm as muvsu wvznmz Jmusmcuany M: Arllzu u w an IEMEEN . ur Km nm was NO‘5iDl21-‘N241! 2. ma uzox Km man: no: szoamoasz» .. upmmvs mu 1 CNIIABOON Nockwnlc N0:0In1nb1n-W11) cum vok sw (Mme no. somumwz» um mm nunmmc no Ianszsnu-54m) REsPcNnENts . N szummawnnaeuwwnufiw mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm hCauIInlMall (Kal In (F mYe Qw ; MNn WA-22Ng&(1E1gg_pg_u Eelwecn awn Ewan Huck(NRlC' Nu ssnzasmum 5 Guns Yuk Sm (mu: Nu 5912IA—IB»66DI) a llm Km: mmmmc Nn saoszsoawzw Ptamnr ma 4 Vlp mm Hm (me No snuszuoszw 5 mm cm mmmmc Nu szomuoaazoy Dehndants] coma: LEE swss was, ac: mnnnnuw svsn (sum. 4:4 mm Kw: xnzous, «ca JUDGMENT A. Background 1 For ease av retevenoe, we shall rs(er an pames as they were in the H(gh own (He). 2. Three Walnflfs (Plalntlfls) have med a sun in me He (Sui!) against Mo aetendams (Defendants) (or, among mixers, an order ov specmc performance 04 a Sa\e and Purchasa Agreement dated 24.2.2016 (SPA). 3. Am 9 to the SPA, among omers, the Defendants as ea- pvupnelcrs at a maze ov land held under GranIA7136, Lot no. 4472, Mukwm Ulu Langal, Ulu Lsngal Dlslricl. Selangor (um), had sold Ihe Land at a pmze of RM2,s mm" m five ea-purchasers, namewy. sw szummuwnnaerwwnunw -we smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm Jainder Avnhcanarr (He), Paragraph (b) [CA': Order (25.a.2o21)] mum not «hereafter be invoked by (he Defendants lo slnke out the Sun! If omerwise, «his will deiear me Purpose [Paragraph (a)] and the sun wrn be struck out due In a mere Iechnicahiy. name!)/r me Plarmifis‘ laHure In abvain a Jomder Order wimin 14 days lrorrr the dais at cA's Older (251.2021); and (4; as decided in Nlwacus. me above inlerprstalmn wrn ‘give srrecr (0 every part at CA‘; Order (25.21.2021), namely. Paragraph (5) [CA’s Order (25 52021)] and Paragraph (la) [CA’s Order (25.8 2021)]. F. wrrunrcr CA can wag Pzragragh (I7) [cA's omr125.n.2n2I)1 25. To name Enc 19 |Delendants' 1“Appeal) and the Defendants’ 2"“ Appeal (CA). we have no hesrtallon to exercrse our drscreuorr |u vary Paragraph (I7) [CNS Order (2532021)) as vouaws - the Prarrmns shall me an apphcahun in the Hi? to jorrr aH relevanl pamas In the Sum wrmin 14 days iruru me da|e oi Ihe ordar of W: CA (1s.4.2a2:s) and r1 me Plamlrffs Vail in do so, [he sum shaH be slruck out (Variation [Paragraph (b)]) 26. our reasons for the Venetian [Paragraph (bjj are as lolkws: (1) as explained rn me above paragraph 24, the variarron [Paragraph (b)] gives eflecl to the CA‘: Older (25.s.2u21), espscrany Purpose [Paragraph [21]] and Purpose IPBHQFEWI M]: n srrr szuurmuwnnaeuruwnmiw rm! sum In-nhnv WW r. used m mm rr. nvVn\ruH|y mm; dun-mm VII murm wrur :2; rr the Vanaucn [Paragraph (5)1 Is not made, here will be in Imusllce re me Phmufls because - (3) the Plaintiffs’ Jarndernppucaciun (HG) was made wsH wnmrr me 14 Days Period [Paragraph am] but me Deverrdancs had ubjecled la the P\ain|ifis‘ Jcinder Apphcacrarr (HC) [Do rrd.rrrw Objection (Plalrrnu-' Jolndor Applluuorrn The Defendants‘ obpcuon qP|armr«s' Jarrraer Applwcalicn) was me 5019 reasnn why me previuus Paragraph (up [CA's Order (25 3 2021)] could not be Iumuea by me mainms; and (b) the Delendanls would be awe to s1nke om me Sm: wrmom a mal In other wards, ms Puarrrmr would be deprived annerr consurunorral rrgm olaooess lo jusnae without the Suil being Ined and deems?! by Ihe cnurl on W; mems. The CA has an mherenl powsr(as dedared by r 105 RCA) ‘to make any order as may be necessary In prsvarrz rnjusfics“. Anomdmg to r 105 RCA - r ms rrrn-rorrxpw-r. with: court For In. vofdlncl nl dullbl, n I: mnmv mu rruwny In mm [RCA] 5'1!’/bl dumnd to nrrrrr nrnlhct nr. irmuvvl pomrsnrrm Courrrumakt anyomulu In-ybc nlnssary to pm-rrr lniuxlia at In pmvsnl an ahuse arm. pvosess aim Cowl “ (emphasis added) IN szuurmuwnnaerwwnunw -ms sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm rr. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum Wm The vanalion [Paragraph (ml is made by us HI the interest of jusuoe Dursuant lo cu inherent pawel; and (3) win regard In ma Defendants’ 2*-1 Appeal (CA), the CA is empowered by s 69(4) and 15) CJA in make me Variallon [Paragmph (bu. we reproduce balm: s 5914; and (5) CM - ‘a 59 Hunnq uflppuls. (4) nu ma uIAppMI may draw immim ol rm, and g/vs any luagmnl, and mm my ordw mien cum in rim bun ulvon or N160, and mm such rim.’ or other onion‘ as in. cm nquin: (5; rue pawn: nfwusa/:1 may be Ixllchud nanwllnmnalny inn the noflcu of appeal ruin» only no pm or can duclslon, and ill! powets may Ilsa b. Ixarclud In mm of .1: ol my al ma rvspondults or purl-s mnnugn in. responflenrs or um: um rml .pp..l..1 from or complained am. dnclslon ' (emphasis added); and (4; ms Variallnn [Paragraph 02)] does no| occasion any lnlustics lo we Defendants, The Defendants have me ngm to resist to me mil the Pleirlllfls‘ second appllcahan in the HC to join all ralevsrll names In Ihs Suit [PlalMNfs' 2'-i Jolndu Application (non lnhe Defendanls are dissatisfied wim Ihe nos decision in me P|ain|n1s‘2”‘Jolndel Appll4:al1an(HCj, they have a runner right to appeal In CA Ihereafler. 13 sw szummawnnaeuiuwnmiw 'Nnl2 Sum mm. will he HSQG M mm u. nllmrullly MIN; dun-mm VII .mm mm G. Qgn CA mulls variation [Parlnugh lb) wimeul guy g|ml'gl|on i_:r mpg-l by Plnlmlfm 27. riielly, lne above iimgmenl is given puieuanl lo lnia oaurfs aeci en in Eric. 19 (De1endanls‘ 1" Appeal) and Defendants‘ 2"“ Appeal 10:) in olher words, lrie cA is nal aeling an ils mm mo|i0rl in making me vanalien [Paiegi-apn lei]. 25. Secondly, as explained in lne above sub-paraglaph 25(2), ma CA IS enly axamlslng iis inhelerlt power lo make lna Variation [Paraglaph (h)] we are unable to find any case in Malaysia and me ceinnienwealui wnien naa decided tl1aH|1e men can only exercise ils inlieienl power when male is a specific applieaiicn or parllcular appeal wnieli nas hsen filed by a pany for me calm in invoke lla lnnaienl pawer. 2:: Lastly, in VIEW oflhe Delerldarlls‘ 2"" Appeal (CA; namllhslanding me can lnai ine Plainlms have ne| applied in appealed to CA. cA IS empowered under 5 59(4) and (5) CJA (0 make the Varlaflun [Paragraph (b)]. H-Em 30. ll is nol uiapinad lnal CA nae a wide aiscieliun up award coal: in all preoeedlngs before me CA pursuant lo 5 70 CJA read iagainer willi IT 54 and as RCA 31. we unhesilallrlgly order me Flalnllfls in pay in me nelenuania oasis iei Eric. 19 (Defsndanls' 1-‘ Appeal) and Defendants‘ 2m Appeal (CA) This Is because inna Plalnlifls had at me aeniinenaanienl pl u in 52DulMOPNn£eHlHWDMRw wane s.ii.i llnlflhll will he used a mm we nllnlrullly MIN; dnunvllnl via AFVLING Wflxl me sun mined Mr Sun and Ms um, mmer as cu-Dlulnmfs or 09* dslendanls lhe Detenaanw Smkmg om AppI>1:a(mn and a1! subsequem proceedmgs mersm wumd have been unnecessary. I. Cgnclullcn :2 Prermsed on ma above reasons, we make me vauowmg avdavs var Elm. 19 (De1endan|s‘ 1“ Appeal) and De{andan|s‘ zm Appual (cm (1) Elm. 19 (Delendants‘ vi Appell) N msnmea winn soaks M RM5‘UOD no lo be pm by me Plainmfs «a me Defendants (sumecuo aHoI:amNeej‘ (2) [he Waintifis sham me an apphcallmv to jam an velavanl panlas m Ina HG wnmn 14 days «om me da|e oi ms ordev 01 CA 413 A 2023) and upon such a tame‘ the sun shall be struck am. am: 13) me nerendancs 2"‘ Aapezx (CA) Is msmissed wnn cos: of RM5,nm7 on to be paw by me Plaunws «a ma Deoenaams (sumac: lo auocsmr fee) DAVE; I DECEMBER zuzs wane KIAN Susana Juage Conn av Appeak Malayswa u ‘yn 5zumMnPNmaHMwuMRw ‘Nuns smm ...n.mn be used m van; .. mn.u.y mm; dun-mm VII mum pans! For the Anne//ans Mr Justin Voon rmam Yu 5 Ms. Carolina Um seen Le (Messrs Justin voon chow‘ & Wmg) Fol ms Respondents: Mr. um Klen Huat .4 Ms. Kathy Wong Ker Smg (Messrs Les .4 Um) IN 5zumMuPNnaaHxHwnMRw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm the F'|’iilrl|lWs, Mr. Soo Tack Lee (Mr. Son) and Ms Lirn Siew Klan (uir. Llm). 4. The deleriee in the Elm had pleaded, among others, that lire SPA was a sham agieemenl because ine Land was aciually used as a securiryidr uenain pumriasee between irie parties 5. The Delsnderiis Had an appiicaiiun in the HC to strike out the Sull on me ground inai iiie Plairims lied lailed to pin Mr. 500 and Ms. Llm as names in me Sui! 1Dof1ndInlI' Slrlklng our Applicaridn) e The ieenied HC Judge drsiriiesed me nereridarirs Slrlklrlg our Appirearrori wiiri easis [HC's Dlsmlssal (bvfondlnlf Striking our Applli::llan)]. 7. The Delerrdarns appealed to the Calm al Appeal (GA) egninsi the HC5 Dismissal (De1endari(s‘ sinking Out Applicahun) [DnfIndnnI:' 1" Appul (cA)] e. wiiii regard to the Defendants‘ 1‘ Appeal (CA), me ioiidiwrrig order was made by CA on 25.8 2021 [CHI order (25.a.2n2I)], among diners- in (he De!endanls' 1“ Appeal (cm was dismissed iparagrapn (I) [on Ordnr (2s.a.2o21)l}: erid (2) irie HG‘: nisriirseai ir;eieiidams' Shlklrlg Dui Appiiearrerii was varied wherein rrie Plainmls were required re ieiri Mr S00 and Ms. Lim as corplairilllfs er no-dalsridanls in me Suil wnriiri 14 days rrarii me date ei CA’: Order (Z5.B.2l121)(H Buys Porlod in 5zDuiMOPNn£eHiHWDNRw -we s.ii.i lldlflhll will re ire... M mm Die nilnlrrnllly MVM5 dun-vinrrl vn nFlLING Wflxl [Fangraph (am and w ma P\a\nWs (all to an so‘ me Sm! shafl anana as slruck ow (Pnruurnph (b) [on om: (25.a.2o21))). 9. Pursuant (0 Paragraph (:7) [CA‘s Order (25 52021)], on 2.9 2021 me mamws mad an appncanon to join Mr. 300 and Ms. mm as parties In Ihe Sull [P|ainliffs' Joindur Application (HC)] Th: Flamm'ls' Jomder Apphcauon (HC) was supported by an affidavn purporledw amrmed on 2.9.2021 by the second walnlifl (2-= Plailltifl) belore a Commissioner far Oaths, VM Tengku Fanddudm bm Tengku Smalman (cm; 10. The Defendants nhiecled to me Pmnuffs‘ Jomder Appllwliun (HC) on the ground mat among others, the 2"“ Flainlnfs avfidavm had nol been amrrned bevore the CFO, 11 The learned HC Judge struck out the Plainmfs‘ Jamar Appucauon (HG) wm: - 11) no order as to costs; and (2; liberty to me a (rash F\alntifis' Jmnder Apphcation (HO) smnam lo 'dIrsI7fiL7n" (arahan) wmch may be oblamed by the Plawnlms mm the CA mm Iegard to the 14 Days Period [Paragraph can ((ime period «or the Plamhffs us .a.n Mr 500 and Ms. Lnm as names In the Salt) [HC's Ordar (PIaimi«s' Jolndlr Aupllclflonfl 12. The Defendants have filed an appeav tn CA agawnsl the Hos Order (F\aimflls’ Jmnder Applicalmn) [D-manna’ 2"‘ Appeal (cA)]. sw szummuwnaeuxuwnufiw ma s.nn In-uhnv M“ be used m mm s. nflmnnflly MW; flan-mm VII mum pm Procuodlngs ln cA 1:5. In the De¢endarrcs' 1" Appear (CA), lhe Delendams med a name ul motion in mun enuoeure no. 19 [Enc. 1n (Dmndnnw 1" Appean] Vorthe iollowrng orders (ram the CA, among others. (1) an order to snloroe Paragraph (by [CM Order (25.8 2021)], and (2; an artist in! the Suit In be slmck an 14 The Dslehdarws‘ 2'-1 Appea\ (CA) has saugm (or the CA to reverse the HC‘s order |PlamWs' Jomder Apphcahon)anrHor1rre Smt to be struck out pursuant \o Paragraph (by [CM Order (25.a.2a21)] 15. As Em: 19 (De1endanIs‘ 1-‘ Appeal) and me De1endanLs' 2“ Apnea‘ (CA) ooncemed the same facts and issues, we have deemed to hear rogemer Em: 19 (De1endahIs' 1" Appemj and me Defendants‘ 2" Appear (CA). Imus 16, The following mree questions shau be deuded In this judgmem (1; whslher the CA Is Iunclus uflrcic and cannot extend the 14 Days Period [Paragraph (b)] This issue drsousses me CA's drscreuonary power under r 93 read wmh r 1A 0! the Rules of the com or Appeal 1994 (RCA); (2) can the CA vary Paragraph (b) [cA's Order 125 B 2021)] and order one F\avmfls to flln an appnnariu in me HO |o jam an 5 SN 5zDmMOPNn£eH\HWDMRw -we sum In-nhnv wm be used m mm no nflmrrnfllli mm; dun-mm wa nF\uNG wrm reVevanI pamss \n he Sum wrmir. 14 days lmm the date er me order a! (N3 CA an 15.4.2023 tmslread ol the lequlvamenl for me Flawnliffs to ubvam an ordor vmrrr me HC la rorrr Mr 500 and Ms. vn me sun): This concerns an rrrzerprenanrorr 0! me purpose or CA‘s Order (25.1: mm), and 13) whether the CA can vary Paragraph (b) [CA's Order (25.s.2o21)] pursuant to - 1a) r105RCA:and my 56914]and(5)afIhsCnurvsolJudu:alureAc119B41CJA); - wimnut any appeax or applicanoh by the marnuws to the CA. 17. we are not alfle to find any prewous Malaysian case whhzh has deuded on me above queshons. n whnhor CA is Igggms omclu with raga:-rs to gm; order 25 021 131 The firs| quesnon «o be ds|ermIned rs whether this CA » (1) has the arscrenronery power to extend H1: 14 Days Period [Peragraph1b)l:ar (2) rs barred by me Iurlclus alflcro aacmrre «mm revl Days Period [Paragraph (en. mg the M 19. The doctrine av /unclus ammo has been explained by Nelh Palhmanathan FCJ In Ihe Federal Ooun case 0! Stony World sun 5 SN szuurmuwnnaeuruwnmiw -we s.rr.r nu-nhnv wm re used m mm we mrrrmrr-y mm; dun-mm VII AFVLING Wm! and v Engansll (M) Sdn BM [2020] 12 MLJ 237. at [13]. as follows ‘[13] n 1. sound ma um anm . cam! nu wunaunm . n...: ma. n am not pants: 4». mnamy to II-opvn -rm. nrmnd -nd xunplemern the hull ardcr mfljuflgmem romlng In on dispute :1 has Idludlcpted upan. This mu, known 1: ma doctrlnu oliunrlut amen» stems Inn: 1!» pm.a:,,:. nillnllny n. Inlynion. finru rmuld pa amt Imcnrlnlmy and mm It courts wen pervnlnad tn ruvitw and ncvmldw final omurs nnd luflgmuntr ' (emphasis added). 2o. wa rspmduce bekaw rr1A and 93 RCA: ‘M r M Cour! auudgo shall nu raganv Ivjltsfloo In udmlnrslulnfl any orIRcA1 honln, tho com or .1 Judy: smll Inn ruglrd to nnajusuaa anna narflcular me and not only to uh: tmhnicnl mm-cnmplilnzl alany oI[RCA[ nmm r 9.7 Puwel ol com or ./nag. la anmga at lbridgo mm. Me com on Judge mu law pawur to enlarge or abridge ma nme appafntod by masa Rum, at {hr by an war Inlzryinq limu for dafng lny let M Inklng lny piucuding, upnn such mm: 1» any) as ma [nation of m. an my rvquiu, and any sum smargamsnt may be omsmd aflhaugh ma npahcalrnn /01 mo same rs nor mm unnl alter ma Jxkrralron anna mna appmntpd or alien/Pct’ Prm/mad max when me I/me rm aemnng any pleadmg 0! document 0! my any smdsvu, answer or dacurmlvt, or flumg any 50115 or has oaan mac or nnmaa by any ullhese Rules nr by any dwucnon an 0! under ma summons fur dwadmns u by an we: or ma Court or a 2 N szummuwnaeuwwnufiw ma sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; flan-mm vn mum pm Judge ms cont: D/BHY appucarron In oxrvnd sum (we and or any ardlr mado mason mu be home by me many mlkmg sum app!/cal/on.“ (emphasis added) 21 We have no nasrxauon to deduce mat the CA has a discrmmnary power rd extend any nme peflod which has been prevlausly ordered by me CA. sucn a drscrerrdnary power rs clsarlram r as RCA (me CA -snan have paws: rd fix by an M16! enlarging urns, for dorng any 50! Dr Ialdng any ploceedmg, upon such Iemvs (if any) as me juslfce dune case may rsqufmfi. Furthermore. by vmue 0! r 1A RCA, in ma applrcauan cl r 93 RCA, the CA -snau have regard 10 ms juslrcs of the pamculsr case and nor only la the lechmcal rmlh compliance 0! any uI[RCA] 22 The /umus olficfc dacmne rs provided by case law and cannot override wnnen law. Aceamlngw, [Ms CA is not lunctus offcio and ms in drscrerronary pawar under r 93 lead wnn r M RCA lo extend me 14 Days Period [Paragraph m] In rne Vnlerest of wstwoe In pavagraph 25 beluw. we provide aw reasons In! extending me 14 Days Period [Paragraph (b)] as war! as an why Paragraph (b) [CA's order (25.a.2u2r)1 shown be varied by «ms edun. E. wnag via; gurggg 91 CA‘: Ordor [25.I.1D2l)? 23. wun regard to me eonscnmrm of CA‘: Order (25 3.202‘ ), we adapr ms rondwing approach ran: down by cnong sraw Far CJ (sedan ar Sarawak) in me Federa\ Courl case of Nuwacrei Sdn and v Srl Mam Still and 12000] 2 MLJ 353, an 374; rn 5zumMaPNnaaHrHwnMRw Wane smm n-nhnrwm r. used M mm r.. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] mum wrm "n. R. Stnnd Music ran 50 m (was; .15 Boav 15:, so John Rnmilry we oburvld 4:: y 155) n.. amply mad: nlcnnstmlng my mm mummm I: m um mm to my Dart um um: M possrnn. -nu not in man out or nutmy on elm" in - dud, mm 1: b1 imporsfbll to mconclll u wm. lnaklmr mdrnon -xprvts clean in the sums ma rnougn mo mm cum: p-ssm mm-.1 ta a and, m. dacllndprincipln .pp:m, m my mw, oquuryzo. cnunon1Ir' (emphasws added). 24. We are av the consmered mew that Ihe purpose 0! CA‘: Order (25 6 mm Vs as (aHows* (1; by reason of Paragraph (5) [CA's Order |25.a.2a21)], me CA had decided «mu nmwunscanamg (he P|ain| 5' non-‘cinder av M( 300 and Ms Lwm VI! the Sun (Plaintiffs Non-Jollldlr (Mr. sac and Ms. Llm)], the CA did nol strike out Ihe Suil H VS thsrefnre clear that me purpose o1 Paragraph (a) [cA‘s Order as a 2021;] is lor me man av the Sun m proceed aespue the Hamxirrs Nan-Jalndsr (Mr, 500 and Ms, um) (Purpose [Paragraph (an). The Purpose [Paragraph (a)] is in consnnanue mm o 15 r em M me Rules 0! com 2m2 which pruwdes as muoms - “A caun at mum mu not an durum by reason aims mtqamdlr or nun-1e:n¢.r or my wry. nu ma Caun my 1!! lny cum or mlflur d-hrmin: m. mm or qmuom in 9 IN szummawnnaeuwwnufiw -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm (2) (3) drama. in Br I: my arm: rm mama and lnnnsu arm- parsuns who In p-um to urn sum or rn-mu " (ernpnasrs added): Paragraph (up [CA's Drder(25.8.2021|] requrred rne Plainms to pm Mr. 500 and Ms. Lum In ma sun. The purpose 0! Paragraph (b) [CA‘s order 125 3.2021» rs up ensure nnamy m Imgaurm. namely‘ the oourfs fina\ deersrdn in me sun [courfl Flnal De n (Su1I)] shafl net nnly and ma Prarnnns and Deiendanls bul anau s\so brnd Mr. S00 and Ms. Llm (Furpnn [Paragraph (am If the ca drd not drder Paragraph (5) [CA‘s ordar (25.a.2o2n]. ML 500 and Ms. Lrrn may sunsaquenuy rrnpugn me val y at me Caurl’s Fina! Daersran (sum on the ground char Mr. S00 and Ms. Lrrn have not been afiordsd merr ngm of hearing In aeoardanca with me second rura of natural mslma. Paragraph (:2) [CA's order (25.3 2021)] we-supposed mat upon me mrng 0! We Plavnlms‘ Jomder Application (HC), me Delendams wdurd nnl amen merera and me HC wourd mamafier make an order In rain Mr. S00 and Ms Lrm as parties in We Suit (Joinder Order! Defendants were to cmecl la the PIBIHIWS‘ Jamder Applrcaliun (HG) for any raasarr (as had happened m nns case), are Plalnlms mum nn| be expects-1 to uhtarn E Joinder Order Wflhm 14 days rrdrn me dale or CA‘s Order(25.8.2021). Trns was because rl me In view 0! the above inlerprelanon of Paragraph (b) [CA‘s order (25.a.2n21)1r If ma Dslendants were rd object to me PIainM1s' no srn 5zuurMaPNnaaHrHwnMRw "Nuns s.n.r In-uhnv M“ be used a mm rs. arwmnauly MW; dun-mm VI] mum wnxr

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-21NCvC-108-11/2020

PLAINTIF CHRISTINA CAROLINA GERARDA JOHANNA VERSTAPPEN DEFENDAN 1. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) ASP FAIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 3. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 4. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

In the premises, this Court opines that there are serious questions to be argued and tried. The application is hereby dismissed with costs of RM5,000.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3fedc32b-f0dc-4298-975e-4e6df5a6c396&Inline=true

11/12/2023 14:15:08 WA-21NCvC-108-11/2020 Kand. 72 S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HA—21m:vc—1ns—11/2020 l<and. 72 ,1/12,20 IN THE HIGH COURT or MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN TKE FEDERAL tERRI1oRv.MALAvsIA CNIL surr NO: WA-21NCvC-108-11I2U1I1 BETWEEN CHRISTINA CAROLINA GERARDA JOHANNA VERSTAPPEN (Passport No: NvLcPHsH3) ....PLAlNT|FF AND 1. KETIJA POLIS NEGARA. MALAVSIA 2. ASP FAIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 3. MENTER| nALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA A. KERAJAAN MALAVSIA ....DEFENDANT-DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Em: 21: Avhllcntlon ca slrika out me Writ znd Statement at Clnim [1] The Fourth Deiendant, Kerajaan Malaysia. Ned an applicahnn m smxa am me F\ainlifi‘s wm and Statement at (Nam: under omer 15 Rule 1Q(I)(a)Ru\es ml Court 2012 (RUG) on me basis Ihs| lhe Plaintilfs daim ma nuldwsdose a reasonable cause damvon. Orlhambs struck am under sw KBP|P§zwmEKxxk5mabD\g 1 E‘ W; Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm Order 19(1)(b] or (d) RaC on ma basis that ii is lnvuluus, vaxalious Of inwnvenient and aiaiudiciai, and an abuse of cuurl pmuess. In his aiiamaiwa, io seek a s1liki'ng um wf iha Piaininrs ciaim wiui wsls under Order 92 Rule A R120 R] The reasons Cited by me Founh ueiendani are: (i) No cause oi action disclosed in the Plainiiira claim: (II) Fremaiure as me maiier I! aim under iiwasngaiidh; (iii) Non-compliance wim Order 15 Rule 7 RaC, (lvj The F-iainciirs claim preiudloss Ihe mI—go'irIg invesligaliun: (V) The Piainmrs claim is vexaiious, frivulnus. abuse of Lxmrl process. [3] This CDUI1 had already decided in aiiaw ihe Plaihms appiicahon io amend her siaiemeni L71 ciaim, so reason on non-compliance would no: he enisnaihed here. This com win address ihe considerations for me other reasons cried by the Fourth Deiandani. TIII P|IinI|fFI claim [41 in ssserme‘ iha Piaimiii claims ihai ihe neiendahis had dreamed their siaiuidry duiies and/or were hagngsni in the discharge oi «heir slalulory duiias. This had anseh imm the iaiiawing lads: I?) On 7.12.2017 Ihe deceased, the Plainfiffs daughter was found dead an a nalodny of Unit 6-5 Cap square Kuala Lumpur she was ha: dmhed A sudden Death Report (sna) vms opened In look ma Ihis case but was donciuded on (he same day: (ii! on 912 2017 we Piaihim wha had naveued Vrom ma Neihenands had idemmed ihe deceased. She was ihiomiad by the Defendants that lhe deceased had nmmmmsd suidds and SN KBP|PizwmEKxXk5mmD\g 1 'NnI2 Sum IIIVVDIV M“ be has a mm a. aiiimii-y MVM5 dnunmnl ha .mm mm [221 The apniicaiion is hereby dismissed WM! oasis nf RM5,ucn. DATED 7 DECEMBER 2022 /fl,4/tat ROZ MAWAR ROZNN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HVGH COURT OF MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For me Plsinrilfl Molid Ania: iogazhar with Narfauzani bum Mohd Noni/n Auomay Gsnerafs Chambers a/Ma/aysia Forms oaranaanz: Sankara Naraya/van a/I Sankaran together W/II1 Phaan war Ken T/n S N Nair & Farmers sin KBP|PizwmEKxXk5mmDVg “ -was Sum ...m.. M“ be used m mm is. nvimruflly MIN; dun-mm VI] arium pm SIN KBP|PwzwmEKXXk5mmD\§ me SDR eonoiuded «na case as deaui caused by iiaiurai cause or suieid (III) The Piainiiir driconinncad and dissatisfied and wnii the assisiance lmm me omen sovernnieni nad managed lo nave in. case rehivestigaledl [MA soednd aucopsy was also condueied in me Nemeriands by Dr Frank Van Der com which riad ieiuiod in a slgnifimnl manner the findings DY the Initial autopsy conducted by Hospifiai Kuala Lumnur [HKL): |v) Pursuanl cnaieio, me Plalrilm wiin Lhe intervention by the Dawn Government requested for a burial inquest bsinna the Coroner dndsi S328-341 criininai Procedure Code (CPC)1o delervnine ins cause nfdaath or me deceased. (vi) On a.a.2a1ains lnquesloommenced and a total 0122 witnesses were caliedr (VH) On 33.2919 ins Coroner delivered ine verdict oiine inoassi as ‘misadvenlum'i (viinuissaiisned, me Pialnufl nad appoaiod co me to me Hicn Conn nl Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, (ix) on 22.11.2019 «ne Hign couri set aside zne Comnefs verdici and repiace i\ wiin iaeain by person or persons unknown“ and ordered the Anomey General io direct the Rdyai Maiaysian Police to begin iunnei invesiigaiicns; (X) on 27.11.2019 ins Piainiiu was inidnned that «no oeiendans nad idniied a task form In reiiivesiigaie me dei>eased’s deain as perms High Cnurl orderwnere the deeesseds dealh was re» siassiiied as murder inciiiding ine Second ueiendani To inis, there seenis 10 be no decision aroanclusion driai ioday. a wise s.ii.i IIIVVDIV M“ be used M mm as siiiii.ii-y MVM5 dnunvinnl wa nFiuNG Wm! [5] From me evidence in me Inquest, ine nneing arm emei 01012 High ceun mere men irrree years ago, the Pleiniru claimed met me Deienuanis had meaenea lheirsmlmory auuee and/orwere negiigani in ina execution inereeieiiing breaches orsianaam Operating Pmcedurvs (SOP)and eesi practices in police Invssligaimns The Flalnlifl pieaded he Ii-mkadaisical allrlude of me Defendants in respect oi me said High Courl order and detailed the allegsd Iaiimes and/Dr negligenoe pertaining the slalulury emiee carfied em by me Deienaenie including mallaasance and/ar misfeasanue andlor non—Veasam>e. The deieiis ei which are flipuiatsd in me Plainlifls Slatemenl vf cieirn para 37(5)-(no). Tn. uppliuliun to strlkc cm is] Trre Founh oeieneani submitted man there was no Izuse ul aeuon as investigalion by me Defendants was siiii unguing and thus in answer to the allegalicns by the Fiainliff would be plemahire and couid H0! subsist Reierence was made In ine Supreme cows decision In Govornmen! al Maieysia v Lirn Kl! Slang A Anorhnr Cass mu] 1 cu Rep 53 al ps7; “Whamierr is we meaning of ‘a cause a/aciionxv 9: cause ofacnbli’ VS 5 statement ollacls alleging that a p(amMI’s Iiglll, Either a! law or by statute, has, in some way or anmrrer, been adversely ervecied or plsjildrcsd by me act :1! a defendant in an aczrcn. Lord Dip/ock In Leieng V CoooeI[1955]1 on 232 521242 defined ‘a cause olaclion‘ In rnean a fanlual snuexron, ine exisience of which eniiuea ene person to obtain from the Cam? .3 remedy againsl another person’. in my view we factual eiiueiion spoken af by Lord Dfplock must consist of 9 statement alleging the! firs? the respondent/p/Eimmf has a ngni emier a1 /aw 11! by eianne and me: secondly such rigni has been affected or prejudiced by me eppei/enwe/endanrs ac: " sin KBP|PwzwmEKxxk5mmDVg ‘ -nae Sum ...na.. M“ be used m mm me niimruflly MVM5 dun-vinrrl vn .nnne we [71 on the premise «no: the Investigation lmo lne case was no| yen complete. Ihe Fourm Deienoanl conlanoeo that me ngnis oi the Flaimifl nao yel to become a realnylcryslallizeo. II was me lunner submissions at me Founn Delenaam that was wrung to assert the Deienaams. Whilst In me midst pl eonoueiing invesligaoun VICD this case, were negligent In carrying oul lnair «miss. The Fourlh Delenaanu mainlainao that man powers were oonlaneo by IN-! laws whele me conduct and ournplellun ul me Investigation were at their discreuon as long as N was wnducted pursuant tn me plescllbed laws and proosourea. The Fmlnh Defendant suornined that the Plniniills claim was prqudlclal as it would disrup| due pluuess pm)! In me conclusion oi the lnveshgallan [3] This com is bound by me law enunciated by me Federal Court In Now some: Tlmoa (Malaysia) and v Kurnpulan Konu Nlnya Sdn Bhd & Anor [19:51 1 ML] 225 that clearly some . ‘/11 an application to strike outpleadlllgs under oroar iarulo 19(1)(a) no evidence shall be admissible and ma coulf must callsidsr only me pleadings lor the purpose oldslsrmlnmg whslilal me Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause olaorion or the statement ofDelencs disclosed no defence. The zeal to his app/led is wnslhsr on the race of ma plaadlng, [he courv is prepared to say lhal ma cause oramron or the defence is obviously unsustainable" [91 we own nas scrullmxed all me plsadings by all parties in ms case and nplrles mac n is not me opparlulls case to be dismissed M summarily. The Plainciii had atgreallenglh scipulaledlhefacts upan mien her causes of acllan are pursued. The Delendallls on me other hand had defended its position and cclnlended immunity under the FOHDS Act 1967 whereby an KBP|PwzwmEKxXk5mmD\g ’ ‘Nata Sum ...n.. will as used m mm s. nllmluflly MVM5 dun-rlnlil VIA mulls WM! in unis case given the [acts and encumsianoes thereto must be tried and considered on evidence to be mamined at inai no] This cdun reiers in me Federai Cuurfs decision in Loh Holdings Sdn Bhd v Poglin Develaplnenl sdn Ehd mm) 2 ML! ms where I! neid at me: ‘It cannot be gainsaid mar under arms r19 pleadings wrii only be slruck out in plain and obvious cases. So long as ins Staiameril af Claim discloses some ground oi action, were mere fan mar me piainmv rs unlikely to succeed at me trial is np gmlmd Idr smking our " [11] me is nuts case wnere ii can be cieariy determined summaniylhal the Piaimnrs eiairns are unsustainable. Amer smdying ine pleadings. (his opun edneindee man there is a reasonable cause er aeuon againsi me Defendants as dafimyd by the spud oi Appeal In mrapnn Fermai Sdn and v Slbah Forsstlndustrlu sdn BIu:l[2D11] 2 MLJ192 at p200‘ “The expression reesonabie cause of aclmn’ means ‘simply a racmai srruazion the existence ai which enzrires one person to airinrn from me com a remedy against ano!haIpsrsL7n'. . . The resr in be applied is whether on me face a! me pleadings. me court is prepared to say that me cause o/amen is diwidusiy unsuslairrabl .' [12] This own is not prepared to mid so in this inscanee Tne nexl cdnsiderenan is whether the Fourth neiendani is abie to strike out me Plainuirs ciaim under 0rdar18 Ruie 19(1)(b) where ii can mwv consider the amdavii evidence or all panies In Halapan Penna! Sdn Bhd (supra) the Court amppeal described me word ‘scandsious' as unnecessary and IN KBP|PwzwmEKxXk5mmDig -we Sum ...ne.r MU he used m mm ea annr.u-y sun; dun-nun! vn .nnne WM! lnelevam. It IS clearly not so here. The Plalmm had pleaded all the lens and avams that had leken place that neoessnale her lnsmuling this suit. [13] There are oenelnly Issues to be tried The issues lnclude the Defendants’ claum ol imlnumly which cannot be deemed war: we slnkmg out anplicallon. Thus Conn agrees wnn lhe demsmrl in Zlklrll lzln Molmnui Eu vrmo Abdul Axiz bin Alunad 5 are (155512 MLJ 222 an p225 cited by me Responden . ‘The mailers raised by both parties In their amdal/Rs are mainly qussllbns of fad a be decided Bl lhs Mal. There are also pmpasmens uflaw raised by [he plslnlm whether ma pub/icalion in M9 newspapers on Mann 2, 1982 alleging his arrest is defamatory and wnemer lhs stoppage onus salary was dune bone Iide through the facts have been sdmlflsd. The deIerldents' claim to lmmun/ty lrom suns 7: else a serious quesrian oflaw which has lo be gone into 8! I//a/. / cannal 51 fhisjunclure usurp the luncllarl ofs lflsfludge and deal with mesa issues summarily. In my view. me pleserlt pleadlng read as a wnale and presuming all the ellegallons to be trues ls not a plain and abs/ilmx case to smka out as disc/Dsmg no reasonable cause a! action. Nor are may scandalous ar yexelmus man abuse cflha plocess ollne cannon lne gmunds aavanoeo by (he Learned SEND! Federal counsel The appllcallarl is msmlssed with costs. ' [14] Therefore, el lhls juncture it cannot be said that me Pleinlilrs elelm ls scandalous, lnvoloua nr vexafuus. Tms Courl has oonsmerecl me Founh Defendant's subm uns mat contended me Plalnmrs slalm is Improper because me am ol irwfingalion nae yet lo he oonolueeo as me sw KaP|PwzwmEKxxk5mmD\g 7 -use Sum IIIVVDIY MU as used a mm as snlmu-y MW; dun-mm VIZ .neae Wm proaaourea and lime laken to conduct and complete Invaatlgauon are at Ina oasorauon ov ma Defendanls. Hill (Apponnnr) v chm conszame or Welt Varkshim (Respondent) man) AC 5: was clled. In parllcular, Ine Fourth nerenoanl suornlneo on «he pan onne House at Lords’ decislurl Iouming D" the Wlde dlscrelion glven to the chief police uflicer when as to now me dunes are lo be exeouIao ano resources depluyedu [1 51 Hwvsver, Ina House or Lords vecugnized me wrlious liablllly 0! pence omoers alpsl-1: ‘There is rm quastion [hat a police omcer, like anyone else, may oa habls III Ion Ioa person who is injured as e um: rasuu oflvs aolor omtssians. so ne may oa liable In uarnagas ror asaaun, unlawrul arrasl, wrongful fnlplfsonmenl and msllclous pmssclttlorl, and also for negligence. Instances wnera Ilanlllly /or naglrgenca nae been eslab/Ishsd are K/vghrlsy v Johns [1932] 1 WLR 249 and Rlgby v Chief consraole of Northamptonsllinz [1995] 1 WLR 1242, Funhev, a pa/Ice owner may be guilty nfa crimmal orrenoa Me wlllfully falls to perform a duly whlch no is bound Io oenonn by common law or by stands’ saa Reg I/DylIIam[197§] GB 722 where a oonszaola was cunvicled of willful neg/eel or duty, oeoause, bsirlg prasanl aI the scene we wo/em assauu rasumng In Ina oaaln onna vlctlm, he no.1 liken no steps Io /nlsrvarls " [15] In mu (supra), ma cIaInI was against me pollce Io: Iamng Io aopnenena me murderer who was allegeu to have oonuniueo a series at muvdevs and attempted murders aver years prlor Io Ina oeoensews murder. and mus ll was alleged that me police were neglvgenz in prevenlmg the deceased‘: murder. Whether the duly 0! care awed by H19 police Iowama Ine oeoaasad was deliberaled and almougn mere existed SIN KaPlPuzwmEKxxk5mmDlg ‘ wane Sum ...na.. MU he used a mm no ollnlnnllly sun; dun-mm VIA .nnno WM! reasonable lereiteeability o pnlice did not promptly apprehend the murderer. there was ahserloe or ingredient or enaractenstic as iind liability on the pan ol the police. aly harm to such as me deceased it the [17] The case at hand is ditlerent. The Plainlill I3 nut claiming that the Detendants had la} in prevent 5 vanlcular crime from happening or negligent in preventing the deceased lrdrn such death, hut the Deferldams’ lailuie and/or negligence in the eteetitien cl lheir staiiutdry dutles as evident by the praeeedlngs hetore the Coroner and therealter the appeal at the High court [is] The facts in this case also dlfler horn those in Radhalrrishnan Alng-ml r L Anar V Muhammad zanirl whoth Kallmuthu is ors (20221 1 Llvs :in where the claim against the liral detendarii in that case pertained id statements dtwdrds that were allegedly uttered oulpuhllshed lhatmuld cause hatred against other religions in Malaysia As considered by the learned High cduit Judlnial cdrnrriissianer, such cause cl action is not -recognized urider Ma/ayslan /aw in any /orrri whatsoeven it was decided that there is rid tdrt Mblasphemy and had reiused to create a new held at ten. The cases a1 Atip Ali v Josuphlns pom Nlmls .4. Ann! mu} cu Rep 29: and orig Bonn nu. @ chm Perry 5. Anal v Kenjaan Mallysla 120101 3 cu 125 were relerred ta. it then (allowed thal the alleged failure by second delendant ltd the leurih deiendarita) to lake anion under the Police Act against me lirst delendant was sustainable. [ls] in the premises, this court does not ilnd that the Plairitilrs claim is an abuse ufwurl process. The ground underordar 15 Rule 19(1)(d) Rot: in KBP|PwzwmEKxXk5mabDl§ wane s.ri.i ...r..r will as used m mm Die nllnlrullly MIN; dun-vlnril VIA mtiiia Wml cannot succeed \n we Instance This Court Is minded that the pawsr In s1nke am eune should be exercised eperingwy. [20] The (ma law on slriklng an: al n:\a\ms .e em down by me Supreme Conn m the celebrated case M Elndlr Builder Sdn End if United MGIIYS/all Banking Corporation Ehd [1993] 3 MLJ 36 w is only rn warn and abwaus cases meneeauree mum be had to me summary process under we rule and me summary procedure can only be snowed when it can 9/ear/y be seen [hat 8 claim or answsr re an we face cl it ‘obviously unsustainable’ (see AS or Duchy nf Lancaster v L&NW R/y Co). It cannot be sxsmlssd by e minme exammarion oflhe documents and facts nflhs case in arder m eee whether we party has e cause ofsction or a defence. (see Wemock v Mo/oney .s 0(5) The sumormss Iulfhm show that iimers is a point ev law whrch requires ssnous dlscussian, an onjecuon should DE lakon on [he pleadings and the pom! set down /0! srgumsnl under 033 I3 [which 78 V7 psri malaria Wfih our 033 I? of me RHC)(sss Hubbuck A Sons Ltd V VI///kinson, Heywood 4 Clark Ltd) The Dam! must be selfsfed that there rs no reasonable cause of acfian or that me claim: are /rrvolous or vsxsliaus nr [hat me de/B/was reamed are not arguable." [21] In me prenuses. we Cmm opines that mere are senoue queeucne to he argued and med em KaP|PuzwmEKxxk5mmD\g ‘“ -we sum IHIVVDIY M“ be used m my ee nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm vn nF\uNG W

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCvC-340-06/2022

PLAINTIF 1. ) MOHAMAD FAUZI BIN RAMLI 2. ) AMINAH BINTI ASMAIL DEFENDAN ABDUL HAMID BIN ADA

This Court opines that it is not necessary to hereafter assess whether this case also falls under the criteria to strike out as provided for by Order 18 r19(1)(b) and/or (d) as it is satisfied that (a) has been fulfilled. This Court will also not address the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Defendant. In the premises, the application to strike out the Amended Writ and Statement of Claim by the Defendant is hereby allowed with costs of RM10,000.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=28e5a29f-41bf-4cdc-bedd-2f5f42924aa0&Inline=true

11/12/2023 12:41:50 WA-22NCvC-340-06/2022 Kand. 30 S/N n6LlKL9B3Ey3S9fQpJKoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N n6LlKL9B3Ey3S9fQpJKoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N n6LlKL9B3Ey3S9fQpJKoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N n6LlKL9B3Ey3S9fQpJKoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N n6LlKL9B3Ey3S9fQpJKoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N n6LlKL9B3Ey3S9fQpJKoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—22IIcvc—3au—o6/2022 Kand. 30 11/12/2023 12;A1-50 HIGH COURT oF MALAVA Ar KUALA LUMPUR IN TNE FEDERAL YERRITORV. MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT N0: WA-ZZMCVCJMI-as/ZIIZZ BETWEEN 1. MOHAIIIAD FAuzI BIN RAMLI 1" PLAINTIFF (NC No: 850711-10-5939) 2. AMINAH BIN11 ASMAIL ....2"“ PLAINTIFF (I/C No: 530307-10-5374) (Kean:-dulnyl Menuakwn dun amindak sebugal Wakll din wnrls yang sah kepadi Ramli Bin Mal Ada yang meninggal p.IdA19.1.2019) AND ABDUL HAMID BIN ADA ...,DEFENI:IANT [NC No: 4en2n4.Io.52a3) sm mmaazyzsmwm DI! s.n.I ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 M mm .. nrimnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! En: I3: The oarandant-s application to Ilrllta out the Amended writ and statement otclaiin under order ll r1!(a). (I3), (di and/or Ordu 92 r4 Rules of court 2012 (Rue) The De1end:m': balls to strike out the PIainti«a' claim [1] The Defendam contended that the action did not disclose any reasonable cause of anion against the Deleridaril as the Plaintiffs had not obtained any letter at administration ol the deceaseds estate who had passed away on 19.1.2019 The deceased was the Detendanrs younger brother The discovery that thedeceased had a son. the First Plainml, was on |haHaIel‘ul day, who had visited the deceased on hi! deathbed but had Ielt oetore the deceased passed on The Seourld Plalntitl la said to be the wife at the deceased. [2] vwthout the letter oi administration ol the deoeaeeds estate or grant ol Drabala, the Dateridant sttbiniilad that the Plaihtilfs had no locus staridi as required under 2.59 Probate and Adininiatrallan Act 1959 to initiate any aetion tor the estate atthe deceased [3] The Detendarit further claimed that there were no special circumstances in this action as it was not to proted or preserve the asset otthe deceased’: estate Further, the Delendant subinrtted that damages too cannot be claimed by the Plainttffs [4] it was also the Derehdariits grouse that this claim was wrongly riled in this court as it should have been at the Klarlg or shah High court as the land eoneerned ls located in the oistria oi Sabak Belrlaml Selangor All the parties‘ addresses are also not in Kuala Lumpuv IN r£LlKLVB3EyJSIflNKnA “Nate Sahel mmharwlll be ti... M new i... nflfllhallly mi. dnuuvlnht Vfl aFlt.ING mi wllernlenno Plainlms have a locus uandi In ma mis mil? [5] This Coumook lrllu conslderanon lne Amended slate-nenl o7Clalrn that snowed lne Plalnliffs nad lnlllaled «me sellon as ‘personal representalwes and legal beneficlanes oflhe deceased‘ Hlwveven ll was nol s1ated whelherlhe Plalnlms nad Indeed aednnedlhe requlred lelteraf sdrn-nlsnallen at me decesseds eslale Tnougn they may oe legal beneficiaries‘ the pnnciple enunmated hylhe Federal codn lrl Almanldy bin Kassirn 4 on v. Rasman bin Raslan [20111] 4 ML] 297, legal beneficlarles may have me locus s1arldl lo commence an actlon wnnonl firs! obtaining a lamerol admlnlslraliorl or grant or pmosle only lllney can prove any ln speaal clrmmslances, were In that case it was acknowledged lnal cne legal laenenclanes nad me loous slandl lo eommenee legal idion ldrlne purpose ol molecnng and preservlng lne essels dune salale Thls ls ndxwnnslandlng lne smel pluvislan o1s.39(1) dune Fmdale and Admlnisllallon /M11959 wnlen scales: -3911) Wheve a person dls mleslale ms movable and lmmavable property unlil admlnislrallorl ls granted in respecl Itleleol snall vest ln me Corperallorl In lne same manner and la me same extent as ll vesls VI me Probate Judge In England " [6] In lnls case, lne Plalnmls demanded a sum of RM147,sau Whlch lney cdnlended llley were enllzled lo They had also demanded damages pramlsed on lraud Tnls Caun caneldensd lne Amended Delenoe and lmlnd no lraeea dl such. For me purposes dnnn. appllcallon lo slnka out |hls Caun presumes me lmln ln me cdmenu ol me pleadlngs (see Tum Nnjllshnk bln lsmall y. Leong Nup Holdings Bhd[19.Id] 1 MLJ M1] IN ncLll<Ll753EyJs§mNKnA “Nana Smnl nuvlhnrwlll n. d... w my n. dflnlnallly snm. dnumlnnl wa mans Wrul [7] Thus Court heldlr that the daims by [hi Plivrlmlfs did nol Val‘ VIVINVI me exeeprrprr in me general rune me: me eamrmsrrrrrmr had no we to sue on behalf onhe deueasnds esrere umess he had in his passessiprr me extraction of me sealed wener or admInIs1raImn ar grant :7! probate The marrerary I:\aIm lur prpeeeds eerrrror be sure as necessary aha expedrerrr to he arr action to prprecr or preserve (he deceased‘: r-scare that juslvfies «hrs cpun rp grant locus for me Plamtfis rp pmeeea wrm this sun. Based on me vane preserrrea, mere vs no urgency var the Plamlvfls «p are this suit agams1 the Defendant wvthaul «re: pmerrrrrrg e reher or admlmslvallon or gram pr probate In new narrresh an R./armrrrarr V mm zarena Abd Rahman mm] 5 ML! :51. me Court of Appea\ held mar exeeprrprrs wcmd anly be granted lorlhe Irmrred purpose cf prvlectlng and preservmg me esta|e's assets’ ‘The resr m adrrrrrrrsrrarrorr pmceedmgs Io! locus srarrur (re sue before extract olgmnt or rehers oraumrmsrrerron) must be 8! less! Ianhs purpose alpmlscling and preserving the esla1e‘s assets The caurr did no! see how the rrrsrrmirrg or banknlptcy proceedings agamsr e purporrea deblnr ol me esrere would fall wrmrrr that restrictive test A oerrmrprcy prpeeearrrg could 110! be sera 10 be for me purpose o/proreclilvg and presen/mg me assets ale aeeeeseas uslals ' [8] Thus, me summary procedure can he applrea here srnee the Flammls do not have me Vows stand: up mmale the alarm sgamsl me Defendant Thrs Cour! finds mm the action‘ on the face of K, rs unsuslauname This Coun had ounsmeved aH lhe weadmgs filed herem arm finds lhal this rs : mam and obvious case that wanants a surkmg out The supreme Court‘: aecrsrarr m aarraar Builder Sdn and A 2 0:: v r~ rr£L\KLvB3Ey1simpAKnA “Nuke sum mmhnrwm r. u... m mm r... mrmrrry mm: dnuumnl VI mum pmr unlrad Malayan sanking Corporaliun and[1u:q 4 CL./ 7 on ma pnnmples of smkmg am is «me [9] This cum du\y considered the authnrmes was by me counsel lor me Plumms oiPo1iaII at Ma! Jason (sebagal lnnk yang ssh dan wakil um kepa a Man Jusnh @ Jusah bin Abdullah, SI Maw v Mend Subri bin at-azau (sebagal wakil din‘ yang sun kapaaa Glvazall bln vusor, Si Man‘) dan Lain-lain (2013) 9 ML! 474 am Hnsun bin Huang fmemlskwn flan bonindzk stbagal wakil um dan wnrls lrepadn nan. pusalm mung am my Mn.-.mm; v. Pamoanyunan Tamn um Perumallan sandman and 120212) MLJII 2252. There are both High coun cases Much are run bmding espeuany so when me «am and me veuan. sought for are mllevem lrom me ones m (his mum ma cam: 15 bound by the pnnupla av slam ascms ma heraby appnas the Iega\ pnnclples held by Ch: Federal Conn m A! Ruhidy am Knalm (supra) Then agem‘ m Is not In vayour av the Pluinnfls conclusion [10] In finding (hat the Plamtms dc not have me locus s1anm to miuale «ms anion. mus court does not agree wnh me submisswons Mme Pwammvs that (hey wuld nvl apply for such letters 01 aarmnnstranan [11] This Court npmes that 1! is not necessary to nereamer assess whether thus case also vans under the oneena lo scrike out as pmvmeu cm by Ovder1B r1911){b) and/or (.1) as n \s salisflsd t|1al(a)has been lu|flHed This court will also not a-jams me Issue nl jurisdiction vausad by the Deiendam m mmKLv53Ey1simpAKnA «ma Snr1n\nuuhnrwH\I>e LAIQ4 m mm .. nrighvnflly MIMI dnuumnl VII mum am.‘ [1 2] In the premses‘ lhe appucanun Ia mnke out me Amended Writ and Slatemenl or Claim by the Defendant Is hereby aIIowe-1 wnn costs of RMWIOOO DATED 16 FEBRUARY zuzs / ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR Falthe P/aIrIMf' Wan snariran binri wan Yusofi‘ T/n Wan Shanfah Jarmlsh 5 Partners For me Dclendzanl Nurul Aqilln bum Sallalv T/n Moms/IHa1IIIy .; lsmarl sm ncLIKLI7s3EyJs9flNKnA DI! Sum! ...m.mm .. I... M my me WWI-I mm: dnuumnl Vfl nFIuNa mm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-11ANCvC-102-09/2022

PERAYU TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD RESPONDEN TEGUH AMANI SDN. BHD.

For the above reasons, this Court finds that the Notice of Appeal is defective and incompetent. The Notice of Appeal is not served within the time stipulated and id clearly out of time. In the absence and delay of an application to regularise the non-compliance render that this appeal is incompetent before this Court. In the premises, there is no appeal before this Court this Court allows the application by the Respondent with costs of RM10,000.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0e65e692-6cda-4393-a6b3-90a50fb32448&Inline=true

11/12/2023 12:54:37 WA-11ANCvC-102-09/2022 Kand. 29 S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—11mcvc—1o2—u9/2022 Kand. 29 11/12/2023 12; -37 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY. MALAYSIA CIVIL APPEAL No: WA-11ANCvC»l02479l20Z2 BETWEEN TELEKOM MALAYSIA EERHAD ....APPELLAN'r (Comp. Rug: mw|n1s1a:(12a74n.P) AND IEeuH AMANI snu am: . RESPONDENT (comp. Reg: 2no7o1ooexw1(7s4aoa-w) JUDGMENY Enc :: Yhe Responaem-s application to slrike out me Notice of Avpeal under Order 15 :19 and/or Order 55 r5(2) andlor Order 2 a and/or Order 9: rl Rules of Court 2012 (R05). 1 sm kuzIDlp«knums5c\D7M>£A nine smm ...m.mm .. .4... w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm lnlroducfion [1] The basls ldr lms appllcallon filed by me Respondent Is that me Appellant had only sewed lls Nollee ol Appeal on 2 9 21122 when the last date to We and serve suen noliee was 30 B 2022 ‘me Maglslrale had decided ld snixe am me Appellanfs clalm on 15 3 2022 [21 The conmmexion mmugn me ocurl syslem showed that me sald Notice 0! Appeal was «led on lne last dale due wnlen was an a 2022 at 5 151mm om d»: not sewe mm! 2 92022 Order55 lS12)RoC requlres me Appellant lo we AND serve me sild Nonee L71 Appeal on me Resoondenl Mthm me snbuleled lime — before or by an 5 m2 Anzlysls and Declslon [31 The Federal Court VI rang Lee Hwy: 3. Ann: v Malayan Banking End [1979] 1 MLRA 142 at p343 neld that a baby dune ssld Nmice ol Abpeal must be Med and served on the Respondent wnhln me supulated nnle penod ’On (ms lrlterpletatlurl, me Federal Court was at me oplrlrorl that where rlorlce nad not been served on me other slde wllhm Ilrms, the nnpenl had not been brougmbelare ll “ [41 The Iale servlce was done we emall In me Respondents scllcncrcn 2 9 2022 —ms coun mus cannot accent that me sad service vln me same mode could no: nave been done on the same dale cl filing wmcn was me last day. Theve wls no Elppllcallon men by me Appellanl to legulanse this unm sner lne Rescondenl had filed lms appuseuon Ia slrlke om Even 2 m kuZlDlvimDms5ClD7MISA “Nair Smnl nuvlhnrwm .. b... m my me mmun mm: dnuuvlml Vfl menu Wrul then‘ me Appeflanl ms: nu! me any amaaun m euppon Ia lend strength to «me apnlncaupn al [he came when r: was filed [51 Funnerrnere, me sad Notice or Apnea! rs derecuue Tnere rs no case numbev of me man in the lower courl slaked merern. nar was me Maq\slrite's name and the enemsure number mcmdsd «or completeness I! can be sand Ihat Ihls notice IS defective as there was numcumplvince with Form 111A as requrrea by Order 55 rs Rnc — Kok Kan sang (opeming a susiness Undu nre Nnme Ind Style or same Kak .4 Ca (Formerly Known as Kok & Co) cnmereu Accountants, Malaysia) v Vnslilut uraunzan Malaysia (20191 11 ML! 1 In mis Inslam. me non-comphance did make me said Notice of Appeal ambiguous. Tms cpun (oak cognisance of the fact that there were two Suns between the same pamea at the war court at are same urne. Tnus, all pxeaarngs and cause papers must be specific to ensure justice Is admlmsleved accordingly, respecuuely [6] This cpun apes not agree wun me aupmrserons that me rennaa or the lnmehne am also nomcomphance in are proper vprrn at the Nance or Appeal dud nm cause any pvewdxce to me Resnondenl The Mes and procedures are mere luv me very reaspn lo anarese ma rssue Comphance and strict adherence to me Rec waum ensure that no party re prejudiced Eepecrany those who had succeeded rn nrerr Imgatlun —\-mere me parly arssausvrea Is given arnpne urne to me and serve us appeal, lamng which man rrgm rs revoked To apnea! Is not as M ngnn — It rs a creature 01 me scaxune where smcl compliance must be rnaae, near mere wm ru kuzImpcmums5c\n7M|sA “Nana sum nmhnrwm r. u... a my r... mmnauly am. dnuumnl Vfl muNG war be no lustlce al all Feueral Court In Aulo Duni: Sdn Blvd 1/. Wang snl Fm 5 Dis [1995] 1 cu IE5, ruled that "n is an olnlnllry proposluon llul we com is . srsnure oi statute and tlul equally a right of appeal Is also a creature oi statute. so unless an agyrieved paw can bring ninrsell within are terms or a smulory provision enlbling him In sppul, no lppsal lies.- [7] In the case BNO Sdn and v Wuaw Trudinu Sdn Blvd 5. Anor (2017! 1 Ln: 1311, n was deemed at par: 29 that - andlifivants could avoid lachniculiliu iimty loo mnku us: or me muvisions undvl the Rules to avail umnsems. But why‘ liiignncs crime to ignore in Hull: nno dn norlrlng Ia being their use naclr on track, they do so at lhlir own peril. rne Rules does nor racounizl apolaaios as o sulaslixuu of compliance almandarolypmvisions and luilhnr do rnis court " [51 This court also took note oflhe conduct onne Appellant who had requested several extensions oi «me to file amdavns in reply and lnerearter riled appllcatlnn «or an exlenslon M «me to regularlse me Sald Notice cl Auneal but without any elfiaevn In support which is alll unexnlelned. As me claimant in the lower ooun had last and was now seemingly lmem on an appeal, It should have been more dlllgenl lo monnor lcs case IN kuzlDlpcmums5clD7M|5A mu. Smnl mmhnrwlll .. u... w my r... oflnlnnllly mm: dnuuvlnnl n. muno ml [9] As held by me Conn :1? Appeal WI Data valumalai @ M Ramalirlgam s/a v Muthusamy v Data Dr ran cnln mm (2011:) 1 MLRA 511Ihls Caun lakes me clrcumslanoes olmls case where the salu Notice al Appeal was evemually served mm the Respandenrs snllcilors vla e—mall wmcn could have been done ngm alter me fillng on so 8 2322 so «ms Cowl finds «ms appeal lncnmpevam. N p513r514 al the Sald luagmenr ‘As sralsd earner, an appeal is not zmluglll ru lms calm lllllll ma miles 0/ appeal ls mm Illsd am salvaa, ma one act wlmollr ma olhal lanuals ma appeal lncampalalll rnalalola, ma lallllra lo saw: the nollca o/ appeal on ma olrlal parry wlmm nma ls llal an lnaglllanly Illa! can be cured sea Ma/Its Psrzlandaran KBWQEI v Surllli navalallmallr clllpalalloll sun Ehd (20051 2 MLRA 331, [2006] s AM? 647. Tms ED965113 maralma lncompalanl and mus! be /locsssanly be and was ucwlngly dlsrnlsssd W‘ Conclu no} For me alme reasons‘ Ihis Court finds that Ihe Nvtice vfADPeal IS defecllve The Nance of Appeal IS ml sewed wnmn ma tlme sllpulaled and is clearly am of me In me absence and delay at an appllcsllon ca regularlse the nun-compllanue render man nus appeal IS mmmpelam before this Com. m kuZlDlpimDms5ElD7MISA “Nair ml nuvlhnrwm be .l.... M my l... nflilnnllly mm: glam. Vfl nFluNa Wm! [111 In me pmnmses, mere Is no appeal before «ms cum am «ms Conn allvwslheappllcallon bylhe Respondenlln Enc3wIlh cus1s ov RM10,DO0 DATED 14 FEERLIARV 2023 Roz MAWAR ROZAIN JUDVCIAL COMMISSVDNER HIGH COURT OF MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For the Aphe/Ianl. Nurul Nam/an bmli Abdul Kadar T/n Harmy vusons All: For me Respondent How Fsk Lean T/n um sun 1. Goormng sm kuz1mpcmums5c\n7M|5A m. smm ...m.mm .. .4... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-25-78-02/2022

PEMOHON Adam Lee Shiong Lim RESPONDEN 1. ) Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah Wilayah Persekutuan 2. ) Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Wilayah Persekutuan 3. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Islamic Law — Apostasy — Jurisdiction of syariah court — States' Administration of Islamic Law Enactment not expressly conferring jurisdiction on syariah court to deal with conversion out of Islam — Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 — Whether syariah court had implied jurisdiction — Whether implied jurisdiction could be read into Enactment Islamic Law — Jurisdiction — Syariah court — Renunciation of Islam by appellant — Application for declaration that appellant no longer a Muslim — Whether jurisdiction to determine application with High Court or syariah court — Federal Constitution Art 121(1A)

11/12/2023

YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=62610d78-6e8b-49c5-b680-46a07ae2df35&Inline=true

11/12/2023 16:53:59 WA-25-78-02/2022 Kand. 75 S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N eA1hYotuxUm2gEageuLfNQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—25—7a—o2/2022 Kand. 75 11/12;2n2315 -52 DALAM MAHKAMAN TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAVAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (EAHAGIAN KUASA-KUASA KHAS) PERMOHQNAN §EMAKAu KEHAK Mu u_Q yucgwa-02120;; om» perlrava keuulusen M.nx.m.n Rayusn Syanan Wnayah Persekmuan Samnn Na new-n43-uuAa—2D2u Dena/Ikh 29112021 DAN u. m talk a kupulusan Mahknmnn Ymqgl Syanah Wlayah Pevsekulnan a. Samar: No 145011-043-uu3»2n1e mum. <9 10 mo um Dalnm pevkua Pevkara Am. 5 a‘u.12(3)‘ 21. Ram 51:) fin...‘ pm-mum. am Rem 1 Senarax Negen Pallsmbagazn Favsakuluan om Dawn Wrkam Akla pemaaman um:-;— umsm mam (Wmnynh-Wulzylh Pelsekuman) 1993, khususnya Bahagan» Eahaman HI flan w mu Dmam Derkara dlkntovm amam Dela: Kaur Guroux swan V Plgnwlr Pa": Du:-Ih vocr-1:1‘ Bummena/am .4 ArvL7v|1??|] 1 cu (Rep) 11 darn Soon Smgh Brkar Smgll V Panubuhan Kehaflkan /slam Mzlaysla (PERK/MI xmn .5 AMIIIVQSJ 2 cu 5 am Dalam pemam pevenggan 1 nag! Jadual kap-Ga Akla Mamamar. xmm.» 1964‘ Nurzn 5: Kaedah—Kaedah Mahkzmah 2012‘ clan seksyen n ma Rellelspesflik 1950 1 sm -AInvmuxum2yE=nsuLrNG mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm ANTARA ADAM LEE SHIONG LIM (No. KI B1028-075557) ...FEMOHON DAN 1. MAHKAMAH RAVUAN SVARIAH WILAVAH PERsEKuTuAN 2. IIIAHKAMAM TINGGI SVARIAN WILAVAH PERSEKUYUAN 3. MAULIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAVAH PERSEKUTUAN 4. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA ...RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN JUDGMENT me Fzclual Background [1] The appncann convened In Islam on 26 1.2010 al me Mame Agama Islam wnayen Persekutuan (“MAlWP'|. me 3" respondent herein, Hrs convarsmn was duly registered by me Regmrar e1MuzIIa1s er the 3“ respondent Anerrns conversion. me auphcam married Hayah emu Jemalul |“Hayau") on 14.10.2010. [2] Unfartunateh/, are marriage are not last n ended up m a meme The divorce was remrdad by me Kuala Lumpur syanan $ubo{dina|s coun on 17.9 2015 by a smgue la/sq rays [31 on 9 11.20213, Ihe apphcanl commenced a proceeding alme Kua\a Lumpur Syanah Hugh ceun, me 2"‘ vesponflem harem, agamst me 3'” respondent, mks! aha. for E declaukory Omar Ihal Ihe apphcanl IS no Vonger a Mushm (4) on 19 «o 2020, me Kua\a Lumpuv Syanah Hm com (“KL Syanah Hugh Conn”) drsmussea lhe apphcanfs dawn. The KL syanan Hrgn COUH alsn aHowad the 3" respnndenfs counlerdaim which required the applncanl (0 attend Akrdah COURSE//mg (“the KL Syanah Hmh Donn Order") m aAIhVw1uxL1mZvEinsuUNG «me s.n.r ...n.mn be used m mm ms nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm wa nF\uNG v-max \ha1'when any fact is especlally wlihln the knowledge 07 WW pelson, lne burden cl pmvlng lnel lam ls upon nnn-, (d) The KL Syanah ceun orders -n alluwlng the MAlWF's colmlerclalm and oompelllng lne aoplroern to amend akldah ouuneellln Void as n viu7a|:s Ans 5.e,1l and \2(3) ollhe Fedelal cdnslnunon Analysis [33] Lel me begin by responding lo me argumenl dune learned senior Federal Counsel, lowhom learned counsel for MAIWP deferred Itlal Ihe deelsldns ol lne syenen Courts are nol vevlewabla by me olvll oourls In essence, we learned SFC relred on An I2I(1A) of me Federal corlslmullon In short, me learned SFC submined lhal Ihe lnserliun el An 12111/M of me Federal consuluuon ls lo slop lne pracllce ol eggneved eerlles oonnng lo lne uvll Hlgh courle lo review me decisions made by me Syariah Courts; Suknl-I Dlrmawnn sosrrrlmrr Mndjn v Ketul Purgmn Pun/I M-I-ysru 3. Anor [1999] 2 MLJ 241 FC [34] I belleve ellneugn mere are so many oonlredlcnng proposlllnns on lne rnlerprevanon ol An 121(1A), we nave come lo a slege where il IS also elmosl settled. as relleraled by me Federal Court in lndrre eerrdm, meunemrae does nolocnsmulea blankelexcluslon orllne ]urlsfll'c|lon el cwrl courts wnenever e meller ralallng to lslernro law ansas. [35] However, ln lhe eonlexl 01 lne delemllnallon of a person who professes lne rellglon ollslern. |he Federal Coumn Rosllza Ibnhim v Kernllun Mogul se ngor L Annr [2921] 3 CL! am FE made e dlsllncllon belwaen cases wrrere one ‘no longer nmlesses lne rellglcn of Islam" and one who “never prolesses lne relrgion ol Islam” According lo lne Federal com, only me lerrner, wrncn relers In lenunciahon cases re lusllciable before me syanan com: me laner, wnicn neeeeserlly engages lne lssue at one’s ldenllly and legal slams, mus: lell wlmln lne lllrisdlcllon onne Clvll coun. rn IAIhVw1nxUmZVEinsuUNG “Nair smnl nuvlhnrwm be e... m my r... nflmnnllly em. dnuuvlnnl wa nrlum vmul [345] In dellverlng me ludgmem oune Federal court, Yengku Malnlun CJ observed as lollaws laal Slmlmanslrlg ln. above one canml unl|l|8ri|\Y an nls own accord lenounua ln. mlglun er Islam Dulng so would emum In an olleme seam me please»: al Islam In mun an lrulanca, lne Synlml Calm wmlld have mln lunsdlchons rallone parsorlaa ammlmrle mamas ms nas long heen emmua and axplalnea DYIM Fsdaral Com ll. Kamarlan All a Yg Lam Iwrl Ktrqaan Nogsn xelml... 5. 1 Llgt [2004] 3 cu «:9 re [2005] l MLJ197 lssl Yhe Hlgh Com‘ and me Calm cl Maul are lheralole emlecl In pnnuple n lne plalmlrl B 3 Muslin lleklng lo renounce nerlslln-n lslanunen me mmmelng -an aflnvlcl gsuul Iha pmcnpvls" nr lsum, ll wllnln me llmsalmn ol lne Syzllsh calm due In nn12I11AJaHrla re The mun of Appeal lwlher nmillmefl lnls by lollowlna [N5 calm uncluovl ln um Joylsuplfil [371 Applylng me proposmcn‘ me apphcanl, m his amdavll V77 suppod, annmea lnal ne had convened In lslam solely Io nlarry ms lonner wile so man may some we Icgemeras husband and wlle In snen, lne applicanl did not danythal ne had pmlessed the lehgmfl ol lslam He only seeks lo mnaunce ll slnoe ne no longer pmlesses me religion [as] rne applicant merelore comes wllnln the small :11 ‘no longer nrofsssas lne religlon or Ialam“ instead alone wflo “never pmlems the leliglon of lslam'. [39] The Conn M AUDBIF |he recent case oi Mlflis Aglml Illlm Snlangorl/Dahlia Dllamlfl Abdullall A AnorAppea([2023’] 2 cu 513 CA by E rnalorily, was 0' the vlew that In cases where the Syanan Cuurl had already made the dalarminellon lhat an appllcanl IS a Muslim‘ like in Ihe mslanl case, lne ulsllnelm drawn ' Rosllza must neoessallly be conslrued and answered as a mrlunciillon case. It was lrralevunl whemer the Ippllcalinn filed at (he Syariah Court was sla|ed as one never was a Muslim or one nu longer was a Musllm preusely because the Syanah Courl nau already made In: wdlclal dmernllnallon lha| one was a Muslim or u sm nAInVmulL1mZnEinsuUNG “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwm .. UIQG M my me nflmnnflly sun. dnuuvlnnl Vfl .nunc Wm! was SW a Muslim. The cvvnl court cleariy had no powef oHudIc4a\ review ovev (he Syariah Court ~ Val alone reverse depart or m any mannarra-M19512 or unnvel 01 go behind me declsvun 01 (he Syanan Courl - as (N: would be fanfamouni In aninlnngemanIolAn12I(1A) or me Federal Consmulmn [40] Despne me very persuaswe submission on mumple xssues or law and cansmminn vaxsed by Ennik Fahn, \ have to underlme mm I am bound by the doann: M slam dsctsls. ms .5 made clear by me High Com m s. Salvlnla T. sing-rarhuvar v Tlmbnlm M-mm’ ml Ehwal Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Anor [1991] 2 CL] supp 275 In max case, me Veamed Judge remarked max Undav me pnnavle av we densas. ma Caufl wow u bound Ia Vunaw me aamsnn an - pow mum wnsmum a ram dsudsnafal a sunemv Cami And, Iucnrauu deadendus mnmng upon 0:5 Couflbaluw (up w n Y! mmm m . wnllen Auflgmlnl‘ punished or unpubhshad‘ m a supenor Conn, vmcmudgmenllha Cmm below Vs nun avrave ov or .5 ma to lay Counsel m me u-Mmmgs, Ind, u) tharabo aecmemms am and mqumcax and band an a mum nemssavyio av arising fov decwsnn [41] This is most unfortunate smoe I find that lhe KL syarian coun omen. are wanflng. As affirmed by the appmzn\ in ms affidavll, me. (am: Ines m Chnshamly and me concept Mme Holy Tnnuy He had s|aled nus In hvs Slalemanlolc at the KL Syanah com The KL Syariah Couns found «ms to be msumcnem. The KL Syanah Ccurl at Appeal mum as loI|ows' Pads hemal mu, dakwaan Perayu lersebm mnan berdasnrkan mmngunya uma yang ndak dvsnknng own minimal: saksw Kamunaa bemandzngan vemhuklusn ualam Ian ktpevcayaan din mm." mm; mamng \eI.up memmukzn ketarangan yang mencukuvu mg: mtnznhmuln kepadl mm imahn am kepemayaan yang muuadl amnan Periyta dxlam sswalu auama 1: sm nAInvmxum1nEansuLrNG «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! [421 I have, however. my reservations on me line or this argumenl A iesnmony VS evidence like any oinei. ms is even move so wnen s 17 or me EA 1997 made clear lhat an rarar is en admlssmn made by a person in mi g or many or by gesuue u is eamissioie under me an 1997 and oenainiy can he used in evidence I cannoi Ihelehare. and i say "115 wflh respfidi ooniprenend wnenne KL syarisn Court ofAupea! meanlwhen I| said, ‘keterangsri yang rnencukupf. II should have explained whal IS nieem oy ksrarangan yang mencukupl so es no give a gumehne on me nature or suffiuenl evidence required by me Syanah ooun. [43] Be that as in may, as said by me majority onne coun ciAupea\ In Dahlia Dhalme, inis Cowl has na power oi judicial review over the Syanah Conn - lei akwie raverse, depart or in any manner re—liligaIe or unravel or go behind the decisions of the KL Syanah Courts on Ihe issue 01 renunciation [44] Yhe decisions of me KL syerian Courts on me issue oi renuncialion are pure and simple non-Justictabls by me Civil couns, noiwiinsiunaing me «am lhal suen decisions eie lainled wilh Anism/'m'c emu er Wsdnesburyunreasonahleness [45] This JR aponcsiion is Uieleflnre aisnussea wilh no order as lo ec-sis. Tulkh: I1 Disamborzuza L4 (wm AHMAD FARID am wm SALLEH) Hakim Mahkamah Tmggi Kuala Lumpur m nAIhVmuUmZnEinsuUNG «we. s.n.i nmihnrwm s. med m may he nflmnnflly mime dnuuvinnl v.. .mm Wm! Fmak-amak Bag: Pmak Pamohun aw Pmak Respemn 1, 2, 4 saw Pnhsk Respnndun J sm nAInvmuum1nEansuLrNG Fzmi Amn, mean Hanm ham: hm Dan I Lung Amaarm um Teluzn Pam AlLa|& Ca Ahmad Hanlr hm Hambnly @ Arwl src um. bim: Muhammad Fuad Fc my-2 Wlzm rc Jabavan Peguam Nsgarz. s-mam Kamamzsman Am sum Omar Muhammad um Em Dzmkam Teluan Kamamzaman AM a Sch?! :5 «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! [5] The KL syanan Hlgll Coon Order scales irller alia as iollaws. (I) Mnhllnmlll mlnnlll llmlulun lm. lm Plllnlll nolmlnl Vvlultqhldlrl ..l.. hlmblrlgan alloah yaw aoolmn alall Malls Aqlmu uum Wtlyln Pufiokuvuun AMAVWPY lo) mm» handaklih mnmbevl nlmhlnann akluh can oanluon lomum bannuan kemlllen K99-an nmnm la] Aggnavod. me nppllcenlnled an appeal lo me Ku-le Lumpur syanan coull M Aapeal (“the KL Syariah com or Appeal"). me 1*‘ respondent rlelelrl. The KL syerlah coon oi Appeal dismissed me applicanfs appeal on 2911 2021 and elm-meo ma KL syanon Hlgh calm On1erl'the KL Syanah Court a1Appea| older’). The Judicial Review [71 Aggneved by the decision oi the KL syansn High courl ano lne olsrnlssal of ms appeal lo me KL syarlen Courl el Appeal me appllconl oommenoea lhis judicial review epplloellon egemsl all lno responoenls lnlsr alia for a deolerelron max lhe KL Syariah High cowl Order ano lne KL syanan oourl oi Appeal Order lcolleolively lolenea lo as“1he KL Syariah coun Orders“) are unlawful ano illegal and lnereiore void ls] rne Ippllcam also seeks a declaralien lrls KL Syanah High coon and lne KL Syariah coun oi Appeal do nol have llle jurisdiction or power lo oeclare that a person VS no longer a Muslim Further, me applloanl seeks a clecleralory aids! lhal me KL syanall High Calm and me KL Syanah Oaurl oi Appeal have no lunsdiclinn ovev lhe 3'" respondent, MAIWP [9] Leave lo commence lnis luolelal review applioalion was granlea oy mls Cowl on 2 3.2022. [10] The appllcallon for ludiclal review is supported by Ihe amdavll ollhe appllcanl in Encl 4 (“M34”). ru IAIhVw1nxUmZVEinsuUNG “Nair s.n.l mmhnrwm s. ll... M my r... nflmnnllly mm: dnuuvlnnl VII .nune vlmxl [11] Tne grounds of me applicant's apphcatron can he sumrnansed as rouuws: (a) The KL Syanah Hwgh Court and lhe KL Syanah Court of Appea\ (oofiecnvew rererred to as me “KL Syanah Courts‘) dc. not nave Turrsdrenon aver epplrcauans m renounce |s\am. In short. by rssuing me KL Syariah Conn orders, me KL syanan coune have acted m excess cllhelr Jurisdlcuan. (by The KL Syariah Ocurl orders are viulalive of me aDD|I::an1‘s nghl |o rehgiun. (c) Tne applrcann vans am or the iunsdvclvon 01 me KL syanah cuuns the moment he dedales mat he nae ceased In be a Musnnr (d) Tne KL syarian Courts nave no rurrsmcuun over oarporale enwes such as MAIWP (e) The KL Syariah Ccurls have no power In imerpreune Federal Oons I Imnn, In pamcular ArI11(hereU1. (I) The KL syanen coun orders were made wnlrary to ss 17, 16 and owner relevanlpvovlswons unne syanan couns Evidence (Federal Termones) Acl 1997 (‘EA 1997'; The /egamy ulths Orders. The KL syarran Cams !ackjun's-iicltan [12] Learned counsel Tor |he applrcanl firs! anraoned me la |he ruugnrem 01 me Federal Courl rn Soon Singh Eikar sirrgn v Penulmhan Kobnjlknn Islam Malaysia (Forum) Kedah 5 Am» [1999] 1 ML] 459 F0 In |ha| case‘ me appenann — wne was brmrgm up as a Svkh —conve(led Io rslam wnrte ne was sml a mrnor Upon reacning 21 years 0! age, ne went mmugh a aapusnr eerenreny mu) me Sskh (mm. merehy rencuncing Islem. He then executed a deed poll In wrncn ne decvared unequIvocaHy that ne was a Sikh. Subsequenlly. he men an nnglnalmg summons rn me Kuala Lumpur cdun saekrng a dedaralvon that he was no Tonger a Mushm Tna Jabatan Aganra Is\am Kadah rarsed a preliminary ohjechnn agamst me appncauon, nonlendmg man me High coun nee no junsdurllun as me mallarcame under me wnsdrcnan onne Syariah muns Tne learned A ru nAInvu1uxunr2yEaneuLrNG mm. s.r.r nmhnrwm .. u... m my r... nflmnaflly mm: dnuumnl VII .nuue war [1 3] U4] [1 5] [15] ['7] [15] Hlgn coun ludge upneld lhs ohleslion and dlsrnissed lne soplrcslron The appellanl appealed to the Federal Cuurl. Ar lhe Federal Court. it was held man we lunsdlorron or me Syanah courts to deal Wllh oonverslens out ol Islam, although H01 expressly prevrded lor ln some State Enaelrnenls. can be read rnlo muse enaelrnenls by lrnplicaliorl denved lronr lne pruvlslcns eonoernrng oonverslcln into Islam. It Is lrlevflable lhatslnoe rnaners oleonversrorl lo lslarn oorne under me rurlsdlellon or me syansn courts, by implicallcn, converslnn out or Islam snould also lall under me lurlsdlelron ol me sanre courts. Tne Federal courl men neld ms: me appellanrs eppllcallon lor s deelaralron that he was no longer a Muslim oarrre Wllhln me jurlsdlchon ul lne synrlsn conrr and non I.ha| 01 me Hlgh coun Learned counsel lor me applicant look excemlon In me manner In wnrcn lne Federal Court arrlvcd an rrs deerslen He pulled no puncnes rn suonnmng me soon Singh was rnsde perrneorrarn The lung and snon ol learned oounsels argunlenr rs met me lunsdlctlun onne KL syanen coune cannot be der-med bylmpllcahan srnos l| oonlrauenes the cesus ornlssus principle l| srmply nreans man a cmm wlll nol supply a legrslallve ornlsslun. lor dolng sols a legrslaliue, and not a lndlclal h.lnc|lon. Aeoordlng In learned counsel, s as ol me Adm: slralrun ol lslarnle Law (Federal rernlones) rm ma (“AILA') deals wrlrl lne reourremenr dune mrlvsrslon. s as onne sarne only reoulres lrle Reglslrav or Muallafs to be sallsfled rnal a muallal nad convened ln aemrdenee wlln me reounenrenls under s 35 oelere he could regrsrer lne corlvevsinn inlo |he reolslor Learned counsel submltlad mar mere ls no sraxulory laqulramenl lor me syarlan Coon lo endorse me oonverslon and eventual reglslmtlon under the AILA. Learned counsel nlgnllgrned lne purpened llsw rn soon srngn and derlved ms argnrnenl lrern lrle dissenung ludgmenl at Abdul Aziz Morrerrrsd FCJ ln Suhlslllrll ll/p Rnjulnyam V Srlruvanan a/I rnsngmrony 5 or nppul.I[2l1UB] 2 MLJ 1A7 FC. Hls Lordsnlp was of me view mar cunvelslon lo lslarn under me AILA ls nol a rudleral rnaller wl|hIn the lunsdlmlan or lne syanarr courls bu| an adminlslratlvo rneller lrlvolving only lne Reolslrar ol Muallals 5 ru nAInve1uxunl2yEaneuLrNG “Nair Smnl mrvlhnrwlll r. u... w my r... oflnlnnllly ml. dnuuvlnrrl VII nFluNG ml [191 In extendlng iiis alvumenl, Ieamed oounsel submllted liiai il me conversion In Islam under the AHA can only be reglslared by the Registrar of Muallafs. man, by lmpliualiun, II! renunciation should only be aaniinisieiaa by lhe Registrar. in slim, accordlng Io learned counsel. ii is ermneous lo vasl lrie aeimninaiion of conveision or even renunelauon (0 the Syanah Courts. [20] ln any event, learned oounsel contended coal iurisdiclion canrlol oa derived iiy imp icalion My aixenlian was then drawn lo s 46(2)(h) ol All_A. which oonleis lurlsdlciion to the syaiiavi calms. ll s|a|es Ihal a Syafiah Hlgh com snail. la) in nsclvlllurlsdlc1nn.MIrIrvd dvlarmlrle nil acllvfls and oiooeeaings in wniai all ins o-mu ma Muslina and mini inm- |av iii oelmmai, mlmlgai min , db/0106i nulmy oi inanlaga ivosmiii mflyllli or imiaial saaaianon ilaioal manianiiaiisra ielaiing io ma iamnnnnio osman huiband and me iii any oisowiion oi, ur uaini In pmpenly ansing mu oi any 01 mo nialiaia sgl mi in wbparanriph iii. ii.ii ins niainlenaiioa ol ueoenuanls. logiiiiiiacy, oi gunmiananio or many tr-aaiianani oi lnfums. ini me uiwaion oi, or ciaiins Iai nana Snpemznrlnn iii wilia oi death-bed gins (mnrnd-al» main) 0! a deceased Muslim ini gins imu vlvus. oi samanianl. inane Mllvuul aaequaio mnndsratnn in mnney oi moneys wonn, bya Muslim (W) waxaini nazn 6 am IAIhVmuLlmZnEinsuUNG “Nair s.ii.i nuvlhnrwm n. in... M my in. nflfllnnflly MIMI mmn Vfl nFluNfl Wm! Ml) dmsloll and lrlhemarlce anssule or lnlesrele pm:-any [Ixl me deielnllrlzlnrl al me persons arllltlsd In men WI lne Mm: er. deceased Musnrn mollhe shares m men such persons am respeawely -rnrllaa. ov Ix) olner melinrs ll! lululcl av wmcn lunsmcllorl IS mnlenea by any wnltunraw [21] Learned counsel than mgnlignled to me lnsl mere n. nothing ln s 46(2)(l:|o1AILA,wruch slales lnal lne sunlecl mailers ma: 3 syanan Hlgh Court snall have own lunsdlcllon ever, crrllls me rnaner of conversions am of lslarn. [22] In coming tolhesald proposman, learned counsel cllsd lha ludgmenl or Abdul l-larnld Manernaa CJ ln Latilah bra Matlln v Rasmaumi lm sn-rlburl 5 Anor [2007] 5 MLJ 101 PC In aelrvenng me ludgrnenl ollne Federal Cowl, me learned lorrner cnlerlusrme held as «allows rne vmnna nma nere {S «nan mm calms em: and syarlah an crenluvas olslalutes sum owe lnelr existeme m uzlules, lne Federal oansmunan me Acls nl Palllamenl and ms Sula Enldmsnli um» um men wrlldlflzunl lrurn salutes le C0nElmI|lml leaeml law or SIa|e new, as me me mny be, So, n n to ma Mavam slamles mel lney smulo look lo delemlme wflaltlar may havelurlsfllcmn or ml [23] Based on me aforesaid Propasllmn, learned counsel «or me applrcanl slmmlllad (hal Ihe Federal Court ln Latllah ms Ma!Zl/1 had releded lhe rlollorl ollunsdlcllon by impllcallon as suggested In both Saon slngn and Lin: Jay lwrr mills Again: Islam Wilaynh Parsukuluan dun IIIIHIII-l [2007] 4 ML] 585 FC [24] The mdenslnn onne sand pmpaslllnn lhls Ancovdlrlg Io learned counsel, the absence 0' any express 3| ulalmn Mlhln AVLR |hEI Ihe Syariah Calms hnvejunsdlcilcn ovsrappl a|i0rls to renounce lslam, n IS not up nu ma Courts lo supply lnal omission. ln Lsmlah bls Mel Zlrl, |he Federal Court (urlher held that lhe iurlchan 01 the court Is to apply (ha law. rml make or \a amend law rml made by Ihe 7 srn nAIhVmulUmZnEinsuUNG “Nair Smnl nuvlhnrwm .. u... m my r... nrwlrrnllly mm: dnuuvlnrrl VII mune Wm! Lsgrslamre Knvwing «ne rnaaaquacy at me law, it Is for me Legrslature In remedy n. ermer by amendment or by making new laws [25] In shcrl, learned ommsel submmed than the lme M amhanlles is agams| me cauns supplymg casus om/ssus. In reneranng Iha| Soon Smgh was accrued per fncuriam, waarnea counsel contended Ihak hy arnvmg at me conclusxon |he junsdlchon can be denved Dy nnpncaupn. the Federal coun had a|1amp|ed up supply mus Dmrssus [251 There is anamer aspec| at the gmunfls ol judgmem pr |he 1-‘ respondent m dlsmlssmg me appncanrs appeal on 29112021‘ which Veamsd counsel has mghngnlea :1 rs W5. Awarding up Veamed cpunsan, me KL Symah Conn or ltppeah .n ma decnsbnr conceded that n ma non nave ma power to aHcw an apnhcanl up renounce Islam. [271 In para [151 olme grounds, the KL Sysnih Court pmppeax remarked as follows: [vs] Earflaiarkan kes aw alas‘ kalm |au.I:kan hanavm saaun penannuan same axis seseorilw nu lshm mu hulk aaanan ar hawah Imamzkuasa Mahksmah syanan lnllm ltzu nuun bnrmlknl Manurnan Synnah mumpulvya kuasa mmk memhanarkan maonng xrnuar nan aparnamam on was taken by ma Iaamed Judge allha KL Syanah Hugh Court In dismissing me applncanfs applicanpn to renounce Islam The learned Syanah Judge rzferred no |he judgment a! me Pmau Pmang Sya n Appeal Cnurl In M-Ills Agnma mm Fulnu Pinang Iwn sm Fnlimah binli Abdullnh [2009] 2 cu (SVA) 1452 MRS V11 essence, Ihe Syariah Appeal COUI1 held Illa! clolhmg the Syanah Gourl wrlh iurlsdlullon to grant ‘HIV! I0 anyone In abandon ma rengnn of ls\am Is abhorrent and repugnant up lhe principles 0! Hukum Syarak. m nAIhVmuxL1mZnEansuLrNG “Nana s.n.r mmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my n. nnnnun mm: m.n.n wa muNG mar The status was Appucerrrs Religion [28] Learned counsel furthe appltcartt submnled Ihal the syenart oeun Drdem are netaxiue 0! me appucanrs tight to profess hts dnesen mttgron as guaranteed under Arl 11(1) of the Federal Consttlutmn. My anenaon was then drawn lo the Judgment at the Court 0! Appeal In Kekua Pngawal Penguatkuasa Agama 5 on v Maqsood Ahmad‘ OI! Ind Inar lpplal [2021] l MLJ 120 CA The Court Of Appeal held tuat me freedom of on ts absolute and none demgable save for the express It laltons lhal "'19 Federal Consttlulton "sell allows [29] It is, meretore. the oorttentton of learned counsel that me 1-‘ and 2'“ respondents‘ dentat at me appttdanrs nghl to renounce tstern ts contrary lo the pmnouncemenl 01 me court or Appeal VI Mnqsood Ahmad In any even|, lhe remsat dune syanen Courts to assume turtsdreudrt en the ground that It transgressed me Hukum Syarak had led to a srtuatipn niabsurdtty nus wputd ertectwety put the appltcant in a remedttess sttuauorr — Smoe he could go neither here nor were [30] Learned eeunset ltmhar submtllad met any peredrt wrte dectaras that ne has eeased to believe tn Islam by rejecllnglhe syahadah and Ihat he has supscnped la a dmerent taun snoutd be regarded as beynnd me pale t-A tetarn. [SI] Accordtrtg tn teamed counsel, the Syzriah Courts may only exerctse juris ion on a ‘nemon prafesstrtg the reltgtan of lslam' wtthtn the meamng of the Slate Lvsl of the Federal Consltlultan The exlertstort at the argument ts that strive the appltcattt, In thts case. changed his latlh {mm Islam to Chnsllantlyt he shall Iheralcrs cease to be a -persdn pralesstng tne religton cl tstanr. The basis crime i/legs/rry of me syarrah couns orders [32] As anuded to eamer, the appttcanrs pasiltort is that the KL Syanah court orders are illegal and untawtut, whtch make them amenable la tudictal revtew. The graunds tor the purported tllagamy are as lallows: ru nAIhVw1nxL1mZyEinsuUNG “Nana s.r.t nuvthnrwlll be u... w my rn. urnnnu mm: dnamtnrrl n. .nuue vtmxt (s) The KL Syarish Courts oo nol have iunsdiction over oorporale enlilies sucn as MAlwF, which was me oelenoanl in me appllcarl|’s renuncialion case belore lherri. The Federal coun in sls Forum (Mmysia) v Koniiinn Ntuori sclarrgor(Mojlls Agerrra Islarrr seungor, lnluvoner} [2022] MLJU 171 Fc held lhal lne raliorre rnalarrae iunsoicllan ollhe syarian coune was llltended onlyw cover lhe suoiem mallercl oersonsl laws winch would by lrieir rlalure only apply on natural persons (or Trre KL syariarr Courts do not have lhe power lo lnlevplet the Federal oonslnuuon Learned counsel oonlenoeo lliar lrie KL syarlsn Appeal corn, in lls grounos cl iuognienr in alnrniing iris decision ollne KL syenari l-ligri Conn‘ had loucrrec on me lrl|erprEfatlOn or me Federal consiiiuoon Trie impugned pan oi lhs grounos can be seen in para [19], wnere lne KL syanari Appeal coun held as loHnws' aeroasanori kedux-dua oiorirr kes oi arasi kflml oeroaricangari b-Ihawi Pelkara ll FF lizenenioagasri Felsekuluarfl rrierrioari mam lnmlnavl xeceuasrn kavnda rxkyal supayi mengamalkan zlgama yang cianuunya Relying on lrie iuogrnenl ollrie Federal court in Indira aanoni Minna v Pengmlr Jlbnan Agarrra Islam Penk & Ors [ms] 3 CLJ ws FC. The Federal coon nelo mar il a insurer lrlvclves oonsmulional issues or inremrelalron of lric law, llren lrie civil courls would be selzed wnn iunsciclion lo oelerniine «no issue, regarclcss M ils suoien rnsller and especially il ll oonies wilriin lrie scope and email or iuoicial powers oullineo above. By alleniprrng lo inlerprel uie oonsliluuonal provision. learned counsel submllled lhal me KL syarian Appenl coun nao usurped lhe civil couns powers. lcl The Syarlah ccun Orders were conlrary lo ss 17, 15 ano nlher relevant provisions ol EA 1997. Learned counsel subrrimeo incl lne KL Syariah couns nso erreo in rioloing lne arlirrnaoon oi ilie aoolicanr rie no longer prolessoc inc religion or lslem was lnsu1flciel'l| lo prove lrre renuncislion as ii on: non carry prcoauve value. ln srion, lne KL syanan couns insisleo «rial lne eoolioanl riso lo cring wilnesses lo oorroooraic nis amnnelion Lrlled oounsel lunrier argueo lnal lne finding wenl agalnst s 17 or me EA 1997‘ wnicri reoognises iqrar or sorriiesion as a lonri olavioerioe. in any evcnl, s 73 orovioes no ru IAIhVw1nxUmZVEilnsuUNG «nor. Smnl mrvlhnrwlll i. u... M my i... oflnlnnllly siiri. dnuuvlnrrl v.. nFluNG mi

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-12ANCvC-182-06/2022

PERAYU Investec Sdn Bhd RESPONDEN Yiwu Han Yue Import & Export Co. Ltd

This Court considered the Appellant’s submission that there were issues to be tried but is unable to agree. This Court is satisfied that on a balance of probabilities, a judgment under Order 27 Rule 3 of the SoC can and should be entered against the Appellant. This Court had also the opportunity to examine the grounds of the Session Court and found no errors therein. Submissions from all parties were duly considered, as they are for this appeal. In the premises, this Court affirms the judgment of the Session Court. This appeal is dismissed with costs of RM10,000.00.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2937d028-1f5b-4d54-bd90-3aa25da4ae38&Inline=true

11/12/2023 11:27:46 WA-12ANCvC-182-06/2022 Kand. 36 S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N KNA3KVsfVE29kDqiXaSuOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—12mcvc—1a2—u5/2022 Kand. 36 11/12/2023 um-as IN THE NIGH COURT IN MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRIYORY, MALAVSIA CIVIL APPEAL NOJWA-1ZANCVC-152-06/2012 BETWEEN INVESTEC so» am: (comp. No: 2no3o1o112o5(o1aao5-P) vmu HANVUE IMPORT 5 EXPORT co. LTD ....RESPONDENT (noun Koun comp: 2052315) GROUNDS er JUDGMENT Tm Appeal [1] On 14 52022 me Session Caun had enwred a mdgmenl under Order 27 Rule 3 Runes ov com 2012 (R00) agamst me Aa9e\lan| tor RM322,930 41 mm 5-/. males! pea annum Item 15.3.2021 unm mu and final sal|\eman| IN Kmaxvswzzvkun-xzsuuA -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Buckgmund [acts [2] In Semembsv 2020 me parties had entered into an agneemem fur me we M awmxAmate\y «A137 boxes at ‘Power Nilrile aammamn Gloves‘ (pmauns) The Raspondem paid an the Appeuanl Ihe sum of RM4e6,330 M bemg me agresd amoum 701 me products m Ssmamber 2020 and DnIohev2D2U. [:1 Upon remxpn umue monaym the Appelllm wns mu. m deliver me man; as pmmliod The Applllsnl had nmmisad 701 cm: valum mu m. pzymanls made Pursuam In me ca-mil-non of me conmacx. a sum 01 RM147,om was rammed by mo ApoeHanl to me Respundsm. Theta was a ba\ance cf RM(S3Q‘33fl.AI lefl mung bylhe Appeuam [4] The Respandem reeewea me {ollomng paymenls mm mm parties‘ (aken to halrum um: Appellant (a) RM7,5Dfl from an unnslatnd mama-mt namsd Yeah Klan Siuug m May mu m RMB900 lmm the Appeilanfs suwllav 1:: Manual} mm.“ Apnx to Jun: mm. [5] Cansequenhilly an m dalc Mme wit at me sassmn cuun‘ Iha mat sum mnslanding was me mmamaer sum of RM322‘BJO.41 [6] The Respnndenl applied In me Sessinn Caunfwa wdgmenl on me aulmssban of [ads undev Order 27 Rule 3 ROC premised on he p|e3d|Y‘95 by the Responaenladmming paragraohs 4 In 6 and B aflhe Respnlrienfs m mmv.~zzwm.x.mA mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm slalsmint orcrarnr, sock: at [M same lime lo avmd pr deslmy are legal consequences ollhose fuels The pres I: Invoked ny enegmg fresh or additional Iacls rp establish some legal wszmcamn or excuse, uvsomo other ground tor avorarng orescapmg Iegalliabiluy rne dsfsndam, m II were, confesses me mm: nl whal ls aflegsd agsrm mm but prooeeu immediately In bvma" me ellacl 0/ auch u/Iawaoons " [251 me counnnas man u was wnax axncfly ma Ave-Ilaru had pleased. I: had no: amid and ndmmad rne mnlnnnH|an:1z pm at the very next plragraph (pamgmph 7 Mine Defence) Inlmduuad nun [act lhulihem was In armnqamenl wrm FZ Madmal m settle the panama onne nmounl omng up are Respondem. Wnelherlhere weve adm sums mhzrwise [zrn There were undlswled achons by me Appeuam man were ranranmum up aamesmns wmnh can pe pp * red by «us coon Upon rn. service cum Inner of demand by the Renpomm, the Appellant had paid Rwoaou mom uduoa rne amuunl mmng mn alarms flhng om. Wm and sec. rne Appalllnl and summer: mm me puymams 01 Rm.5co.oo and RMB90000 were on as none»: as Ihose figures were liken Io um rlduced me unounr vmnq further [so] me com of Appeal ohserved in Won: Non Loony David v Noomxman bin Abdullah [1995] 3 MLJ 2830131 fawre In respond may amuunl co an adnvusion as r: would be 'reamnab(e to expect a prompt and rngarous dental.’ Vn mancase, «here was no response nu ma case, me rasponse measured up no an aunus-non py me Appeuann. n m KmJKvswEzvkDqrxa§rmA mm. smnw ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm VII nF\uNG pans! [31] Then wave also mgiiai messages hum lne Apotllaril inai smwoo cieav admssinn oflhs iianiiny and oniigalion. The Ieonrded conversation penlm amuna me naouesl for more time to senile me ainouni outslanoing [321 rrieie was also an email 5en| by the Appellant on 15.5.2021 alter me sul was filed man email proposed a repaymenl oi me ouisiaming amuunl owing by way of inslaimsnla more were no denials as k: the Appallanrs ubilgzlinn and ha [331 The law on whalvvar lnai email was ‘wilhnul prujudioe‘ cainnuuniuiiuna il clear. ll aooa n01 oaponn on whether Ihe coinnniniaaiiun was sxpreslly mama wilnoui |1eJudioe' The oomams would be laken wiinoui pr'epdIoe' «male was a dispms at me lime oi VB auinoisnip— in inis case, Ihele were lmne as me only issue Wis wneinev mus wouia ha given no same me oulslanoing amounl mung rnis com opined lnal as me Appellant's ohligalian and liability wsre nol dispuleo. me email cannm be said to be ‘mnom pra[udloe' and inaamissioie — RHB mm-s and it our.» Sdn am: I Anal [2015] 5 cm 402 and no am: {M} Sdn Bhd v Batu! Slngn Jnol1[l979]2 MLJ 257 an armed [34] The Appellanfs sought in invoke :42 Connscs Am 1950 max pmvidsd. ‘men s pmlmse accspzs penonnance arms promise rmm a thin‘! person, he carirrcil a/lemams snlnmo il agsinsl ms promosor. ' IN Km.1KvswEzvi<DoixasluA “Nair s.n.i nnvihnrwiii .. med M mm .. nflginniily MIMI m.i.n VII .nuna pnnxi [35] Howlver. them is nu Loga\ aravldlnflal basis In: such oamemion n mus1 be noted mac n In Insumaenl lo jusl dawm mere was a semement anangamam but such imenmnn mat ma Aupe\|an| was man absowea from any liabmy and that il was assumed by FZ Mamcax mt deany and specmcauy be mama and agreed In ya man there womd be no doubxs as to me names‘ Intention - see Sammond Asia Sdn and A Anarv RNB Bank at-dlzoofil 6 cu 4o. [36] Peruslng mu pleaungs and amaawns. cm sud ssmamenl agreement: am nut seem in ans! 1:: sum the Law under Sac|mn42 nlme Oonlrzcls Ac! uasn doc: nm am on ma mmrnry‘ me um-mgsmanl var payment seemed to be between the Appeuann am F2 Maaiaax As far ma R9spmIde1ILInus1wams ma aumandinn amnunl owing to be duly paid. ms Conn‘: aeuisiun [31] ms Conn oonsmerea the AvDeHanl‘s suomxasnn man were we»; Vssues In bu mad but Is unable la agree ms Cowl Is sausnea mat on a halamx or vrohablmlas‘ a |udgman| undo! Omar 21 Rule 3 of ma soc can and mm: no entered against me Appellanl ms coun had no ma owemmiuy |o exarvwla ma qruundl a! ma Ssslrun Own and «mm no anurs m-nun Submmtonx from all warm were my conuu-ma. as My ans cor mus aw-an m mmvswzzuxmuaaaan «ma s.nn nmhnrwm .. med w may he nrW\nnU|:I mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max [33] In me premises. this Courl affirms ma ;uduman| or me s-wan Courl This appeal -2. dmmssed wim costs o1RMw,ooo.ou DATED 19 APRIL 2023 R02 MAWAR ROZNN JUDICIAL COMMVSSVONER THE HVGH COURT VN MALAYA KUALA LLIMPUR Fame Appeuanr Nur Shainaz Aliza! Rahman and Hannah Dsh/ah Hafldzal T/n Chan Du wn Fovllla Respondent‘ Tan Geng and Tan cnap T/n Tan chap 5 Assacralss 14 m mmv.~zzwm.x.mA mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Slammenl 5! Claim (Soc) ma claims In the said paragraphs 410 5 and 2 ohm! SOC are lapmduued herein‘ 4 Melalur ml/04:‘ Defender! bertaflkh 23.9.2020, Deiendsn Deuenqu mm Inenjual dan Ptafnm belseluju Imtuk membelr 15000 kotak samng hangar: pemenksaan {'ExaIn1nauon G/Wes’) yang mkenah subagar ‘Powamrsa mma Exammalton Gloves" lanskfuk kapada syuaksyami bmkul 9 Jumhh mg; pembmvun 15,000 kazak aamng langan ndalnh nbanyak Rm95,oaa.oa (lailu RM33.00 senap kolak)‘ M Ptsrnm mmamiam mambayar sass hurya pemba/fan sebanyak RM2l7,500 oo saliva: Delnrimaen‘ clan Saki 50% Ilarga pumbe/Ian sebanyak RM2l7,500.Ua sebelum sanmg langsn n1m.sn2ar('sIuppm9‘J ksnaua Ptarnml. 5. Sstnmsnys, Plamnfl Ielan membayar Defendan melalm pemlndahln ma (‘onllns bunk uanslef) am akaulv P/small m Pmg An Bank Co Lld kn aknun omnuan an new Lma Bunk aapom bsrlkul 1,. 28 v 292:7 59.aoa.ao :42 Q3 7g 14 1a 202:: zgzgqfi Julnlah dmayar gamma} 6. Sekadsl dengsn ksdar pellukaran mata wang asrng yang aasyik beruban (‘manure’). ksdua-dual D/nsk bsrsslu/u untuk mangunansua bekalan wung zangan mengokul narga cayanm 3 m mmvswzzuxmuaaaaa «ma am nmhnrwm be mad w may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! sebarlyak nmas,3an41 sahaja yang drbuyarnleh Ptsfrrtif Mm, Delandan berseluju mombckslkan sarurvq lsngan sabanyak 14.737 kolsk selslau dervgan bsyarnn sebenyak RMl86,JJO.41 (ianu muss, 330,41 A RMMJJ so = 14, 747 kalak) 5 Faclshafnys sslakat ml, Dolsndan Ielah memulangkan sebanagran /man blylrsn F/amllll sehanyuk usua5,73a.s:: (sama mlal dsngan RM147‘00!7.W) kopada Pram, um:-mm adslah slpelll beam sum: 5'» gm lgggn Tankh an Amaun (L/SD ‘ Amoun (RM 1512 24220 33,292 as 137 000 99 51.2021 2.45550 wooooa Jumvan 35,739 as 147 am m m In granting me mdgrrenl agaIns| me Appeuam. me sessmn com found Ihal. m Thain were nu lrlnhla nssuu In me Appellanfa aecenoe. (2) Thu small was not suhjactnd In ‘wllhcul pmjuulce‘ prnlacllom IndA (3; ms Appeuam had clearly and unequivocally aunma be me Respondunfs claim by way ov pleadings and/or clhar oocmnenu. m Kmaxvswzzvkun-xa§mA «mm. smm ...n.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! The [s] Yhe Appellam submmad that (have were no admissions m [M pceadings or other documents and mamere were wssues mus med m the (352. The Appellant submmed that the requirement under Omar 27 Rule 3 Rec ws man (here must be an aanr ‘on av «an wmah ronmea an swdsnnary oasn Ior me mum on canduda than mam were no mable Lssues (M mu The snmnmn mam must be clear, mam and unequwocau. [91 II was ma submission oi the Appeuam man my admnwon must be vhmod m mumy, ml In bits and o\uus.|1>I use M Robin van an-ma Ana! 1/ Lu am M Sdn arm. Agmmm (W San and v sum Mag. Sin and, FESM Chch Sdn and v Tochnlllum 54:: and and mun saw Hang it Sindu Pasirna Lld war: mad nu] The sad admwssmn mus1 also not be sumechad In condmuns nr qualified and ms Avneilanl wmanded lhatlha admission was only (0 me axle"! of me exlsteuee 01 me ca-ma and me renew: ind puma: reiund ov me moneys pursuant In the contract The Appellant mnnanaan mm u an: na| man 01 adrn\tl|abH\ty1o<lhe nuvslanmng sum. [11] «was me App-Ilanrs wsinan mat in: Dhzdings shvw man ma pany was wanna forms sad outstanding sum was FZ M5dicaL A: such, the high mreshola nlomsr 27 Rule 3 Roc was not met {:2} Yhe Appenam had arse subnullefl mat meve was no aamussaon m other documents The Appeuann argued to infer us adrmssbcn due to me two refund naymsnls made lo the Respondent after ma mmmanoeman| ohhe nroeeeangs was am flawed m xumvswzzwmuaauaa «mu sanaw n-nhnrwm a. u... m my a. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm [13] The Anneuam submmud that It»: semen own had «me when It wnsndered me emdl which was an Iltzempl to same and «ms ougm not In have been taken as an adrmsslon. The submlsmn had alsn extended 10 ms dwgnal messages. ml The Aoneuam listed issues m be mad man mused a de|ermmanon a1 a mum Issue atwnem-r me Rupovvdenl ma agreed In accept rz Meauw paflomung me obligaflavl aims Appalam [15] In. Appaflam runner submmud mu m anus nl pmvlnu the new was on the Plnlnnfl and me grununu on». .-mgmam undnf cm: 27 Rule am Roe was not as otngm mu coum eomldantiou [16] The pleadings were examined. The fact ma: me Appeuam had agveao In sell and me Rlspondenl agreed to my me pmdnas var amssnm was not denied The fact lhmlhe Appeflam had rewtvenlmm ma RoaDondan|a sum 01 Rmasamc 4: Vorma pmducts was nu| danlad. Noimei were me um nu: ma Awallznn wax mums In mm me vvuaum -nu ma returned RM141,l!0n 01 I»: max -mum said In me Rewonaem [:11 We Appeflam ma meaded m Its aetenee . denial alme ammmof the Imal sum s1\H wing to me Respondent whldu me lane: clawed as RM339,330.41 In VIE Defence It was stated that anuflter Iwu sets af Damal remnds were made any the mmmenoanenl ol the sun at the $155101! CourI— RM7,5flD.D0 VII May 202! and RMB,N0 bstwasn April no m mmv.~zzwm.x.mA mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm June 2021 by FZ Medical. According lo rneAopeiIant, the total sum Owing was reduced to RM322tI2fl.41 [103] we Appellanl had scared the! mere war. a aamenreni agreement entered inrd by me Respandenr wtrere tne Ialler trad agreed mat me total sum owing would be paid by FZ Medical drrecriy wrrtrout me rrwoivement of me Appetiant. [19] mos, inn base“ our question an whelher mere was an Iflmissnon by the Appeiianr olliabilily tar me tmzi aurn s1ill mine In me Rupondml based on ma pleadings wrremar adnr ms were made in me gee gs izn] aased on the pleading: alone. tnrs Cullfl aaieiy emciudes mat Ihe Aupellanl had adrnntad Ia me inns in ISMJB — that it had an agreement with me Respondent lor Ihe supply or are products but was unavaiiabie we dexrvarrnarn As sum, was Aoneuanr was abhga|ed tn return in: paymems mlde by me Respondent. [211 Fmm ti» aiaadinga rne mnlanhon (M Appellant fund was re me amount — rt caniended tnar there were funharpaymenu afllrflte arm was «red in com and thus rna amuum to be rammed to the Refiwndlnt was redrreed tn RM339330 41. This arnmrnrwaa acoepled by itra Respondent in hs new In ueiaoea More imponanlty is rtre iaa met me Appeiianrs squared lo an adrrrrssren mat tnere were an amount sari owing to the Respondent hul was reduced oonsequermy In me said renaymerfls IN Km.1KvswEzvkDnrxa§rmA mu. a.n.r In-vihnrwm r. u... m my r... min.uIy MVMI dun-mm n. .nuua v-mm [22] The other fad Needed m Iha same Dar-agraplw 1 mm wanna was that n was FZ Memcal wno was In pay me Rewcndonl dnedly, so, me Appellant pleaded mm since «news was a seltlemenl arrangement agreod by the Respmvdenl that me balance 11! me sum uwmg would be paid by FZ Madman, the Respondent was esmpped (mm bringing me smt agamsx me Mfiallanl [231 In me Ruvondenrs Remy to Defense. n dame: any semomanc weanunl uumna Ihe Aweuanx me am arm! and continuing that 72 Mama‘ wan not mama In me Agrelmenv balwoan Ihe Appelllntandlhe Rsspondam and had no ohhgahon |o maka am uid plymlnl [241 we meadmps do snw indeed that there were sdmissians by me Aopeuanm Ms ouliuanon co Islum In me Respcndem me Imal sum owing mum is RM339,330 41 The mode o1 lh: payrneul vmelher we or by FZ Memes: or athelwnse dwd not an or delracl «mm me Appeaanrs uanmty. [251 Ml; Court «nus ma adm\5sbarLr. by the Appellant clear In ms flzlence where n was named max ii an nm uany or aamix me avarmanm cl fads Phlded bythe Newurudanl [26] The Court of Appears daemon in mm: Kumu an Jnrirlmun v Axrnan Bin Mn1Nor[2DID] 2 MLJ 67 emcuaavaa me pnnuple ofomer 27 Rule 3 RDC that auows me courts to mete am speeay marnenxs In me Mlawing «annual circumstances‘ -1131 TM obpcl ol me show ma is (0 enable a parry to omazn speedy IWQMNVI Mme one am; my has made - Pllm m xnmvswzzuxmuasam mm. smm ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 w may he nflmnnflly mm: flan-mm wa mum pm sdrmsston snhtlmg the /ormena succeed m his claim (m Em I/Aflsn [1914] 1 on 904 at 11909 and Low Yoke Len vug Ooi nar[2no114 AMR 4751;. [14] ms nus relates Io adnussmns 0! led, whether m me paeaamgs or otherwise we adlrusmon mus! be a clear adrmssron, and not simple wusncs msoma Iacls upon winch ms pfufnhfl would have In my in establish his cm. mama (sou Cnrabaa Exports Ply ud V Omlno Manapemsn! Consultants Sdrv Blvd 5 Or5[19flB] 3 ML./ 271 1111212) [151 The words ‘or otherwise‘ In (Ive slid rule II: of yerrsvzl nawcauon and /usmy me mama cfsn om: Vlwvmenf where an adrmswn 1s made by tens: or orhev relevant documenls av awsamenls man many show mu: me aersnuam has no de/ence In the pramzm man. may are not canfined In adlmssrons m me pleadings alone (see Ptmbmuan xsv Sdn am v Syarfkal Fedmv Fum/tutu Construction and Engumnnq Wcrks[1W1) 1 ML! 147 (SCI). [vs] In row. A Elolnevs Sdn (In rocoavorshlp) v Wbng Fen Ling 5 Or: [1991] 2 cu (Rap) 609, zmm Ynlrm JM/U um1sro27a/me RHC 1990, sdmlssmns maybe mads m pleadings or amemse; ms word '11; olhuvwise‘ indudfng an adnlisston made by 191191 stating lads whrch show me defendant has run dalance In me actron (17; The above pnnapte was adopted and Iouowea m we case 0/ Malacca Precast Canasta Works .1 William Jacks 5 00 (M) s m Kmaxvswzzvkun-xa§1mA mm. 5.1.1 ...m.mm .. .1... .1: my 1... mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm.‘ Sdn BM [mo] 2 ML] 111,- as war: as in Tom Manes Enverpnss S-111 Bhd v son Ah wan (1995): cm 510, when Law Hap Bing J(Ivow JCA) had also ruled Tholets nomammvne eamenuon that 027 my names wnen an amen nas already mmmsncod Thevs rs abundant aumorny to support me propoa/non that me cams can col-may anddsadaon mo aclmlssons mod- bafom or mar Vega! nrocoedmy: hm been commcncod - [271 This Cour! us am: g-man by me demsnn on»: meal Court In vam Kang s-ng A Anorv v-e Wung mi 12014) 14 MLJ (7831 para 17 as similartn this mus, we. Ccun «om-a max Ihe Aopeuann admnled m the maxenax vans of me agreemem il had with me Respondent and me amuum owing due In ma Mn-perfonnanoe rams agreed uhllgannn -Havmg regard the delsnce rn pamcula para 5, we find me: liners 1: clear 1umcml admrssron cl mu debt am. The woman that mus! rooow would Du whether me responds»! wu avnldlng mpunsumy to ply up In Jacob and Goldre:n‘s Pleading: Pnmpoes and Ptaclrcn {mo} pp1.’i3-134 In daalvng with zonfvssfon and Ivovclanee‘ tho Iollowmg I; smiled‘ Confessoon and Avcrdance Meaning The term ‘confession and avoidance‘ r: the uexnpuon ola prsa m ms dslence wnrcn, whrle express/y or Impnsdly sdmmng or conlassmg or mummy me mm alllve ma(9n'a( fact: smart m me no m KmJKvswEzm<Dq:xa§mA mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-11ANCvC-104-09/2022

PERAYU KAMALA MANUEL A/P MANUEL RESPONDEN PANTAI MEDICAL CENTRE SDN BHD

This appeal is dismissed. The summary judgment granted by the Magistrate is affirmed. Both counsels were gallant and fair on the issue of costs. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the predicament of the Appellant, minimal costs is granted to the Respondent in the sum of RM3,000.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=41fc00d2-6f90-40b2-9142-0dafc96e777f&Inline=true

11/12/2023 11:08:11 WA-11ANCvC-104-09/2022 Kand. 15 S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—11mcvc—1oA—u9/2022 Kand. 15 11/12/2023 nzai-11 IN me HIGH noun? IN muwn AT KUALA LUMPUR II me FEDERAL TERRIYORV. MALAVSIA CIVIL AFFEAL Mo; WA-11ANCvc-I04-OI/2022 BETWEEN KAMALA MANUELAIF MANUEL APPELANY PANTAI MEDICAL ceume sou am) (commav No:1:nsLn) nesronneuv Qggunns of JUDGMENT L [1] A summary judgment was entered by me Magnstrabe agamsc ms Anpellanlior RM4D.U17 as, which wasfovme medical semees. treatment am medvcamm pmvlded by me Raspundentfrnm 5 m 20201:: 9 1a 2020. [21 Yhe sum was lur madical sumoes and rreaurrem rem-no hut Included, rrer surgery ror an irrcrsrmal rrernia, nursing cam, and arm ve\a|ed and rrrauemel eervroee carried our and received by me Aupellanl. [31 Prior to admrssion, me Appellam rrea eeeeurea ma Ilgnld me Terms and Oondwions er servme an Panrar Meareal cenne Sdn Bhd hr In-Pabenf mar confirmed her agreenrem on pay all lees. expenses and merges. rnuuarrrg medical rrearrrrenr. surgical procedure, nursing care, pharmacy and 01711:! remea am1lna'dsnIa\ services merere [4] Pursuam |o |hal agreement, she had also unoondlnonaliy rmaenak-rr ro pay all sums due and awmg Io rrre aeepermnr lor in sand lmulmanl uru eervieee rendered. [5] Upon finding Ihfll thin: are nu flrspmls Is In Ihl lac! that lit: Agpsllanl hid neeerved I91: mama‘ Eastman! and cam‘ and no comm rll re in: amount or mains! rees and Ixpsnsei owing. me Magistrate rue gmnlsd i surllmaryiudgment against (I19 Applfliil In pay me sad sum nre 99 3g; gr ye Agguarn [a] The Appellant submllted mar rrer rnearcez fees and expenses were lo be covered by lnsurmoe from AIA and Awummg la Mr, Dr Luqman Mazlan vme emerraee in rreremre hospital doclovhad assured neramrre on 5 m mu m srre was vflsdravged ma releuea worn me rrnsprra ml 9.10.2020 wmrour havmg |o pay anylmng Even at me vouow-up check-up on 1 rv nguanzaw».cRug2wyw5:m« «me smm mmhnrwm r. med m vs-W r... nflmrrnflly mm: dnuumrrl wn mum p-ms! Terms and cwmms uf Sarvicl at Famal Media! Centre for In~PanenIx Chuse 4 stated cleanyman Dr Luqman was and \s not an annlme nhhe Rsspandsnt. [35] Mollvws ma|whalevsr DrLuqman was Sam In have represemea to me Avpellantas In her mm medical Insurance poiscy wvemge cannot be atmmned in me Respondlm — even m memw negllgencn cases the nouns would um rule me hospnms lo be vIcaI1ons\y aooounlnhla — see many Conn‘: aecmon In 1» ram Krluman I Anor v Mogul Moor In x Moqntlbnhlm L Anal And .nan.u nppul [zmaj 3 cm 421 Conclus on [36] ms Court ws satisfied band on me pleadings and amaavns um nus case '5 a shalghllnrward dalm max me Appeuam had agvead and nonsanlefl to honouring should mere be a snmvau or: failure an me purl ollhe Insurers to settle me amount due. Yhe man: can and ought to be mean wilh summaniy as Iher: are nu mable Issues that anse om at mass «am and wcumslancax [an The Responaenn may Dmcasd |o chullenge me decianon or the mwmu or even uy to extend Dr Luqmivfs any of can on the Issue av msmea medics! wverage Hewevu‘ wnn r-spec: In me Respcndervfs dalm. m onncemed the couecnon ollhe amount due and swing In whim lbs Appeuam had agreed to [as] This appeal is dismsyed. The summary judgment gramsd by me Maglslmte is aflmned. Eom counssa. were gallamand favor: me Vssue ov ms»; Based on me lasts am wwmsunces of me nzlse and the n m flguanzawkckfluz-eyw5:m« mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm pvemcamanc nflha Anpellanl, nimmal onus is gramad to me Raspoudarn wn me sum oi RMa,uoo DATED 16 MAY 2023 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER men COURT IN MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For my Apps/Van!‘ Hujlmfu S/ngn logolhol with s-mama Sam T/n Sabamdm omman 5 Ho Fof!MRl:pondem A:-Ivok K.-mdvah together with Mrsharrd Pllhmanaman T/n Hans lbralum Kandmh Partnership u m nguanzawmckugzwywam mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 22 1o.2n2o. she claunad she was assured mm them was no Amount ouxsunam as the medical fees and expenses were cnversd by me AKA insurance [51 n was an 1512 202 (and also leltas aanao 22122020 and 5 12021) than me Anpeilanl msouuenaa me msurance claim was dedined and she was In pay RM4o,o17 55. [:1 We Appellam men on 25.1.2u21 requestsd forms guarantee Veltev and all umeroorrespandenees «um MA am and AKA Healm sewxcas Sdn am (In: mxurursj The Respumenl ma non new Foliowmg for me non- vlymml by me Appauann ma Respondent filed n wnl man In auaun for ma sum sum. [10] Yhe lsamad counsel nu ma Appelanl auzuumaa Ihal en. cums var medical Inaalmont, semen and madvcauun we covered under the medical msurunes pello/wswidlrylha insurer: sne canlsndadlhal was based on nus ma: she had nroaeduo wan KM suraafy mmunenuad by Dv Luqman [111 II was alsn me Appellant‘: aummssnans man she nan urmergons ma surgeuy at me hoGpila\ nased on vepresenmons by Dr Luqman max me costs lor surgery, nreatnuam and hospi isabon were covered by msmance [12] Addinunafly. me Appenam was lnformsd lhal [here was no amoum outstanding when she was anscnargaa and an ms Vullw-up memcal enem- up Thorelore. u was suhmmed lhat me msumrs were esmppea horn us m nguauzawkckuqzwywfizrw mu. sum ...n.mn .. u... w my a. anmnmy mm: dun-mm vu mum v-max ourldum mat resumed m me Appellants delnmenl when the Rasponaant aatm-a tor tn: full amount [13] This Courl heard that me Appattant had mfllaled u Ihlm-pany pmosedwg against lhe Ptamtnrs doom: amt me ms«re¢s The Human phadod mat ma guaamaa lellers wave |ssued an 29 0.2020 and t2.w.202u However, the parltoular on twanan cyst neaaea further trwesugauon and notmau that may war. not guatamaamg any amount pending tnuesngamn. my Th mews‘ defence pleaded lhanhey an: um have any rewms at ovarian cyu In 2010 allhuugh tna Appellant had rscnvds M ectopic pmgnincy pmxatema tn 2009 ana 20:: ctauaas 7 and some Appellants mammt uuuunaa uxcluded claims mat resumed lrom actoptc prognnnw in 2019 The «mm; lad In a vajealm natmaauun by tn. Insumrs (a pflnlnul men 26 1| 2020 was -tcamaa tu lha Raaponaanrs aMt1avI| m vaply mm at the Magrslraws Conn [arms purposes 01 its apphcalion for a summary iutiulnenlj. r e mlms aatm [151 om 14 Rule 2 or the Rules of Com 2012 (R00) empowevs me wuns ho enlera summary mdgnuenlm a clatm where there Vs nodefenoe me «me law as law: down nytna Federal count in flunk Nqar: Malaysia vuond/smauc 0v.I[1992]1MLJ40D. */n an applmalmil um; on, we own has to be satisfied on a/mm awdanca ma: ma delence has not alwmlsed an tune, but also that the salt! ISSAII ls mama ma delsvmlnntfon ol vrhallvar an m flguauzawkckfluzvywfizm mu. mu In-vthnrwm a. u... w my u. mn.t-y mm: dun-mm VII urtum vlmxt Issue :s or rs noz Mable dapands nu ma rams nu ma /aw an'siIrv Imm each case as .1/so/osoum me amuswt Ivrdomao berm live now! A complete defence neednatbe shown. The defense set uplveed only show that were rs a tnab/2 issue Undel an on appncauon, me my afa M196 does ml and as soan as a lac! :s asseded by me party, and demon at mspmed by Ina other In an amaavrr. Where such asaemon, aema: or dispute .s unaqulvncal, or lauang m preenuon or rs rneorwslenl wnn unmspumd oonlampolary documenls or olher statements by me samo deponom, at rs Inna.-nwpmoama /n nsa/1, man ma/udga has a duty to reject such -sssmon or aonra/, lhnmbylendermg me 55:15 not Mable. Unleu Mrs pomupre a aansm m. a mac /5 m no posmon Ia sxomrss ma dlscmlaan/udlmally m an on sppllcahan - us} In axnasung ma Raapomanrs Jpphcifion. me Appeflant on\y mm In raise am mama wssua (saa smmom Collugl Bomnd 1/ ms Carper-flon Bum-d[2013]MLRHU1371).Ths naspamanrs mmshold m vess| ws ralamery Vow [South East Asia mm-m:n BM v Kora; an Malaysia [1993] 1 cu mm A phuswbla wenee ransea 15 sumuann Io dwsaflow an awlicatiun fur summary judgmwl — Nun Hyounv soak v Pecwira A!!!» Bank am mm] 2 MLJ 20: [171 rue Appenam had raised a few quesuons max ner learned cuunul man In Immere ms com to hold mem as mable. rney are aH Issues uecween Ihe Appeilam and ma ilwuvers — speomcauy wnelhe( me mcameraxaa lnclslorm nsma was a vesu||\11 eclnpic ptsgnanw m 2mg that was aeany excludld mm her med\ca\ msmanaa covmaga. ma: are lawns belwaan me Appellanlana me msuren. Imus: nolcanoel, riscmd 5 m nguanzawkckugzwywazm «ma. Snr1n\nnnhnrw\HI>e u... w may he anmnauly mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm or Innm her oolmxion and hatnm lhzl sne had undertaken wnn Iha Respondenl [15] The AppeHan| planed het swgnatuve on me Ammssion Lenev daled 7 9.2020 man she nan agreed to mmply mm me rules and regulauons at me Respondent anu undenook xn same m mu all hnsp1|a\ mus in the avenl her msums vauea (ode uu. Thare was anulaflun (presumably made by Dr Luqman) as In me costs mm medical pmceduras and Iraalmenls » wnnrn . range ol RMZ5.00U and RM30.DOfl Yha Appallanl n.-.4 MI kmzwtodps av In]: mm [191 The AppeHanl nu amen and expressed her agreement 01‘ my ohlvgaflon in me Mmissm Ream: Farm on 5.10 2020 were sh: guaranteed me payment ofnls mspnar servmes extended to her pm] The Appellant had a\su agreed lo and signed me 1enns am Candmnns 0! Serwes o1 Pamax Medical Cemre for |n4=auam on 5.1o.2n2n Clauses 2, 4 and 17 had clearly smea me financiat ohlsgalnn M me Awellam luv ma servrss randerad at me hcsohal In plain langunge. me Appeuam auraud m name ms amount nutslarmmg In an event (here ms 3 maul: av mm ma Insurer lallod In pny mg Respondent (or any relwn wmmmr. [211 Tne Issue of meme: me Appeilanl was ermfled |o be covered by me rnamcal msuranoe taken is a miller between ma Appellant and me insunars. The Supreme cmm m Mat Abu n/n Man v Medical Supednhndont, Gama: Hoxpital, Taiplny Peak L 07:‘ [1999] 1 MLJ 225 had (aken lhe view man a third-pany proceeding is dmmcl from Ihal bemsen a cxannann and respondent 3| pm 5 m ngnanzawkckuqzwywfizm «mu s.nn n-nhnrwm .. u... w may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm wa mum pm ‘We also do narlhink that a procaodrng under 016 oflhe Ruins of the High court man u inlandsd m be zmmsd nu ma same way as an acnan bsfwnn a dainlrflalld a Iielendam‘ rrmdparry pvocsedmg: Ior eanmnuuan smmd be Isgavded as independent niand separate Imm pmosadmgs by a plsmfilfsqainsr a daranaam. Mm: a delendanl u made Irable to the pratntim he men has ms nghl open against a lmrd pany la esuubflsh mar ma possesses a ngm Io mrltnmtbon a rndemnny Imn me mud pany nma should bsgm to run from ma dais me darandam rs held Mable ' [22] Thus, ma sduawa an msdlcal coverage Li a malm bmwoln ma Appellanl and me insurers. The Appaflanl 15 um legally bound In pay um um; ma sum outstanding for an madtcal urvicas unwed (mm me Rnpnndlnl ax agrsed. II \n Inc and, mu ocum find nu: ma Appcllanl wna anmlad |o be cowmd and guaranteed by «no Vmurels, we can be mimbulssd (arm expanses and DDSLS borne by her [231 The Appellant datmed that me Adnnsuon Lemar dalsd 7 a 2021: s1aIed man the Inasional nania was caused by In edema: pregnancy A reading dune dowment adduced did M11 s1a\elha1 NoneV.he\ess, ma mum had issued a Velterol guarantee on 29.9.2020 luv nuspnalisamn wnn an Inmal lvmil nl RM7.5D0 u was stated that me mmal [altar of guarantee was subjscled to me final guanannas letter. As was me msewanon or new ngms not In ndndur any payment no: wveced Dy me Vnsmance pohcy, zu nguauzawmckugzwywazm «um. smm ...m.mm .. u... m may he nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl VII .nuue Wm! (24) The qusvy w (M Imums was made an 15102020 alhr me Appauann had undergone Ihs mau.c.a| pmeedunes, nremam and had been msmarwed Thevefore, »-meme: lhe msurers had lonowea due pmeess or otherw\se1s dis1zncflmm Ihis claim bylhe Rewondem based on lhe aqreemenc manna Appeilam was bmmd la. The Ccull or Avpea\ New in Anthony Lawnnon scum 5 Ana: v am: am: BM [2019] 1 Mu cm at [.1120 where we mwuawe passage by LC Vomah J mam FC.lj1n|I1e case wheve ne saw ‘The mmary duly ola noun ollaw 15 In en/nme s pmrmse wmcn Ins pamss have mam and In upnom the sancmy oi nomads mla which (I19 pmre: haw an unransmr r/gm Io lnlorpmwdsd they am not opposud In public pnlnty or arm Iva rm by my pmwuon or the luv ol lhn lend . ' [25] Tna afidzvns wen mclosod (he reluvsnv document: mu sumclunuy aodrassad me grouse by ma Appellant men was no cunusahnenf M I391 by an Re-ipmIdarI| and 01 its donor. When me mm: surgery was pSI‘f0l'Med,|I’I9\I1S|.INF$ had yet mmfisd wins aecnna and Musal ca vay [26] When the Respondent was nohfisd by the msmels mat the AppsILant’smedIcal1nsuIanoa pancyam rm ecvsrme msdwal lmatmems and sarvmes on 2511 2020. me Resuonaem nae wonnau me Appellant on 271D.202D.This was then louowea war: we rnvoloes an 2.12 202a and remlndzrs 01115 12.2020, 22 122o2n and 5 1 2021. m ngnauzawkckuqzwywfizm mm. s.n.1 In-v1hnrwH\ .. LAIQ4 w my .. nflflhnflly mm: flan-mm VII mum v-mm [271 The summary iudgmam agamx rm Appeuam on mum was prnpsny grarm by me Magisnanss Caun. Fans are undispuled that me meduzl procedures had bcen performed and mat mam was no rssul. wnlest nr oomplamus co me perfotmanoes Ihsreaf am :\so me olher mama: and mspnal services See Farm! Medical Ccntn Sam and v Saniow Kumnr Veennxingam [2921] 1 LNS 535 [29] The Appeusm submmad mau whetherme incwswonal hernia suflema was caused by an ecwon: pregnancy or developed mm a scar due to a gummy dune via Ptannensneu sea! to remove her uvanan cyst was a mama Issue. Awarding la the Appenam. ms would delermme whalhar n was her 5! me Insurers man was Mable In the Resrnondenl nu ma mldk:a\ Inalmenis and can reealvod. (291 Thu case of Expomtmpan mm o! Mnlnyxh Blvd v arnnws amsm vu-mm Sdn Bhd c on man a cm 544 (saluted amamx facts - n uunoumad me p\a\nlM's clavm an me bank uummae Vacflw to the defendants which terms were not pleaded The High own, In that case‘ had also concerns when lIu| mentioned in me amaavns were me maxms by Jordan Kuwan Bank on ma sasd hank guaramee and me plalnmfs uaim vmmme nrscuevenaam merewas alsu anemzshmenlol RMI.000.I)0u security deposit and me ausvmsaal arm: uerenaanrs clam: an me Insurance poacy - all that codd nu! bedetemnned summstiy. no} The case of Pcmblnun Muthiah 5 Sons (M) Sdn BM 5 Ors v Swot Fnmlx Sin and I Anollnr 120221 1 ms as (acts are aso dmsfeul «mm ms ones here In man case, whether ma bnuman onnlant mmamea nu ma enmenl mtx supplied was a mama [sun to dalavmine 9 m ngnanzawkckugzwywfizm «ma smm ...m.mm a. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm whelher more was a lvaudulann nnsrepresemanlon There IS no auesnen man we meeuzl ploceduris and nneanmanns sannced no me Appellant had been axewled and had been exec-ned sannslaenonly [an] Tne Appellann nae submlnad nnal mere was a misrqxesallannn by Dr Luqman aslzwas nna poumavl olnne Anpellanl man than was a my of care |a lnhrm her wnlemer her -nsuranee woula cover one [Mal costs of me mad llrealmenz and semces name cawymg om the surgery [:2] mac was no aumamy In suppun mls submlunon by me Appellanl ms cauln I5 unable lo aocem mls senlannlan man Is Iamarrlmlnl In an axanoratlm M nne Appelnenrs eonlmnual ohllgahnns man she had agraed m This coun sees not accam me mnennm man n ma Dr Luqmarfs duty In advue me Apnsflanl an nan lrlsuranna pollcy and manage [331 A: n was me Appellant horn" who had llkln up and pad for her mealcal lntulancal sne would be In (he but poulnlon no know an even lmlmru and venfy dlrecfly lronl me lrlsumrs. [341 ll ls nnlplausnble Infirsl eonnena man Dr Luqman was unaera dutym advise ma on ner insurance mverage and nnm ln would amaunl la a repnesenvanion. man no allrlbule in no me Respeneenn on lne assumption nnan ma lenn ‘ncrwldependam aacnor means nnan ne was an employee an nne Respnmnenn. ln nne Resonnden1's subnlsslorlsn nnan nenn was compared no ‘lndependem donor Tms oeun cannon aeeapl sum oonnennlon In me absence nl any endence suppomng nnan esaumpnlon The Responaenn had eonnemae all me muse! man all meaeal oonsulnanla mzclisnrlg Mlh me Respanaenn were nelnnar na amplayees lmr agents ma ml was accaptad bylha Appellenn when ll agresd we clause Aalma in nu ngnauzawkckuqzwywfizm mu. s.n.l In-vlhnrwm s. u... m my n... nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII arlum v-man

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-12ANCvC-176-06/2022

PERAYU ONG GUAN HONG RESPONDEN Tan Lee Poh

Hence, this appeal is dismissed with costs of RM7,000.00. The order by the Session Court to set aside the order for substituted service granted on 3.6.2022 is upheld.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ad1837b1-5d9b-4eab-af51-fff083f9816e&Inline=true

11/12/2023 14:17:34 WA-12ANCvC-176-06/2022 Kand. 16 S/N sTcYrZtdq06vUf/wg/mBbg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sTcYrZtdq06vUf/wg/mBbg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sTcYrZtdq06vUf/wg/mBbg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sTcYrZtdq06vUf/wg/mBbg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N sTcYrZtdq06vUf/wg/mBbg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HA—12ANCvC—176—06/2022 ,1/12,20 IN THE HIGH COURT or MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORV. MALAVSIA CIVIL APPEAL Mo: WA-12ANCvC-17$06/2022 EEIWEEN ans GUAM HONG ....APPELLANT (IIC No: asnuzz) AND TAN LEE POH ....RESPONDENT (IIC No: 930331-14‘e1a4) Trading In The Slylo mu Nam OI YLK Car cm cum. (Comp.No:2D151'lCl31B22D) JUDGMENT Background olthls Appeal [1] On 33.2022, me Session Cmm had alluwed lhe Responaenrs apphcaman to set aside the order for subsmmed sennoe dated 13 12.2021 wi|h costs oi RMs.ooo.oo. sw srmzmquwwmaw mm Sum Mm” WW be .4544 M mm me nvwvuulv M‘!ms nnmmnnl vn mum: Wm [2] Trip session cairn took into acccum mo lam on Inc can: (i) The parties executed a tenancy agreement dated 21.5.2013 fur the rental at iria prainiae at No 2 (GF) Jalan 9/232, Tamarl Danau Kora. saaan Kiiala Lumpur; (ii) The rental was RMs,ooo nionrnly and tire Respondent nap paid RM27.ooo as security deposit corrlurissd oi RMia,ooo rnontnly rent and utilities of RM9,oon, to tne Appellant; (i;i)Arpiind July 2020, lne rental agreement was taken over by a new tenant resulllrlg In lne lenninaticin ol tne rental agreement between lrie Appellant and Respondent; (iv) The Rssperldenl had claimed lrern lne Appellant tor the return cf Ihs aeaiirity depusn or which tna Appellant had any remmed tna aiiin or Rmsiooo on 20.7.2020: and (V) Tne Appellant ooiinterclairned RM2l6.DOD contending trial is the amount oi rent in anesrs ttie Respondent owed riirri [3] on 17.3 2021 lne session Cnun granted Summary Judgment against me Appellant for RM9,00D and also post at RM3,DDD. [4] Tnerealter, tria Sessiun court piooeedeu witn tne Appellants epiinterolairri ol RM1s,ooo and trie RM2I6.000 claimed to be rental arrears. Ari oiderlorsiiostltiited service was granted by rne session Courl on t:l.l2.zu2l for tne eoiinterelaini. Tnie was man set aside by me Session Cnurl on 3 5.2122 as it ieiind triat: lria mt-pane app|lca|Iorl lortne order of suhsmuled ssrvlce was not proper wliere tne oonlens of me aflidavil in support was deposed by me Appellants solicitor and not me person wtio riad carried out elfons to serve tne cause papers. sin iYcYrZlfl<Dflv\JW'WmEDV ‘Nuns s.ii.i Illvlhll will as rig... is mm Die nllnlrullly Mn; dnunvlnrll VII mane WM! [51 The Sssslnn cdutt had relened td Order 41 Rule 5 Rules ol Cnufl (R00) and the case of M-gl Sakfl sun and v weng Wll Hal 5 Or: (200515 MLJ 221 and natuk B:ndarKl.t:Ia Lumpur v bin Aflhari Bin ZainaIAbil1irl[1997]2 MLJ 17maI stated- ‘An amdewt by a deponent who has personal knowledge of the collsideraliorls upon which the declslon was Based ls pure hearsay and is worthless as ewdence and no court can be expected to pay the 3/lghlesl attentlon to II ' [6] The seeeldn Calm had also declded that the east at RM1at95o.uo claltned by the Appellant in ma appllcahen let an must at subelttuted serviua was ulveasanahle. nu findings of [his cam [71 The Respondent was not a party to me Annellanfs I sun at the session court ml was only added lot the purpeeee of he Reply la the Delenee and Caunlslclalm Thls court notes that the Order appealed agatnet is not the sealed copy—folAnt1 at pp 203404 Appeal Records En: 3 and alsu at ppta-11 supplementary Appeal Records Enc ta. Tlvs cam is bound by the dad n dttne Coun duppeal in capltallnsnranae and v Kaslm bln Mend All man] 1 ML! 193 requlnng the letred and sealed copy ol the order, at D199: -The Supleme caun had made /I clear that the ludglnenl Io he presented /0! entry must be a fatr eepy dltne judgment and nut a dial? judgment In the case cl Hasil Eumi Fsrumahan sdn Bhd a Drs u l/rmed Malayan Banking Corp End [1994] 1 ML! 312. the supreme court held thalit must be e ielr copyanlteiudament that should be presented for army In compliance with all the requlrelnente of the Rules ofHlgh coun 1930. A drsfnudgmsnl VS tn slcvrzlflqbflvutlwwhnanv wane s.n.t llnnvlhlv M“ be used m mm he .ntnn.u-y man; flan-mm vn .nune wet no: a /udgmerl! since a dial! implies rnel ll needs nedecnon and amaroval. Apparently. the Pleinliil conceded me: the order found al pier-in of me lecordis not the sealed copy allhe ordsr. As such Vim an: dime View Ms! Ihs draft order should not be in {he record. For Ms rsasarls slated above we agree with the cunlenfion DI [he ieamed counsel loilne respondents lhatlhe iecordolappeel is bad in law and should be 55! aside.” [5] The com ol Appeal in Jasuph Ln Yak Mln @ Amlmm v Mayban Sucltllllu sdn slid, Ipoll smicli (ldmmly knawn ls FIIIIIOOAIIIEI1 Suculmea Still Bhd} 5 Anal [21711] 2 ML] 81-! also upheld llial lhe order in lne Appeal Remrds must be a sealed aider. [9] T ' cum allows me preliminary utljedinn by me Rapundenl As decided by me Federal cum in uupek Jalklslian v A sannamll selvl a/p Alan Malay @ Anna Mally (as me execulrlx of «lo mm of Balasublamanlanl a/I Pfillllllflli demand) & Ora 1291714 MLJ 11 «me rnanei af procedural law can be delipaialed and decided lhmugh a preliminary eeiedidn. [10] Tne oral sub ' ' us by both penies were heard and lnis cdun mncludes that «lie Appellant did ncl come lo court with clean hands. The Appellanl appeared lo have kndwiedge suing the Respondenl was the wmllg pany. Al lne session Court lie nad applisd la wilndiaw nis suit againsl me Respondent. vel, lie persis1ed Io appeai ageinsl me Session ceurrs decision to sel aside me siipslilined seniioe dblained ex—par\e against me Respondenl SIN slcvrzlflqbflvullwwmanv were s.ii.i lhlflhll will as HSQG M mm as aiiiii.ii-y Mn; dnunmnl vla AFVLING WM! [M] II shows a alalaric abuse oi the court process. This appeal by lhe Appellam is lrlvolous and vexaflous. This Cnurl Imps Ihal he riad not appealed Io seek Iusuce. The obiecljve oi remscaung Ina omar ior subsllluled service against me Respondenl would riol serve any Iegsl purpose as he was not going to pursue ms aialm agalnsl the Respondent In me and. ma Cmm frowns an mls actinn by me Appallani WHICH look up praaipus judinial cams and ppsla. [12] Hanna, mis appeal IS dismissed Wilh costs pi RM7,lmo an The order by the Session Conn 10 set aside me order Ior subsfiluled service grarrieu on 3.6.2022 IS upheld. DATED 7 DECEMBER 2022 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMFUR For ma Appellant Ong Ksh Kaang r/rr syed Muhamad Akhysri’ For me Rasparrdanr Goh Hon! Ham T/n Kelvin Wang, Phsllg & Aasocraias SIN sncvrzlnqmlvmiww/many we Sunni In-vlhnrwiii be used m mm was anpimil-y afirris dun-mm VII .nurm WMI

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

W-05(LB)-519-12/2021

PERAYU Pendakwa Raya [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] RESPONDEN LIM POO TECK

A psychiatrist specialist certified that the Respondent was fit to stand trial and able to defend himself - Respondent claimed trial to the charge - At the end of the prosecution case, the learned High Court Judge acquitted and discharged the Respondent without calling on him to make his defence on the ground of unsoundness of mind - Distinction between legal and medical insanity - The crucial issue which lies at the heart of this appeal is the order of acquittal at the end of the prosecution’s case – The learned trial judge had patently fell into error by deciding an outright acquittal - The learned trial judge ordered the Respondent to be detained at the Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, for further treatment - Section 348 Criminal Procedure Code - Whether it was open for the learned trial judge to order the acquittal at this stage of the trial upon relying on such medical evidence standing alone before the court - It is incumbent upon the learned trial judge to direct the Respondent to state his defence - It is premature for him to dealt with the medical situation at this stage - It is pertinent to emphasise that at the prosecution stage, expert medical opinion assumed little value or significance as the question of whether the Respondent was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law is a matter to be inferred from the proved facts and circumstances and not from expert medical opinion - Legal insanity is not for the medical witnesses to decide however eminent they may be - The orders of acquittal and discharge is set aside - The case to be remitted to the Kuala Lumpur High Court before the same judge for continuation of the trial and the Respondent to be called to enter upon his defence - The Respondent is to be remanded in prison until trial.

11/12/2023

YA Dato' Azmi Bin AriffinKorumYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Datuk See Mee ChunYA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b61e6fdf-d7f2-4bf9-9cd2-d5028bff7b6d&Inline=true

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: W-05(LB)-519-12/2021 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - APPELLANT AND LIM POO TECK - RESPONDENT [In the Matter of the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory Criminal Trial No: 45B-12-12/2020 Public Prosecutor - Appellant And Lim Poo Teck - Respondent] 11/12/2023 09:58:18 W-05(LB)-519-12/2021 Kand. 36 S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 CORAM: HADHARIAH BINTI SYED ISMAIL, JCA SEE MEE CHUN, JCA AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, JCA JUDGMENT Introduction [1] The charge preferred against the Respondent reads as follows: “Bahawa kamu pada tarikh 21 Februari 2020 di antara jam 6.30 petang hingga 7.00 malam di No. 2700, Jalan lndah 10, Jinjang Utara, di dalam Daerah Sentul, di dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, telah membunuh Lim Poh Ling No KP: 820810-14- 5396 dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan." [2] Dr. Saramah Binti Mohd Isa (SP7) a psychiatrist specialist from Bahagia Ulu Kinta Hospital, Tanjung Rambutan, Perak Darul Ridzuan had prepared a medical report (P42) and certified that the Respondent was fit to stand trial and able to defend himself. [3] When the charge was read and explained to him, the Respondent claimed trial to the charge. S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [4] In support of its case, the prosecution had called eight (8) witnesses to testify against the Respondent. [5] At the end of the prosecution case, the learned High Court Judge acquitted and discharged the Respondent without calling on him to make his defence on the ground of unsoundness of mind. [6] Dissatisfied thereto, the appellant appealed against the said decision. The Prosecution’s Case [7] The case of the prosecution was well laid out by the learned trial judge in his grounds of judgment which we reproduce below: “[1] The year 2020 will always be etched in the mind of SP2 as a black mark in his life. Coming back from work, all he wishes to do was to have a relaxing evening at home. [2] Alas, it was not to be 21.2.2020 was the day he witnessed a brutal attack on his mother, perpetrated by none other than his own uncle, which resulted in her death. [3] The unfortunate incident occurred at No. 2700, Jalan lndah 10, Jinjang Utara, Sentul Kuala Lumpur which happens to be the deceased's home. The deceased was set upon from behind by the accused who then viciously slashed her using an axe. S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [4] The accused was later arrested on the same day within the vicinity of Jinjang Police Station which he entered while chasing SP2. At that time, he was brandishing an axe and a parang in both his hands. [5] He was later charged for an offence under section 302 Penal Code for the murder of the deceased Lim Poh Liang who happens to be his sister. [6] A report from University Malaya Medical Center (UMMC) certified that the accused was suffering and receiving treatment for schizophrenia, from 1995 until he defaulted in 1998. [7] In April 2022, after he was charged in court and upon the application of his Learned Counsel, he was sent for observation at Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Tanjung Rambutan, Perak under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code. [8] A medical report from the said hospital stated that the accused was fit to stand trial and appreciate the right to enter a plea. When the charge was read and explained to him, he claimed trial [11] The deceased body was identified by SP6 the forensic pathologist who conducted the post mortem on the deceased. SP8 the investigation officer who was present at that time also made a positive identification. [12] Based on P35 the post mortem report, SP2 who is the deceased's son had also identified the body as that of Lim Poh Liang, the deceased. S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [14] SP6 testified that the course of death as "multiple slash wounds to the head and neck" (Luka koyak pada kepala dan leher). [15] In her report (P35) at pages 3 & 4 she listed 24 injuries sustained by the deceased under the heading "KESAN PERLUKAAN DAN KECEDERAAN" and confirmed that these are not self-inflicted injuries or wounds. [16] According to SP6 there exist also defensive injuries indicating the deceased was trying to ward off blows from sharp objects. When shown P22(a) a parang and P23(a) an axe, SP6 confirms that they are consistent with the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased. [24] SP7 a psychiatrist from the said hospital in her oral evidence and her report P42 formed an opinion that the accused: (a) Encik Lim Poh Teck mengidap penyakit skozofrenia dalam tahap stabil (Schizophrenia in remission). (b) Semasa kejadian seperti yang didakwa pada 21 Februari 2020, beliau berada dalam keadaan mental yang waras dan sedar akan sifat dan akibat daripada perbuatannya serta mampu untuk mengetahui bahawa perbuatan tersebut adalah salah dan bertentangan dari segi undang-undang. (c) Keadaan mental beliau telah bertambah baik dengan rawatan yang diberi dan adalah stabil pada tarikh laporan ini ditulis. S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Beliau layak dihadapkan ke mahkamah untuk dibicarakan serta mampu untuk membela diri. [25] SP7 went on to describe and explain various tests and interviews conducted, which led to her finding and conclusion, during the accused's period of observation at the said hospital which ran from 2.4.2021 till 18.6.2021, the date P42 was prepared. She also confirmed that Risperidone tablet was prescribed to the accused to treat him. [26] Her finding at para 23(b) was challenged by the defence. During her cross examination she agreed that Risperidone tablet was prescribed to the accused as a form of treatment for his mental illness which was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. [27] SP7 further confirmed that without this treatment, the accused's condition could not be managed and thus would affect his ability to mount his defence in court. [28] SP 7 in her examination in chief concluded that the accused was capable of knowing the nature of his act as he was not confused after the incident. This is what SP 7 said: “Saya ada melihat rakaman video yang menunjukkan keadaan OKT semasa beliau sampai ke balai polis. Di mana beliau berseluar pendek dan memegang kapak dan parang di tangan beliau di mana kedua-dua alat ini digunakan oleh beliau sebelum kejadian untuk melakukan pertukangan. Menurut beliau, beliau ada membuat rumah untuk kucing di hadapan rumah sebelum mangsa masuk ke dalam S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 rumah. Peristiwa yang berlaku semasa kejadian sehingga selepas kejadian itu juga telah diceritakan oleh anak mangsa sendiri yang merupakan saksi yang kami dapat melalui panggilan telefon. TPR: ..... Yang Arif, daripada temubual dengan Encik Lim Pao Teck dan juga saksi yang berada di situ iaitu anak tertuduh yang kami dapat, dan juga melihat daripada rakaman video tersebut, kesimpulan yang telah saya lakukan berdasarkan seksyen 84 di mana lepas kejadian beliau merasa terkejut selepas beliau berlakunya kejadian seperti didakwa itu apabila beliau ada orang lain dan mengejar mereka. Kalau ikut maklumat yang saya dapat daripada anak actually mereka mengumpan beliau untuk ikut mereka sampai ke balai polis. ltu maklumat yang saya perolehi. Sebab selepas kejadian anak ada memanggil beberapa orang kawan lagi dan mereka berlari ke balai polis jadi Encik Lim Pao Teck ikut sebab itu sampai ke balai polis. Biasanya jika seseorang individu itu mengalami gangguan mental yang teruk ataupun impact mental capacity biasanya lepas kejadian yang didakwa, mereka akan macam bingung di mana berdasarkan maklumat yang saya perolehi dan temubual OKT, sorry, dengan Encik Lim Poo Teck, didapati beliau tidak berada dalam keadaan tersebut." [29] It was on this basis that SP 7 formed an opinion that the accused was capable of knowing the nature of his act, thus her reference to section 84 Penal Code. S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Findings at the End of the Prosecution’s Case [8] After hearing the evidence of eight (8) prosecution witnesses and the submissions of counsel, the learned trial judge ordered the acquittal and discharge of the Respondent without calling for his defence. In his judgment, the learned trial judge stated as follows: [36] It is clear that even at this stage, the prosecution stage, the accused is relying on the defence of unsoundness of mind as provided under section 84 Penal Code. [37] The finding and conclusion of SP 7 that the accused is of a sound mind, capable of knowing the nature of the act, and knows what he is doing is wrong and contrary to law is challenged by the accused's counsel during cross examination. [38] SP7 concluded that the accused was capable of knowing the nature of his act as he was not confused after the incident based on a CCTV recording shown to her showing the accused's conduct in the vicinity of Jinjang, police station and telephone conversations she had with SP2, apart from observations and interviews conducted with the accused whilst the accused was in the hospital. [39] SP4 who was on guard duty at Jinjang police station on the date of the incident in his evidence stated that on that particular day the accused dressed only in short pants came running into the vicinity of the police station, chasing after a group of 7-8 people whilst holding a parang in his right hand and an axe in his left hand. He was acting in an aggressive and threatening manner towards them. SP4 S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 agreed·under cross examination to the term 'mengamuk' as suggested by learned counsel, to describe the accused's condition at that time. [40] SP 7 also admitted that Risperidone tablet was prescribed to the accused as a form of treatment for his mental illness which was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. SP 7 admitted, without this treatment, the accused's condition could not be managed and thus would affect his ability to mount his defence in court. [41] Prior to this incident, the accused was treated at UMMC for schizophrenia as can be seen in P41 a medical report. He was treated from 4th April 1995 until 18th December 1998 when he defaulted his appointment. [42] SP2 in his evidence stated that the accused who was staying in the same house was not home when he came back from work and the attack took place approximately 10 minutes after that when the deceased walked into the house. According to SP2 the accused suddenly attacked her from behind. He did not hear any conversation between those two prior to the attack. [43] This piece of evidence is material and relevant as SP7 alleged that during her telephone conversation with SP2, she was informed that prior to the attack, the accused was at the house, building a cat house for his cat. Both the parang and axe were used in his carpeting work. He was only wearing a short pants, without any shirt on at that time. S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [44] The contradiction between SP2 and SP7’s version, of what had occurred prior to the attack was never explained by either witness. It would appear that the attack on the deceased was sudden and without any provocation. [45] Since the evidence of SP 7 is her opinion, it falls upon this court to assess and scrutinize all the evidence available before accepting such opinion [46] Having scrutinized the evidence of SP 7, SP2 and SP4, as discussed above at para 37, 38, 40 - 43, and D26 a police report lodged by the deceased on 17.2.2020 stating that the accused has mental problem, I concluded that SP7’ s opinion regarding the state of mind of the accused at the time of the incident was not supported by sound premises. Therefore, I rejected that part of her opinion. [47] Based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, oral and documentary, I find that the accused had, on the balance of probability proved that at the time of the commission of the offence he was of unsound mind and he does not know the nature of his act. [48] I am satisfied that the accused had caused such injury which lead to the death of the deceased as defined in any one of the limbs under section 302 Penal Code. [49] The accused however, based on reasons stated above, is acquitted and discharged by reason of unsoundness of mind and sent to Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Tanjung Malim, Perak for further treatment as provided under section 348 Criminal Procedure Code.” S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 The Grounds of Appeal [9] Before us, the findings are being attacked on five (5) main grounds which the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor claimed goes to the root of the erroneous acquittal of the Respondent:- (1) Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila telah melepaskan dan membebaskan dan membebasakan Responden di akhir kes pendakwaan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri bagi satu pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan dan selanjutnya memerintahkan agar Responden diletakkan dalam jagaan yang selamat di Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Perak selama yang diperkenankan oleh Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan Kelantan menurut peruntukan seksyen 348 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. (2) Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi undang - undang dan fakta apabila di dalam penghakimannya telah memutuskan bahawanya Responden telah ada melakukan perbuatan sepertimana di dalam pertuduhan, namun telah tersalah arah apabila tidak mengarahkan Responden untuk dipanggil membela diri. (3) Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila gagal mengarahkan Responden untuk membela diri sebaliknya telah memerintahkan agar Responden diletakkan dalam jagaan menurut peruntukan seksyen 348 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah di akhir kes pendakwaan. Pembelaan yang akan diwujudkan oleh S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Responden iaitu berada di dalam keadaan mental yang tidak waras dan tidak sedar akan sifat dan akibat perbuatan perlu dibuktikan di akhir kes pembelaan dan bukannya di akhir kes pendakwaan. (4) Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila telah menolak segala keterangan dan bukti-bukti yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan terutamanya keterangan daripada SP7 bahawa sajanya Responden sewaktu kejadian berada di dalam keadaan yang waras dan sedar akan sifat dan akibat perbuatannya telah membunuh simati. (5) Yang Arif Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila pembelaan ketidakwarasaan (insanity) dibangkitkan maka beban pembuktian terletak ke atas Responden bagi membuktikan ketidakwarasan itu selaras dengan peruntukan seksyen 105 Akta Keterangan 1950 dan Responden seharusnya dipanggil bagi membela diri bagi membuktikan pembelaan tersebut atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Kedudukan undang-undang mengenai pembelaan ketidakwarasan (defence of insanity) ini telah mantap. [10] Putting it briefly, the complaint by the Appellant arise from the finding made by the learned trial judge at the end of the prosecution’s case, where the learned trial judge on 21/12/2021 had opined regarding the issue of unsoundness of mind raised by the Respondent (see notes of proceedings at pages 193,194, Volume 19 RR: S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 “Ini keputusan saya, ya. Jadi daripada keterangan yang telah dikemukakan, Mahkamah ini berpuashati bahawa tindakan ataupun perbuatan OKT telah menyebabkan kecederaan yang mana dalam keadaan biasa telah menyebabkan kematian terhadap Lim Poh Ling iaitu simati dalam kes ini. Rujukan kepada keterangan SP2 dan SP6. Walau bagaimanapun, Mahkamah ini berdasarkan kepada keterangan SP7, P42 dan D26, berpuashati dan mendapati bahawa tertuduh ketika kejadian tidak mempunyai mental kapasiti dan tidak mengetahui jenis perbuatan yang dikatakan menjadi kesalahan atau apa yang dilakukan olehnya adalah salah atau bertentangan dengan undang - undang iaitu elemen mens rea tertuduh telah gagal dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan. Oleh itu, saya memutuskan telah gagal untuk membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh. Tertuduh dengan ini dilepaskan dan dibebaskan dari pertuduhan dan selaras dengan peruntukan di bawah seksyen 348 KTJ tertuduh dengan ini dihantar ke Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta untuk rawatan lanjut. Semua ekshibit berbentuk dokumentari untuk simpanan Mahkamah dan lain-lain dikembalikan kepada pihak pendakwaan.” Law on Insanity [11] The distinction between legal and medical insanity has been explained by the learned authors of Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes 26th edn in the following terms at p.307: S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 “Medical insanity' and 'legal insanity'. - There is a good deal of difference between 'medical insanity' and 'legal insanity' and courts are concerned only with the legal and not the medical aspect of the matter. It is not every kind of frantic humour or something unaccountable in a men's action, that points him out to be a mad man, to be excepted from punishment. It is not mere eccentricity or singularity of manner that would suffice the plea of insanity. Abnormality of mind is not by itself sufficient to show that the accused must have acted while of unsound mind. Such exemption can be claimed only when the insane person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or he is doing either wrong or contrary to law.” [12] In the case of PP v. Shalima Bi [2016] 2 CLJ 231, the Respondent was charged in the High Court at Johor Bahru with murder. She was alleged to have poured hot oil on the deceased, causing her death. She claimed trial to the charge and was acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution case without her defence being called. The learned trial judge found that no prima facie case had been established against her as she was insane at the time she committed the act. [13] Dissatisfied with the decision, the prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeal and succeeded, where upon the Respondent was ordered to enter her defence before the same judge. The learned trial judge after duly calling for her defence again acquitted and discharged her, on the same ground that she was insane at the time she committed the act. Pursuant to section 348(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, he ordered the Respondent to be detained at the Tampoi Hospital, Johor Bahru for treatment. S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [14] On appeal by the Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal through the judgment delivered by Abdul Rahman Sebli JCA (as he then was) set aside the order of acquittal and discharge, convicted and sentenced her to death. [15] However, on appeal, the Federal Court unanimously allowed the Appellant’s appeal and reinstated the orders of the High Court. However, the apex court did not provide a written judgment. [16] Abdul Hamid Embong JCA (as he then was) in John Nyumbei v. PP [ 2007] 2 CLJ 509, writing for the Court of Appeal gave his findings regarding the defence of insanity raised by the Appellant: 10. The law on unsoundness of mind as a complete defence in our criminal jurisprudence is, as was correctly submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant, contained in s. 84 of the Penal Code. It states: 84. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. 11. This section exempts a person found to be insane of any criminal responsibility if it is found that he is "incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law" (see commentary in Ratanlal and Dirajlal's Law of Crimes, 25th edn, p 280). The learned authors there further commented that a person "is not protected if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, even S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 though he did not know that it was contrary to law, and also, if he knew what he was doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it was wrong. 12. Thus, under s. 84 Penal Code, criminality has to be determined according to that legal test and not merely by the mental state of an accused person according to the medical test. 13. There is a distinction between the notion of a legal insanity and medical insanity. Not every form of insanity exempts a person from criminal responsibility. Only legal insanity provides that exemption under s. 84 Penal Code. The specie of insanity addressed by s. 84 is the one that impairs the cognitive faculties of a person. Its nature and extent must be that to make the offender incapable of knowing the nature of his act, or that he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. The criminality of an act therefore must be determined by this test laid down in s. 84 as distinguished from the medical test (see Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes, 25 edn. p. 280). As was stated recently by this court through the judgment of Ariffin Zakaria JCA (as he then was) in PP v. Muhammad Suhaimi Abdul Aziz [2004] 1 CLJ 378: It is settled law that the defence of insanity under s. 84 is concerned with the accused's legal responsibility at the time of the alleged offence and not with whether he was medically insane at that time. See Pendakwa Raya v. Zainal Abidin bin Mat Zaid [1993] 1 CLJ 147; PP v. Misbah bin Saat [1998] 1 CLJ 759; [1997] 3 MLJ 495. S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 14. When the defence of insanity is raised the court thus needs to consider two matters, namely: (i) whether the accused person has successfully established, as a preliminary issue, that at the time of committing the act he was of unsound mind, and (ii) if he was of unsound mind, whether he has proven that his unsoundness of mind was of a degree to satisfy one of the tests earlier mentioned ie, that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his act as being wrong or against the law. (see Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's Law of Crimes, 5th edn., p. 289 et seq). 15. It is also settled law that the burden of proof rests on the person who raises the defence of insanity (seeJuraimi bin Hussein v. PP [1998] 2 CLJ 383 also Baharom v. PP [1960] 1 LNS 9; [1960] 26 MLJ 249). And it is only the accused person who has this right to raise a defence of insanity. It is not open to the court or the prosecution to raise it (see PP v. Misbah bin Saat, supra). 16. The standard of proof upon the accused raising the defence of insanity is on a balance of probabilities, as in a civil case (Rajagopal v. PP [1976] 1 LNS 122; [1977] 1 MLJ 6, Goh Yoke v. PP [1969] 1 LNS 48; [1970] 1 MLJ 63). So, if the Appellant here is able to show, either from the prosecution or other evidence that he committed the crime but was at that time insane, he cannot be culpable by virtue of s. 84 Penal Code. S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [17] Similarly, the Court of Appeal through the judgment of Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA (as he then was) in Kofri Mustafar v. PP [ 2010] 9 CLJ 519, when addresing the same provision expressed the same sentiments further said: [18] Section 84 of the Penal Code legislates that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Even though the Appellant has alluded to the term 'insane' in his submission, the phrase promulgated in s. 84 is 'unsoundness of mind'. "Insanity" which speaks of 'disease of the mind', is a term used in Mc Naghten [1843] 10 Cl & Fin 200 or generally referred to as Mc Naghten's Rule. [19] Section 84 demands that: i. at the time of doing it; ii. the person by reason of unsoundness of mind; iii. is incapable of knowing; iv. the nature of the act; or v. that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. [20] Two limbs entitle him to an acquittal. First, if at the time of doing the act, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act, or if he knew the nature of the act did not know that it was either wrong or contrary to law (Criminal Law in Singapore and Malaysia Text and Materials by KL Koh, CMV Clarkson and NA Morgan). For purposes of this appeal, the crucial time of having an S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 unsound mind therefore is at the time of the brutal attack, and not before or after the act (John Dawlat Moon [1927] 29 Cr LJ 393); [1928] AIR (P) 363). A plea of unsoundness of mind at the time of trial will not avail an accused person (Nota Ram [1866] PR No 56 of 1866; The Law of Crimes by Ratanlal, p. 165). Regardless of the other relevant prerequisites of s. 84, it is incontrovertible that unless this preliminary factor of unsoundness of mind is established first, this defence cannot prevail. [21] It is established law that the burden of proof lies on the Appellant that is if he wishes the court to believe that he was of unsound mind at the time when he committed the offence. Needless to say, this defence of unsound mind needs to be established at the earliest possible moment ie, at the prosecution's stage. This is to avoid any allegation of afterthought. [22] Under s. 105 of the Evidence Act, the legal burden is on the Appellant to establish the fact that he committed the act in a moment of unsound mind (Jayasena v. R [1970] 1 All ER 219). In an English case, Woolmington v. DPP [1935] AC 462) the court reiterated that for a defence of insanity, the legal burden of proof on the balance of probability, is placed on an accused person. Our Decision [18] The crucial issue which lies at the heart of this appeal is the order of acquittal at the end of the prosecution’s case after the learned trial judge had indeed satisfied in his finding that the Respondent had committed the act specified in the charge. Despite that finding, the learned trial judge S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 acquitted and discharged the Appellant without his defence being called at all. With respect, learned trial judge had patently fell into error by deciding an outright acquittal. [19] Undoubtedly, his reasons for doing so was based on the considerable weight he had given to the medical testimony of SP7, SP7’s medical report (P42) and D26, the deceased Jinjang Police Report No: 3469/20 dated 17/2/2020 received in evidence in concluding that the Respondent was insane at the time he committed the act. As a result of which, the learned trial judge ordered the Respondent to be detained at the Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Tanjung Malim, Perak for further treatment as provided under section 348 Criminal Procedure Code for treatment. [20] Much had been strenuously canvassed before us by the learned counsel for both sides to this important point. The question which arises in our instant appeal is whether it was open for the learned trial judge to order the acquittal at this stage of the trial upon relying on such medical evidence standing alone before the court. [21] Having being satisfied that the offence of murder had been established by the prosecution, it is incumbent upon the learned trial judge to direct the Respondent to state his defence. Failure to do so render his ultimate decision fatally flawed. To our mind, it is premature for him to dealt with the medical situation at this stage. The learned trial judge should refrain from making decision of an acquittal at the close of the case for the prosecution. He should have continued with the trial and hear the defence version. By primarily focusing his judicial mind on SP7’s expert opinion and factual evidence as to the circumstances leading to SP2’s mother's S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 death, which led to his conclusion thereon, the learned trial judge had fallen into a serious error of law warranting appellate intervention. [22] For the Respondent to earn an acquittal, learned trial judge armed with the facts, will have to consider and evaluate from all angles whether by reason of medical insanity, the Respondent was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law only until the end of the trial after the defence has given evidence and close its case. Unfortunately, this did not take place here. [23] For completeness, however, if the Respondent elected to remain silent and called no evidence, the court must convict him since the hypothetical position obtained pursuant to section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the prosecution evidence would not and could not be challenge or rebutted, has become a reality. [24] In this context, it is pertinent to emphasise that at the prosecution stage, expert medical opinion assumed little value or significance as the question of whether the Respondent was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law is a matter to be inferred from the proved facts and circumstances and not from expert medical opinion. Legal insanity is not for the medical witnesses to decide however eminent they may be. That onus is upon the defence and it is to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities. It is purely a question of fact which rests upon substratum of oral evidence, the credibility of which is entirely for the learned trial judge to determine after the close of the defence’s case with the aid of the medical evidence. S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Conclusion [25] Having regard to all the foregoing reasons and after a careful scrutiny of the notes of proceedings of the trial and the submissions made, we unanimously allowed the Appellant appeal. The orders of acquittal and discharge is set aside. The case to be remitted to the Kuala Lumpur High Court before the same judge for continuation of the trial and the Respondent to be called to enter upon his defence. The Respondent is to be remanded in prison until trial. Date: 11 December 2023 - sgd - Azmi bin Ariffin Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia Counsel For the Appellant : Tan Guat Cheng (GC Tan & Co. (Penang)) For the Respondents : Eyu Ghim Siang (Deputy Public Prosecutor) S/N 328etvLXUuc0tUCi/97bQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22NCvC-320-06/2022

PLAINTIF TEOH SENG KIAN DEFENDAN 1. ) Marcus Chan Choon Man 2. ) THE RAIN MAKER MGMT SDN. BHD 3. ) MY PREMIER TRUSTEE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

This application by the First Defendant to strike out the Writ of Summons and SOC is hereby allowed with costs of RM5,000, as it was frivolous, vexatious and abuse the court’s process.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e4ecffa0-5453-4457-82da-ba89a8cc1cbb&Inline=true

11/12/2023 13:52:45 WA-22NCvC-320-06/2022 Kand. 65 S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N oP/s5FNUV0SC2rqJqMwcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—22NCvC—32U—06/2022 Kand. as 11/12/2023 12; HIGH COURT OF MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORV. MALAYSIA CIVIL sun NO: WA-ZZNCVC-120-05/2022 BETWEEN TEOH SENS KIAN ....PLAINTlFF (us No: 5110531 415.5521) (Wnl dun Pemegallg Amanah kepada Em: Lee Choon Hlong) AND 1. cums BANK samun (COMPANY NO. 13431?) 2. THE RAIN MAKER MGMT SDN BHD (COMPANV N0: umsw) 3. MY PREMIER TRUSTEE (MALAYSIA) EERHAD ....DEFENDANT~ (CnllIp.Na:119ZlD§-T) DEFENDANT JUDGMENY 1 sm uwrssmuvnsczrvlnbmocuw m. smm ...m.mm .. .4... w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Eric 1:: Application by due First lmarrdaru to strike out tire Writ oi Summons and smeureulorc im (soc) The wit [1] The Plarucrli ls me executor and trustee of the eslale oi the late Madam Lee The Plalruul contended lhal me late Madam Lee was uurcduced lo ma Fuel Delarrdaru by one MISS Bah and one Marcus Chan cuoon Mau (Marcus Chan) who was a Private weamr Ralallonslup Manager appolrued by me First Deleudarll, It ls the case of me Plaintiff that me Flrs1 neieudaru rlad al all malenal umas owed a fiduciary duty lo the late Madam Lee who uad the sum nf RM7sc,uoo plaeed wun the Fuel Defendant In ller bank aocouru [21 The Plalullll clauued that me lale Madam Lee was about so years ev age‘ wheelchair bound and lllllerale ln ma Eugllan Language, and that at all times the Flrst Defendant was In E DOSMOYI to domlnate the WWII of me late Madam Lee [31 On 26.3 2019 me lale Madam Lee nad lssued a cheque no oeoom for the sum 01 RM75l),00fl to the Thlld Delemianlfs account no B503 303635 wurr me First Delendant The sald payment was honoured by me First nelerldaru. [4] On 31 3.2019 the late Madam Lee had executed Declaration at Tmst and Master Deed of Trust wlth lhe Thlld Defendant The Plalnw contended that the Fllsl Delendant klgelhel wllh the atllel Mo Detendams ]o|nUy and/or severally caused and/av Induced the lale Madam Lee, lo execute the sald deeds man she rlad no knowledge at mam. Il us me ru ePls5FNuvnsc2rv|llM»cuw ‘ «um. emu nuvlhnrwm be u... a mu u. urtmnaflly mm: dnuuvlnnl _ arlum we lo the canfrad and not by a mird parry, There is no evidence tiiat tiie msintitr or ineir rspressnrzifrves ried dominated me will or me tiiird and ioiiitri derendants and obliained an iiniair advantage over (item In their affdavils, (IVE [him and fourth dslsndsnls merely siieged impruper motive on the part of tiie piaintin This is a bare aiiegation wiiieri is not supported by any evidence in any event, in me affidavirs, iris iounri deiendsnt riad not suggested triai tne p/aintifwas III apasitian to dominate her wrii There is no suggestion mat the piaintiir nad a real or apparent aiiirionry over ner ' [25] The court of Aopesi In Penginn odinisii SIIIII ain Penglnn Mahd viissors Ai-ior vicamniaunai Resorts Sdn Blvd 5 3 Or: [1995] 1 cu 257 In an apoeai egeinsnrie order to smke mix uiideroider 18 rule 19 Rules at me i-tigri com me had oonsideied the issue 01 wriecnei undue influence had In {act been exerled on the appellants to enter Into me agreements as aiieged, and hence whether sum claim nad piopeiiy been stmx out. As oeiiiieied by lhe ieeiried Sin Noemi-.i Vaakob .1CA(as she then WES) at p258‘ ‘The diseistionsiy power In dismiss an aclian siiiriiiieniy under 015 :19 and under me innereni/unsdiciion oitne court is a dissiic power wnien sriouid only be exereised in plain and obvious eases. rne court. however, is narprevenred from granting tiie apoiicaiion even when 5 question oiiaw oeeairies an issue ii, as evidenced by inis case, trie coiin is sstis1iediiiei triai issue ollaw is iinsiistaiiiaoie or iinarguaizie Likewise, vrrrere me aindavii evidence diseioses a disllute oi Iaets, trie court is eniitied lo re/ecl iriose lscls rnriey aie iound iooeiiioonsisteniwiiii undisputed contemporary documents." IN oPrs5FNuvnsc2rv‘nMi»cuw “Nair e.n.i mmhnrwm be UIQG M my i... aiiiiuiiiy MIMI dnuumnl Vfl nF\uNfl Wm! [26] The First Deiendants letter in Exhlhll ct:M-t contirmed the fact that Marcus chan ceased his employment as at 22 32016 The ‘purported investment‘ and payrncnttiythe late Madam Lee had amurrad three years alter the resignation oi Marcus Chan The Plaintiti had not responded to show how Marcus Chan had mine back into the picture whether advising orexplaining to the late Madam Lee ol the ‘purported investment‘ with the second and Third Detendants As such, this court telects the contention by the Plaintill that Marcus Chan at all material times was appointed by the First Defendant as a Personal wealth Relationship Manager authorised to act on behall oi the First Defendant when he had resigned in March 2016 and was no longer in the employment olthe Firsl Delendatit at the material time ofthe ‘purported investment‘. [27] The Plainliirs soc al para 17 had stated that the First Delendarit was in a positron to exercise undue inlluerioe over the late Madam Lee but no particulars had been pleaded to illustrate his case agiins1 the First Delendarii. The First Defendant on the other hand, had at the earliest opportunity in its nelence stated that neither Miss Bert nor Marcus Chan were its employees at that material tiriie. [231 This court also noted a small tact though important — the late Madam Lee had paged on In May 2021 Thflt is two years sitar the purported investment and payment oiRM75o,oao was made by tier to the Thlld oetandant There were no cornptairits lodged by her or her tamtiy against the First Devfetmam [29] This Court regarded the lac! that the Plalntlll had instructed ita solicitors to lodge a complllnl with Bank Negava Malaysia against the First Detaridant on this matter though there was no date memlnrled‘ nor was IN aPls5FNLNDSc2rt;lqMir»cuw ‘1 “None Sarlal nurlharwlll be UIQG ta my i... ortnlriallly Mlhln dnuurlarll Vfl aFlt.lNa vwul there one an me website pm on! The Wawrvllff had yet m be Informed :2! me mvssugscion by Bank Negara Malaysia on me same This Courtvlews mac. flat am mac would be a diflevenl mallerenlivew as whal was mended agamst the Fwst Defendant here m fills suit can be said In be unsuscamams and wrong whvch amounts Io «minus and vexalmus This Com is guided by the com :71 Appeal‘: session m uiuay Industries Sdn Ehd\/Areas!-Mnley (M) Sdn Bhd[2fl13]3MLJ 511 at p517wNch was vevened In by me Fvs1 Defendant, Is relevant and applicable‘ '/n shon, ms words ’Irrvo)ous or vaxarious’ under s19(1J{D) releno cases which are abvmusly unsuscsinsbos 57 may we words cormole purposelessness m mamn la the pruosss or a lack a! seriousness or mm and a lack of Dams frde, they also Include pmcesdlngs when 9 psny is no! sollng Dona Me and merely wvshes to annoy urembarvass ms opponent, at when :1 is norcaloulaled 10 lead {:2 any prachcal Iesuit (see Gan Koon Suan v Hang Gsk Kiau 5 On [1990] 1 SLR 1251; Arm Asus smppmg Ltd v Haridass Ho .5 Partners [2003] 2 sue 491; and Rrduan bm yusor v Klmg Thian Hus! 5 Anor[2flD5) 2 sm ms; The phrase house 0/ prncess‘ under ;1s(1;(a) dlgmfiss um Ina process olrhe court mus! be usedbona we and pmpervy andmusf not be abused 11 Includes oansadslatlon olpub/ic penny and mlelesr onuszms The court w;Il pm/an: any Improper use ofns machmsly /r wvll prev/en! me /Ildictal prucess lrom uamg usad ss 5 means of vexalion and oppression m me process urnnganan The calsganas 0! conduct rsndsnng a dam Vrrvo/ws, vsxatious in abuse of process are not dosed and war depend on a// me relevant circumstances of the case If an actmn was not brought Dona frde m ufirssmuvnsczrvlqmncuw 1’ «mm. Snr1|\nunhnrwH\I>e U... w my s. mm-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! lb! me pumose al cmsining rebel but for some other ulterior nr eoiiaieraipunaoss, n nngni be struck our as an abuse afflmaess of the noun (sea Gabriel Pslar .2 Partners (suing as a Finn) v wee Chang .Im a Ors[199B]1 sue 374 ani1Lonrho PLO v Fayed [No 5) [159.'!)1 wuz mes; " [30] aeiaia inis Court makes a ruling an inis application pursuant ia limbs in), (c) and (d), it inusi be made clear inannis Court does not accept me Fins: Deiendanrs argurnennnai ii is no: necessary in plead iinm (a)Iu Order 13 rule ism Rec — “it disdosss no reasonable cause oracmn or defence, as the case may be” Tne application to strike out under order 18 rule 19 may be made puisuannu any limb I)! all oflhe limbs The court ai Appeal in Amanah Ray-I Blvd (nuusonhrivt for cneng Song Liin, deceased) v Ong Chin Hoa 1292-713 MLI 453 upneid me estabhshed iagai pnncipie that an appiicani may me more than one iimb In an appiicauon Io slnke out pieadings ll limb (a) is pleaded, then the courtwill assess me appiicaiian wiinuui due Vegird In ine evidence in amdavns filed. It is only aria: suan sonsidanaiion, i1 inner hmbs are pleaded, would the calm then proceed to assess based on alfidavil evidence whether an older to strike out ought to be given under limbs (h) or ic) or my [31] in any event, iai this aapiicaiion, (his Oaun nas considered whether in), 14:] and id; nave been iumiiad premised an me1nc1sshown,IhIsCoun iinas that It is cinnaus manna Piainma claim againsi me Flisl neiendani IS ciaariy unsusvainabia and wmng which amcums to the case using invdious and vexauous. [321 on ins iaaa oi the piaadings and an iris amdaviis visa is: [his apphalflon, I! does seem that (here is a misuse of ms iudi II mucninery IN aPrs5FNuvns::2rv|nM»eim “ «was. a.n.i nuvihnrwm a. UIQG a new i... nflninnflly ann. dnuumnl Vfl arium vtmxi The dam! shows Ihal the Firs! Defendant was sued on the premise Chat If is a bank that Dr ' ed the late Madam Lee with financIa\ lacilmes and seryioes in failed to show rnai me services exlended (0 me ‘purported invas1menl‘ or any inyaiyenieni enne Finer neiendam cr Marcus crian tor the FIISK Defendant with regard [harem It cannot be that it Is because the First Delendant as a bank nas deep pockets that me Plalnlrfi was wining to try iis chances lnv me rewvery av ine moneys emioupn during ine iiierinie onne late Madam Lee, no ooinpieinc was ever made oi either uie ‘purported invesinienr orlhe contended iiaoiiny oune First Deaendani [331 The First Defendant riad ciied the decision In Yea Siow Kiow Lwn Nyo cm: Allng 5 Vang Laln (19971 5 MLJ 113 an p321‘ 'KesimDuIarmya, saya rnendapor cdnian ye/as dan nyara bamawia mnmrari pioirim bag] pslaksanssn spsslfik tidsk aksn bsqaya dsn mi aksn bsnnaficsud lunlutannya adalah rameh alau msnyusahkan seperri itiperunmkkan di bawah A18 )<19(1)(D) KMT. Mendasalkan ape yang Ie/ah dlbmcangkan di alas, says membenarkari permolromari pihak derendan umuk membala/kan wnr sarnari dun pernyaraan mnruran plainnluengan kos men-iandsngkan ianya lrdak msndedahkan epaepa kausa lmdakan yang munasabah, adaian rernen arau menyusahkari dan adaiari bemeliluk penyaiarigunaan Pluses mahkamall ' [34] This Conn ackncwiedges mat ine power Io strike out must be exercised sparingly, but even at UN! inieriocucpry siege. Ihls is a piain and obvious case max veocuvse sneuid be nad sunirnaniy by sinking on] me Piainws aoiion egainsi irie FIVSI Defendant — me «me Iegai principles established in Elndnr suudcr 511:! and 5 Or: v unmd Milllyln IN uPVi5FNLNDSC2rD‘fiMi»cuw '5 “Nana s.n.i mmhnrwm r. UIQG M new i... nflmrinflly oiini. dnuuvinril Vfl nF\uNG Wm! sanklng Comonllon and mu] 1 MLRA 511 are relansd la and lollawed [351 In lms case. this cburl bas looked lnlo lhe lrlable lssues submmed by the Plalmllland finds lbal the queanans nosed are nal m In be med as they are run based on the cams pleaded in relallon to me ‘purpnned Investment‘ made by Ike lale Madam Lee m 2019 Al any late, queslldns slated In me P|iinIlfl‘s submlsslons » 71 In 7.4 and 7 12 are lmmalenal as there ls no nexus wllh the (am In lssue at hand Quesllnns 7 5, 7 710 7 9 and 7 13 would only be maternal and relevant lllhetlme penod olcbe Flls! De1elIdanl'sirwoIvemenl was allhe materlal me which ls 2019, dlwmcb ls ndl pleaded and evened lb by me Flalrlufl Quesllans 7 s, 710, 7 I1‘ 7 14 and 7 l5 are lssues max can be declded Independently dl the Fllst Delendam Upon a daset scrullny, me Pla-mnrs qu$1Ions based as lnable Issues seemed lb be more al a (an-finding mlsslflrl which a civil Irlal ls not mean! lo tale! for The l=lamm must he Deflaln at us case against me Fllst lzelendam and ready to prove as case on a balance of plubabllllles lo corlvlnoe «ms COHVI Io declde m as favour [as] A5 bald by me Supreme com ln aamm Eullder Sdn andlsllpral 31 p615, lma calm ls sallsfied that lhal the Plalnmrs clalms agalnst me Fun Defendant ale lnvdlbus and vexallous, may embarvass av delay me lalrlnal and ls an abuse cube odun process m uPrs5FNuvnsc2rv‘nM»cuw “Nair s.n.l Iuvlhnrwm .. d... M may he nflmnallly mm: dnuuvlnnl VII aFluNG Wm! [31] Thus apnhsanon by the Fi1s1 Defendant to strike am Iha wm av summons and S01: Is heveby allowed wmu casts of RM5,0DO. as n was invmaua‘ vexaxious and abuse the court's process DATED 26 JANUARV 2023 WW9“; ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For me Prainmv Damk P s Sndni T/n sodm Chambers For the 1' Defendant. Lim Pay Tsyr rvgems: mm Eumce Aw Shzs Xran T/n K99 Sam, Sin 5. Huey sm uPrs5FNuvns::2rvlr4M»cuw " m. smm nmhnrwm s. U... m may .. mmuny -mm: dnuumnl VI mum Wm! Plalntrlrs corrternrerr ttraltne late Madam Lee had not meutre Second and ttre Third Defendants There were also an undated and partly unsigned consent aumorizeu lerrn belweerl the late Mndam Lee and the Third Delendsm, anu a Master servlee Agreement aatea :1 3.2019 between tlre late Mauarn Lee and Asla camerslune Management carnparry Llmlled whldl allegedly she had not met eulrer. [51 The Plairlllfl premlsed hls dalms on trre grounds lhatlhe sam deeds and dowments were illegal as they were ocnhary to Section B(1}(rl) rrl Trusl Companies Act 1945. The illegallly, the Plarntrll conlerlded, exrams to the purported lnveslmenlts af RM150,00D and RMsoo_nou referred to ln the sand documents that trreacned Secllun 4 and Secilcn 5 v1TrusIee Act 1949 [s] Against the Frrst nelerrnarrt, the Plarntlll clalmed tnat tnere was fiduclary duty owed to the late Madam Lee who was as customer and was ln a pusmon to dominate her wlll. The soc slated in para ls Ihal ‘At all tlmes, me 1* Defendant had held one Marcus ctran cnoorr Man as a person spool‘:-lied by the 1- De/anuarrt as ma 1*‘ oe/anuanra Prfvals waalm Ra/sllunsmp Manager arru aumonzsd m act an bsllall L7! ma 1-' Defendant.’ [71 The Plalnnlfs ecntentron agarnat me FlrsIDe1endanlwa5 slated ln the net: pslsgraph - para 17- “ms 1“ oeranaarrturreetly and/ollnalrsctly sxamsad undue rn/luerrce over Madam Lee to cause and/or Induce Madam Lee (0 execute me Declaratrorr or Trust 1 dated 31,3 2019 between Madam Lee and me an Dele/ldanl «or me sum al RM150,0W and Rmsoaaoo respectrvely, the Master Deed or rrusl dated 31 3 2019 oelween Madam Lea and ma 3-“ neranaarrl, ma Master San/tee ru ePls5FNLIvDSC2n)‘rlM»cuw ‘ «at... Sam! nuvlhnrwlll a. u... In may u. nrwlnnllly am. dnuuvlml _ .rrurte vtmxl Agrsemerll dated 31 3 2/119 arid the service schedule between Madam Lea and ACMCL ' is] The rellels sdiighi car by me Piainiiii, aiiiongsi inneis, is lur a declaration that the Sam deeds and documenm were null and void‘ and lor we return or me said RM750,00D [9] The First Delerldalll in its defence demanded that the Fiairimra claim had not disdosed any cause of idle" and is §CaN1alou$,VeXaliou$. uppressive and an abuse oi the noun plfiofis and that it ought to be stnick dirt and dismissed with cxhs by this INS Court [10] The First Deteiidaiii hard ackncmledged that the late Madam Lee was elderly and wheelchair bdund bul lnalnlxlned that she Izpable v1 eiireririg me said deeds mi rier own as she had been a teacher and was an avid and active investor as apparent irimiigri her unn misc aeeduni rid AEOWQZBE maintained with me Firs1 Defendant [11] Tris First neiendam siaiad iriai Miss Ben was not an emvluyee ml the First Deteiidam ainee May 2015 and that Marcus ciiaii was no longer an employee with me FVIS1 Defendant, specificaily from Maid! 2016 to March 2020. [121 II is me Fllst Deieridanrs deianoa ihai it was rim a privy in the earnraci ie the said deeds and me ddairineris, and had no knowledge oi inerii The Firm Daiaridam siaiad Ihal ii did no: iii any manner cauyad or induced irie Iaie Madarii Lee to exewie any or irie said deeds or iris ddcuriieriis irie defence aiso slaled lhal irie Firsi Delendam was nor aware ouiid never irwalvsd in the me Madam Lee's dealings (ii any) wiih IN uFVi5FNLIvDSC2rv‘nM»cuw ‘ “Nair Smll mmhnrwlll be in... a may i... nflnlnallly MVMI dnuuviml Vfl .riiiiia Wm! Ihe seednd Daleridam iwiia was n01 its eiisiaineri and «lie Tiiird Deiendem. This application to striku din an wrii oi suinmdri: and soc [13] The Firsl Dederidani had applied to strike out under order 18 rule lsilxniici and id) Rec Tlie Firs1 Deleridaril rnusl convince in ma salislacliori onriis cdun «her “The Collfl may at any siege urine proceedings order to he struck out or amended any pleading drlrre eridorsarrieiii, olarly wririn ma BCIKIIV, or anything in any pleading or In lhe endorsement, an the gmmld!har— {b} I1 is scandalous, frivolous or yexaiiaus. (c) it may we/udrce, embarrass or delay me rair inai 0/ ma aciion, dr (:1; ii is oirierwise an abuse or iris pmosss aims calm. and may oidarina aaiioi-i in be siayed or dismissed or iiragriieril in be aiiiared accnrdmg/y, as me case may be: [14] In support oi its application in s1rike out via wril dl Summons and sec an me above grounds mat ma Suit is scandalous, lrivolous dr vexatiaus and trial it may preiudioe or embarrass or delay fair |rlaI 01 the action dr iiiai it is an abuse oi the D007! process, me First Deleridam suiariimed mat the Plairimrs claini is deieuive and devoid of mem. [15] Based on via affldlvlls liled by liie Firs: Delendarii, me said deeds were executed izelween me late Madam Lee and iiie Tniid Delendaiiz andlol Asia comersidrie Managarneni Company Lid on 31.3 2019 iii which iiad ndiriing In dd, riar any adnrieslieri wiiri me Firsi Delendnnl IN uPVs5FNLlvDSC2rV‘fiMi»cuw ‘ “Nair s.i.i nuvlhnrwm be UIQG M my i... iiiiii.iiiy MIMI dnulvllnl Vfl nFluNfl Wm! Apart vmnn hormunng me cheque nssued by me lane Maaam Lea, nha Fnan Defendant had no annen deahrlgs nn relalmn na nne subgecl mailer of one action us] nn aonnenaing nnan there was no flduaary duly aa comendad by me Plammvwnh regard (O the late Madam Lee, It was averted mat she dnd Hm make any mvestmems wilh me Fnsn Denenaannvrarn March zone no March me A wpy on ananemenn shnwvmg a nnen M unna trusts bought by ma nana Maaann Lee was ennmnea to connesn nne anaun by me Plaintnll nnan sne was dlnerale. [17] Marcus cnan naa anea avenred an alfidavil and confirmed man ne was no vanger an ennpnayee 04‘ me First Defendant at man maternal me. He had affirmed nnan ne had no knowledge Lx invcwemenl m any purponed deannngs bemeen me lane Madam Lee winn nne Second and Third Ddendams He stated Xhal he dld rim meek the late Madam Leela deal an penonn arassns1ed any -nvesnmennwnnn nne First Defendamdunng me mater-an Ilme He avened man he naa unarmed nne lane Madam Lee av ms reslgnatmn Marcus cnan ansa avenea ne had na kncwiedge on me purpmea losses by m 1319 Madam Lee as a resmt at me purpaned dealings with the Second and Thmi Delendams [151 In aaneunng no me Fnsn De1enaann's applncannan no snmne out me Pnainnnrs sunn, nne Pnannnm averred man an an malena\ ninnes, nne lane Madam Lee had known Marcus cnan aa me Fnvala Wealth Ranannonamp Manager aapannnea by me First nevenaann The Pnannnm alleged nnan nna FIrs| nevenaann naa caused and/or mduced nne nane Madam Lee na execune me said deeds and documents In was cnnlended nnan nne Fnsn Flamlm wed a fiuuclavy auny no nne lane Mauenn Lee as Its cusnanner and m aPrs5FNuvnsc2rv|qM»auw 5 “Nana s.n.n nmhnrwm a. u... a any n... nrW\n|H|Y am. dnuumnl Vfl arnum v-man mac was In a posmon to damlnalslhswxll oilhe Plaimm However, it was not explained how so gwen the fact lhai Marcus cnan had resigned «mm the empmyment M the Furs! Defendam before the malenal lime Marms cnan had a\sa averted that he rm nvl met up wllh me Vate Madam Lee during me mavanal mne wmen has not been responded no or explamed by me Plalnml There was no demal to Marcus cnan-s avermanl Ihal he had communicated to her o1 ms resngnalvon T ‘ Court‘: conslderaflon [19] Tms ceun examined me Plavrmffs sum, me Fvrs1 Defendam's aecenea and an me anidavils filed regarding ms appricaoon ms coun funds me fouawlng facts‘ (at The late Madam Lee was elderly and wheelchair bound. on She was a customer mm me Firsl Deiendanl havmg had malmained her hank aoooum and mm her um! mm account there wum the Fnst Delemiam. 15) She was no! umevace to me extent that she and not understand wheve rm money was mvested based on we ran that she had llalsed wnn Mamua Chan ounng ms empbymenl as the First Defendant as ns Fnvate Wealth Relatransmp Manager and me fact Ihat she had Inves1ed mrougmne First Defendant as evvment «om her uml lrus1 aocoum meve mm me F\rsIDe1endanI. (d) The ‘purported mvasunenr mn ma Second and Third Ddendanls ana mm Asia comaracona Managemanl Company no um um mvnlve me Fm Defendam- mere .3 nclhmg to anew how we Fwsl Delendam was Involved whether mmugn as umoeus or even Marcus Chan akhough he naa aueaay yeegnau m aPrs5FNuvnsc2r\)|nM»cuw 7 “None ann nmhnrwm a. U... w my a. anmnamy em. dnuumnl Vfl murm v-max at lne malenal nrne or lnnmgn any uoeurnenla with lne Fnsl Defendanfs letterhead, or anytnrng alall shawlng ns role leadlng up to lne emcullorl ol me sald deeds and dacumenlts The Plalmill naa not snewn vmemar ln lne pleadings or nls almlavlls nblectlng to me slrlklng am applieanon, lnal lne ‘purported lnvestmenf was represented lo the late Maoarn Lee lnrougn lne Firsl nelenoanr [20] laaseo on all ma: nao been pleaoeo, cne laclual mamx IS that the lelaliorlshlp beiweerl lne late Madam Lee and me Flrsl Delenoam was one ol a customer and banker The flduclary duly awed by me First Delenoanc canvassed only so men as wlth regard lo ner bank aeoounr and um: lrus1 aowlml. Tlns coun cplrles that that noucrary duly Uld nol eno wnn Iflelerminaliorl ollne ernoloynlern olMaru.ls cnan It ended after me demlse of lne lele Madam Lee upon lne closure ol ner aecoums. vlllrllsl sne was a cuslorner, the Fllst Defendant hao pedormefl its duty ln providing nnanclal laullrles that lndllded nonounng lne lale Maoarn Lee-s inslruarons on 26 3 2019 ler paynrenl oi lne oneque nu.O000D1 made to lne Third Delendarlfs bank aeeounl [211 However, «here ls nolhlng belore [ms Conn lnal ehoweo lne Fllst Delenoenl was Involved In any way in ner declslon Io ourooneoly Invest with lne Second and Third Delendanlsc and ll or all Asla cornerslone Management company no me coun considered lne avermen! oy lne Plalrlmf lnal Mamas cnan had vlslled me home elrne lale Maoarn Lee lo pvccule ner slgnaluves out one rlul scare lne Imle perlod as ll muld have been orlor to Maren 2016 The Plalnml nao also no: slaleo lne oares ol lne limes lnal lne lale Madam Lee was aeeornoaniea lo see Marcus cnan al lne Flrsl uelenoanra oranen rna Plalnlull also oro not slele wnelner rn afilssmuvnsczrvlqmnelm ‘ «we. a.n.l nuvlhnrwlll be UIQG m my r... nflmnnllly mm. dnuuvlnrrl y. mono Wm! that visit by Marcus chsn was icr the ‘purported investment’ with the second and Third Detendants_ cr even wnri Asia cornerstone iiitanageiirent Company Lldr which was in zuis [22] Moreover, there is nothing betore this court to show that there was undue iniiuenee an the pan ct uie First Detendant with regard In the ‘hurported irivestment' executed tzetweeri the late Madam Lee and the second and Third Deiendsnts to sustain the Ptsintiirs cisim against the First Detendant in ether words, the Piaintih had net rebutted the First Accuseds conteriitron that his suit against the First ueiendant is not sizndaimis, irhroleus cr vexahous, or embarrass the «air trial of this actiorii or that it was an abuse at court pmcess [23] This cairn hnds that there were no particulars or details etthe undue intiuenee the First Detenderit was said to have had exercised over the iaie Msdsin Lee in any 0! the Ptsintirrs sttidauits in reply. in «set, the Pieimiirs set: had not pleaded the partiuiiaia ol the aiieged undue innuenee exercised by the First Defendant. when this court tccis at the sac, this ccurt finds that it is also unclear as to whether Marcus Chan had any role ortrivolvemenl in the ‘nurporled Knveslmenl‘ between the iate Madam Lee and the second and Thtm ueiendants The First Detendsnt had submitted that there was nnncompiianoe or order is nine t2 RcC that requires nanictiiars oi the aiiegcd undue influence to be pleaded in the sec, to which this Courl agrees ‘Sumac! 10 paragraph (2), every pieading shall contain the nensssaiy particuiais orariy claim, dalanee orcther mallsrplsadod ineiuding, wimoul plsflldice la the gerieraiity of ms roregoirrg wcrds— ru ePrs5FNuvnsc2ri)|t1M»cuw «nu. s.n.i nuvihnrwm as u... is my i... uflmrrnflly mi. dnuumnl Vfl nFiuNG Wm! Ia) particulars afalvy misraprssenfalion, Iiaim, breach or mist, Wlmfl defau/t or undue influence on which the party pieeaing rs/lss,‘ and mi wnera a psny piesmng a//ages any condition alrhe mnni ul any person, whether any dlsorlislaldisabllily ormind many ma/ioa, fraudulent mlelman or ufher eanumon ol mind except knimieage, parliculsrs‘ oi the [acts on wnien rne party re/res. (M) No party shall qiiamy any ciaim olcountsrclaim lorgerisrsl damages. (2) Wheve II 75 rieoessary ro grve particulars or debt, expenses ur damages and moss particulars exceed (mus in/ins, (hey shall be set out in a separaie document reienaa In In me piaaumg and me pieeding snaiisiaie whemerthe document has al/eady been served and, use, when, Ur is to be served with me pleading.“ [241 The First Devenaant nan relied on me com oi Appears decisian in man Tang v Parvzen K.aur{zi211]5ui..i42a an M35 In Implanng cnia Courl in me that as me Pieimm had run pieadea me elements 0! undue influence‘ he cannot my on mam against the Firs1 Delendant The allegation by the PIBIMM lhal the Fllsl Defendant had dominated the will onhe iaze Madam Lee tantamount to Just Ihal— an aueganan with no other supparlmg cams In me Piainms pleadings and amaavms The case of Mlllysinn Fllnch Bank Shd v Abdullnh bln Mom! vusara Ovs[1lP1) 2 MLI 475 is veferved to ‘In order to establish undue influence, ma lhird and low!!! derenuanis have to wave mar me piammi was In a position la dominals meir WW and this oblained en uniair advantage by using Matposillorl Aplsa alundus influence can oniy be raised Dyaparfy IN ufiissmuvnsczrvlnmncuw ‘“ «mm. s.n.i nmhnrwm .. U... m my me mn.u-y em. dnuumnl Vfl mum v-max

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-12ANCvC-282-09/2022

PERAYU WONG TZY JIAN RESPONDEN KIRANA EMAS SDN BHD

This Court allowed this appeal. The JID dated 18.5.2020 was set aside. The Appellant was allowed to enter his Memorandum of Appearance on this day of judgment. He was to file his Defence and Counterclaim within three days of this judgment. Costs of RM10,000 was awarded to the Appellant.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e0174ce1-ef99-4e55-8236-69acd21f279d&Inline=true

11/12/2023 12:32:59 WA-12ANCvC-282-09/2022 Kand. 25 S/N 4UwX4JnvVU6CNmms0h8nnQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4UwX4JnvVU6CNmms0h8nnQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4UwX4JnvVU6CNmms0h8nnQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4UwX4JnvVU6CNmms0h8nnQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4UwX4JnvVU6CNmms0h8nnQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4UwX4JnvVU6CNmms0h8nnQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4UwX4JnvVU6CNmms0h8nnQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4UwX4JnvVU6CNmms0h8nnQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4UwX4JnvVU6CNmms0h8nnQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4UwX4JnvVU6CNmms0h8nnQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 4UwX4JnvVU6CNmms0h8nnQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—12mcvc—2a2—u9/2022 Kand. 25 11/12/2023 12:32-52 [N m: man coum IN MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR in ms FEDERAL TERRITORY. IIALAVSIA CIVIL APPEAL no WA-IIANCVB-232-oII2022 BETWEEN wouerzvwm ....APPELLAN1’ (In: no: s1n12n-1n«ssc9) AND KIRANA EMA! snu sun ....nEsPoNnEm (Comp. Reg: 11:54am) cnuuuns or Junauzur Thu Agp_cnI m The Sssskm Courl an 1492022 xflsmnssod ma Awallsnu appflcallnn tn, amnngn nlhavs. (a) sel aside ma mdgmenl In de1au1|dIlad1B.5 2020 um; enlemd zgilnsl ma Avbeuann (at an mtmotundum M -vuearance: . IN awxumvuacummsnnamn -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (cl nle slalemenl dldelende and munlarclarm. and (d) it necessary an extnnslon or urns lo nla and serve the Appellanrs slid rloflca alapphcallon daled I s 2022 ml The Appellam subrnmed mar me Session coun was allorleous In holdlng lnal he had nu leans slandr VI aaaenee er a sarlcllnn (mm me reclar General at lnsolvancy (Dell Tne Agpallanls other grounds of appeals submmed ware lnallns sasslen own was also ln error rn findlng mal me Anpallanl old ml have a marllonaus aelenoe. lns sennsa at me eurnmana and slalemenl ol clalm were perfected and ln alder and oral «here was rnordmals dnlay In me fillng al lne Appellanrs apnllralwl lnal nae plejudsoed me Respcrvdenl Th nun lln [3] ms Conn sel aslds Illa JID dzlad la 5 2020 on ma hula ml me Auaullanl had lna locus slandi and need nol me sarwtlun lrom am as II was mm regard to me very mallar loan which we bankruulcy srder was wamrsea on [4] ms Calln found lnal me Jln was no( regular nor -n order There was nu adlrlamedgemenl cl mcelpl by me Appellam lnal rmdarau me .llD omalnea lalal. Tms caun lunnec found that mere were mellts rn ma browsed nelence lnal warranted lo he cried. ll was also lound mal me quesnon at lnmllnale dld ml arke slnoe ma JlDwas not legular and me Aopellanfs cclnlemion en me dmnalogy on why ll waa med ln 2022 was aouepled M the lmeiesls Mjusuce. m 4LMXA.ArwVu6CNmmsnhEmQ “Nana s.n.l n-vlhnrwm r. u... m mm r... nflglnnllly sun. dun-mm vu nFluNG ma [271 1205!: or Rmmma was awarded up me Auneuam DATED 23 MARCH 2023 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMVSSIONER HIGH COURT or MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Furlm Anna/ram. ran Met Swan together mm CherIg)6n Van T/n Alfnd Lu & Pannm For the Respondenl. La! Yes Fan, Wong vln Me) and scams Lao T/n Fyiana, La: .4 Doom: Thong 11 m Awxumvuacummsnnamn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! [5] mLmmflu . 4.3.2020 The Respmaam filed me svammern o1C\a|m . 17 3.21120 The Rsepondem serves me svaxemem Sc ’ Appeuann by way of mgisluad pus! rrranme . 195.2020 The Raepondsnl oozalnea me JID agams? um ApDeHanl . 2a.2mn tn. JID was sewed on ma Anvellant hfiiy ol mghlnrud pm! . 1512021 The Rewondem wmmamiad bankruptcy pmcendmg: agulnsl ma AppaHalIl vidl WA-2BNcvl:- 12a2.u7~2n2a . 1362021 The Rospondlrn sowed Ina aurrkrumny Ordu and news In meme ma same In me Deoanment of lnsuwency Yha Ptarrmvr had «nu ma prounrrueon ma aemral waxy cum 2: 4 2021 . 20 5.2021 . an 8.2021 The Ap9eHavI cm In apuucanorr to set aside the Bankruptcy Older vlds WA«2§P&27S05l2021 on may ‘ basis mar r (1)The Apuelam was sun so\va1I: and [2)The Aweuam was In emuun me proposal of mu semememat RM256,I06 57 The nearmg was conducted by way nfzn axnhangsaf -rnans. The Dlneclov General 01 lnsdvarcy mean an me remrrs that um». Aupellanl am not mu nos sanwumcy Ml mu m Auwxumvxjccummsanamn “Nana smm mmhnrwm r. U... w my r... nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl Vfl muNG v-max (mm Aopeflanrs proposal of mu samemsnl was unlawfm ma gaw ma Reswndent undue prelerenoe amwa me amarcuednors (anus Aopeflam had i\sc wed me Customs (RM1.68D.94862 wmu 00515 -11 RM3,8m) and the wand Revenue1RM1,1oc,2ee 76am1 cosis o1RM2,000) The pmceedlngs were adpumed 1.: 7.7.2021 . 1.7 2021 TheAppeHanIwllndrew Bankruptcy Ordev The Application wx stmxx oul mm Ilbedy la me afresh and nu ma: as to oasis. . 1452022 The Appe applmuhnn lo sm aside ma JID [6] ma vuuwing «mam Ihe cnrunuwagy or me pmeeeaungs eonsuiemd my ma Session Cowl. Yin gssassmonl nflhis aggal wnothormo lllm hm! local 502 ‘ m the a Iicitiun In at Isldo mo JID yfmj mg (51 mm gsamion from my DGI. The [7] we Sessmn Oourl opined that me Aupellanl had lauled to own me necessary sanmon as required by sam xa) mmweocy Act 1967 [Am am) (ma Am) man Dmvndss. ‘Whole a bankrupt has not amamaa hrs discharge » m Awxumvuacummsnnamn “Nair Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum perm 1:; Th: bmmpr mu be mcompsmu to mamlam any anion (olnor lhan In ac!/on for damages in Inspect afar: in/'uvy to ms pevson; wrlhalnlhe pmwous salvtlron arm: Draclor seam onnsarvency " [8] Th! Session Conn hfi nlled on the Court 01 Aupeal (3:85 0! Pnyukunmy Mulnucumuu 5 Ana! v ounastngm all Rlmltlnglm {I DIMKHIDU [2006] MLJ 511 and Goh Eng Mva V M/S Lzknlmlnn Roalu [2004] C! MLJ 97. {9} Yha Fedsra\ cum in Na Km Sung v Prognum Insurlnco sun and [20:31 2 MLJ :35 had mm on ma proper oanslmwon of ma smd Ilw and mm at p336: -m amm, s35(1)(a) ollhe Ac! should rml an given too extvnsnm m imurpmt ' n While I!!! ward ‘aclron’ (Imam should my to crwl -com or cw prwnodmy -n court, A mum be resmaled la a new and uparate softer: and not me samu upon much the Darllvuplcy was securad rm scope of s3891)(aJ would be /Imvtad lo a now chose m mm ma: ecu/A1 aflsci ms assets a/proprietary rights da bankrupt/nlsm1en1 for wstrrbsmon to ms c.-eduozs and srumi no: be relevant when a Danhlupf Invoked 592(2) af me Acr. This was m agmemem with me dsasian in Khan's case and the mrnonry judgment ofths com nfApps.9l m W5 can [see paras 27-29)." The mnonly Juagmem unm coun ov Appeal new man Ip340—341 ), “ me test pmpounded DyAI.m4 .1 when propsdy sppllsd enables a bankrupl lo cnallangs all orders made by a aankruplny Com m the 5 m awxumvuacummsnnamn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! exams at rm bankruptcy jmsmcnan mclwrng appears as m rm: case and man appncazions to s-r nude 3 mdgnlent Ihlmmq [M sumac! matter 0/ mo oankmprcy proceedings without me mad ea obtain the sancrrcn olme afliual assagnsez Maw, m Re xnoo Kim Hock Mondfizmv ./ (as be men was) held mm,- Havmg command ma prowsmns ome Bankruptcy Actas a whole and lhe secwon rlsell, n Is my consrdeved animal: max the sanction rwwlamenl does no! apply to cases when the bankrupt rs mum to nhaliarrge an Ania! m bankruptcy, or man he I: uekmg me man‘; drsrzutfon m Iswew, rescind or wry any any man by It may Rs namwupmy jmmfietlon. rm smpcm aarvtmned w/llllrv brackots rn :3!(1){aJ cloally Indicates Ina! Ina seclmn rs rntnndsd to apply only to nation for r-cwvery or aomsfflmfl - «mm m: at P9'¥0na( — which an Do Iumad mm mm such as .5 mm. In: rocovovy olpmnony or moncy due. rm--r, (hers rs namrng m :5 33.92 or 105 to mom that n is the intention of me llvvslafurw fa r-gum pm sancfiavv ollhs unvcaal assiynn below a bankrupt can seek n/Ielunder (hose pmwsoons um: s33(1), a bankrupt may at any nme aner oemg adjudged bankrupt apply 11: me mart Ior an order for discharge and them is no Inga! requirement me: for (ms purpuse my mu/.1 firs! obtam me ssmron oranyone, ms rs arse me me more an apphcarton /5 made to me eourl under ss92(1) and 105m ofme Ac! ' m Awxumvuacummsnnamn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m yam .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom! [1 n] The natural ouun concluded at pm 1: mm be most um: and unconscionable 4 a person IS bsmg ltlsabled ma lncapeafated, unless he obla/rls sanction mun me DG/, to challenge me very amun lhal caused the dlsablllty am mcflpacllallorl It would lamamounl no denying mm hvs ml of access rojllsllcs and probably ms corlsllllnforral righl arappeal. " [II] The JID was me luagmenl on which ma Rsspondsnl nau premisea ma Bankruptcy order on. It was ml a new nr sspalale acllorl/pmoeedlng This was ln am culllastwllh are laws in ma caaa mu ma Sesslnn Cuun had rallaa on. Thls Cmlfl «ma Dual ma semen Cmm had errad when ll mm Ihal ma Appeilam had no locul shndl [I2] rm: Conn new manna Appallanldnl nal raqulm ma sandlon under aaumm of ma Au [mm on DGI as mu appl-eaum was m sel am: an JID that secuvad ma Eallkmpbcy om: ugalnsl ma Anvellam ms Apna¥lan| had ma lncus stand: lo file me application In sa aside me JVD and swam lemmas on m.-mars cmcam-ng one very same pmoaaamgs wllamarllsaggg nlhlld nnrlm ggdnf DI [13] The sessmn coun luund mama vmpesed Defalce dld ml disclose any merltorious delenoe lomonsldaratlon. Upon dose axarmnmlm ol me pwposed Balance, male are maul: Issues that gave madsnee me me ueleme pmlmh bylhe Awellanl 1141 Clause 3.5 ol me Shale Sale Agreement (SSA) belwaan me Appellanl and me Respondent showed man lneca wave same ubllgalmna 2 m Awxumvuacummsnnamn “Nair Smnl ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. nflglnnllly mm: dun-mm VII nFluNG am gn Hg 35 9: hg Reggondenl 01:! carInu| bu summamy dismissed wvlhoul considering me dehnee [15] One of me defences uy me Aupellantwai men nne apoucauon ror me extenswun :11 time was :9 enema and vacunsce me Respnndenls payment aflhe Premium under Ina ssn. us} This Court opined than here are some mam: m me prooosed Delenee onne Appeuam that wanamed a trial [171 me Appeuunx contended lhll ne was never served any at me plandmgs as ans addmss Ihs Respondent had sarvcd In was me am ms\danl\aI huuse The Aupeham mnnu wvllsrvdsd mm mm was no acknowledgemlni ans» reoe\pl of wvtu enlhsr [ea] This Cnun look xxngnlsance at the pasting reouml mu-ed to me RusponduvI|'s afidavil of same but were was no icl<rIuwVedgsmen(a1 mmm me Fatima! Court‘: uecwsbon In Goh Tang wnoo 4 Anal v Amplo Ob/‘ocfivos Sdn and r2021] 2 MLJ 159\5Ins|1m:1ive when wane afidam ofsemoe did nm ex endanoe at many: by me Anpsilam of me cause papers served, lhe own should not us: a JID [19] On mus nale. this coun was persuaded that me Fedaal Oaurfs Judgment cl Gull Teng vl/nod (supra) had a velmspecfive sum. The dmsnns n Abdlllzh un Labu Khan vPublc Proslcmor Lzocz} 3 MLJ 295, Alvln L-any w.: Kuln L Or: v mum Kuqnnmun sandar. Pdmmahan don xmuun runpaun 5 on and outs! lppllullons m awxumvuacummsnnamn mm. sum n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmny mm: dun-mm VII uF\uNG pans! [mo] 6 cu 55 and Lu Jung van 1 mar V U: EAC saniie M Sdn Bhd|2U2D]1 ms «am warn ponendered [ml The Resoondenn apnea fovlhe seemd oplhn pmvided for in Order no Rune 1(1) Rules of own 2DI21RoCHhahs - no effect me aervnaa of its cause papers and pleadings an the Appennann by way MAR regnsnered posk nnsnead on pewonal service. However, (here was an absem 07 me cards on asknownedgemem nmvnng men may were rsoanveu. Olhelwnse. n wanna be me same as ondnnary eemce, AR mgnsnened posn was me made which was aklnto persman semoe me mgnsnaned poen assured man extra enndn man me dennvery was ne Ihe addrsss snaned. Thaugll puma «acne nl may showman me enema serve ml me Aovennenn n ma addlusan bul nn ne no( eandndsnva pnden especially so men [here was no mean on asnmswnedpemenn an semae and new where Ina Agpennann connsndsd man he and not meant: mem me Appennam slnled men me afldruu was In and Iddres: dnwnen he nad moved hum there yurs name. [21] cneusa some ssA am non pmvndelontne servioa ol pleadings and cause papers of nogan acnnore The ssn being a damned: belwean mam wum have and would have specmsd man nu Include cause pepus and negan documents penaining mun mu snonnnd may had mended to do so In me nnse may dud not and cnannse 3 covered muse cf correspondences m nature As such, onder no Rule 3 Roe was name appucabne pmvnsnon but Order no Rune 1 Rec [221 on me pvemlrse man were was no acknowledgement on nne reoeapt omne service ul me cause papens on me Appenlanh Ihns coun nound man and JID was nm In order. m awxumvuacummsnnamn “Nana senen n-vnhnrwm be LAIQ4 m mm .. nflgnnnflly mm: dun-mm w. aF\uNG pans! WIMMHI1 rt was ovdinuh as an In [23] The Session coun had (mum Inst me Aopenammd nc| aanly to set was me JID when he oauld have complied with Order 42 ml: 13 Rec. The sesmn Court deadsd max mere was nu yusfifucaflon to anon his appucauon to set aside me MD [241 ms court found no evidence me: the same at cm meanings on me Appellant was m amerm proper. Tr-ararors. me calumauan at flme could run he munlsd from In: dale o1 me my wmm ms coun lound Irregular [25] me Appellant conlendad upon lha msmmy m 2021 M the nu, Ma m use dlsaweted ma bankrup|Cy proceed ms and erdm ms Rulpondavvl mu commsncsa mm Mm pursuant |o|71a JID. Ha cmmed mm in ms pamc he had to am wun Iha allelrnam of him bemg a mractar M17 companies. memsm he was under me -mpnmon mu half: me am and Ihs Bankruphy Ovdar war! ilriveulbln unlll ha sought Iagsx same man mssxsd me my wan Irrvaular As sum‘ mus com mum max mamer de\ay them may be‘ was jusmsa. [26] ' com aflowed mas appeal, The JID dated 16.5 202a was set aside The Anpelam was aflowed |o emer ms Mlmomndum ov Appsaranw on mus day 0! judgment He ms to file ms Menus and counterclaim wmun three days aims judgmarvl. m awxumvuacummsnnamn mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-11BNCvC-40-06/2022

PERAYU GMSTAR TRADING SDN BHD RESPONDEN WADOODUN CORPORATION SDN BHD

This appeal is dismissed. The order and judgment by the Magistrate are hereby affirmed. Costs of RM5,000 is awarded to the Respondent.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=253a46fc-8d89-4150-bb8d-ba9baa8f9013&Inline=true

11/12/2023 13:48:58 WA-11BNCvC-40-06/2022 Kand. 28 S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /EY6JYmNUEG7jbqbqoQEw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—11mlcvc—au—o6/2022 Kand. 28 11/12/2023 13:4-52 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAVA Ar KUALA LUMFUR IN THE FEDERAL IERRIIORV, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT No: WA-11BNCvC-40-06/2022 EETWEEN GMSTAR TRADING sou BHD ....APFELLANT (comwmv NO: 1:msa2o2.x) AND WADODDUN conrmunou sun am: ....RE§PONDENT (COMPANY NO: 1049414) JUDGMENT m On 1 s 2022 the MagIs(rsle‘s order and Judgment are — as follows" m) The Appeuam to pay me Respondent RMJSDOD bemg me outstanding remal from October to December 2020 wnn -mevesos ov5% fvam me dale nllhe Wm ov Summons 1: 1 2021 Imlil (max sememenn 1 sm :zmw..Nuzs7.amaqz.. m. smm ...m.mm .. .4... w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! lb) The Appellant to pay the Respondent RM11,DOO belng the rasruraaon costs for the premises wmr rnterest or 5% lrnm tlre dale dune Wm of Summons 131 2021 urml final selllemenlr to) coals ufRM4,325 (d) The Appellarrrs courrlerelalrn wasdlsmlssed with no order as to 00215 [21 The Magistrate rrad deeded to allow the Respondents clalm and drsrmss Ihe Aapellarrrs coumer clarrrr as ar me day at me rrral, me Appellant was oanaldered net present and not ready to pmaeed wilh lrial in aaaurdance to Order 32 rule 1(3) Rules of Court 2ot2 (Rec) [31 Ire background 0! this case belore lrre Maglstrale was that a Judgment In aelaun had been lecarded ag:IrmIheAppeHanl on 4.3 2o2t. However, hat was set aslde an 5 I 2022 and an 8 4 2022 8 NH Mal was «xed «am 14 6 21122 It was also ordered that all documemsfmlrlal were to be med belure 11.5 ma. [4] At me aase management on 17 5 2022 me Appellanfs lnrmer lawyels rnlarmed me Msglslrate Counlhstlhsy had med in an appllcalton Ia dlscharge merrrselues a few days earlrer (on 12 52u22) They were men ordered to serve me same on the Appellant and to ensure the lillng at all cause papers as ordered was done pnnr Io me trial dates The rreanrrg oltheappllcallorl lo dtschalge was In be heard on 24 5 2022 alter ll was served on ma Appellant. ru IEvMvmNuEG7lbqmrIQEw «mu. a.r.r mmhnrwlll a. med w my r... urwlrullly mm. dnuuvlml Vfl urlurta war dalam psrblcaraan lersebm kemrla uelenaan, sabagar sebuah syankal, hanya boleh drwakrll alen peguamcara /15} Semasa msmsrinluhka/l agarkss ml dilerusklsll (ssperfl yang dinyatsksn er alas), aaya velsh merlgambl/klm Atumll 35 kesdah 1(2) Kasdalrkaedall Mahkamah (KKM) 21712 saya jugs bsrselu/u derlgan nuranan peguarncara Plainnr rerpelarar ballawa walaupurl wakil Defender: nadir tslapl dslsm llndang-undang, die tidak dapat mswskrli Dereman kerana Dela/man rranya laolen diwskill‘ oleh psguamvara Kesannya, De/endan blleh dlkatakan man hadlr dalarn Perblcalaan mi " (25) we Court agrees wan «ma mle legal poslllnn and «hue, me Maglstrate was correct ln applylng Order 35 rule 112; Rue as us Ills! mndmon on me nonawearance 01 lhe party who 45 a may corporate ls fulfilled Ills uovrecl to have ruled VII law that me Nlbellanl dld not appear when me mall «or me actian was called upon an 1 s.2o22. Yheveicre, ii is irnmanenal wnelher me Maglsilale took me aparoaen that me Appellants lnlmev lawyers were SH“ on record on the reason that the lslred order In aeenarge was nomlea, nor sealed As atlhe end oflhe day, me Appellanl knew ma: ms former lawyers naa dlschalged Ihemserva and had la-led to appmnl another (M the mal [27] As per me eaurrs recoma, mus knawledge max Ihe Appeuam was required In appulnl a new lawyer In wndua me lrlal was emcrauy wrllllmed me rls lener dated 20.5.2022 when n sought tor a lmszponenlem of lnal var we in wee mmllhs la appoln new aollcllors Tne Appellant nan opted nol lo be presem an 24 5 2022 al me calm neanng 0! me appllcallan lo mscnarge me Appenanrs lormer lawyers lo rNlEvMvn.NuEs7lbqnlrlQEw “ «ma. Sam! nuvlhnrwm a. met! a may r... annlnallly -mm: dnuuvlml Vfl .nuna wax snsuva that the case (against VI and to! as aeunterulaim) was attended t0. In rid, the Appellant’: conduct an the day 01 tllal showed that it did not (Ike the case seriously — rl sent a representative who came to calm iate Mia had again asked to! n pos1ponement at trial and had reitisea tn proceed wnh tllal. Neither aia such canatia show any respect In the court proceedings [213] To the aigiiinern by the Apiieiiarn that the Magistrate erred when she entered the itiitgnient when nDeX—vII1etrIa\ was mnducted. Ovder35 rule 112) Rut: that pmvided three options to the courts — the iuctge riisy pnweed with mil in the absence at that party (ex-pane trial) OR without that given judgment nrdisniiss the action OR make any other order as the iuage thinks ht [29] It was entirely up to the niscietion at the Magistrate to exemlse the options sveilatite In an appeal to set aetde whichever oider the Iowa! courts had aecidad, an appellant must demonstrate that the itisizetion was not exemted iuaiaiausly — which here the Appellant had failed to demonstrate so {so} The Appeiiant had cned set Jnig Shim sitii rang Scl—Tecn Pnarmlccuficalco LIdvBanKah on-tsaii BhI:lLtd(supIa) That case eonoerned an sppiicetian to re-near a case where iuagineiit was en|eled ex—pane trial pursuant to a rion-allendarice of the applicant The tlial was inniauy iixeit on ieta a 2017 on 93.2017 the iawyeis had applied ta dtscharge as had rlol obtained sulficient instructions The com had allnwed the discharge but had ttirectea the applicant to appoint new BDHCIIDF and aflev 3 law case management dates In noun, the coun had directed that the applicant be untamed that the mat had been rhtixed on rNtEvMvniNuEs7im-inuaqzw *1 “Nair s.n.i mnrihnrwm be UIQG M my i... aniin.iin MVMI dnuuvinnt Vfl .riiina Wm! 2021 tt 2017 and I5-191 zeta Al the wrrtrrtencemerrt r71 man an 2011 2017 the apnttearrt was absent and the court trad proceeded mm the that and dismissed the apaltcants eaunterclairrt Four months later. the appttnt snugtrt an eflenslmw of ttme Ia set aside the judgement and resetttremunterclarm turtnat Mme hearrng otthe appItcatian_ thetudge found tttatttte appttcants absence was ncldue to an accraent or nrtstake but “/1 was dslibsrsls due to the noncha/nnce and apathy af GPZ In a nutshe//, Yantal hadna good reason to be absent at tnal " [31] Thts case at hand was rrrtttated In January 2021 Amer settrng astde the Judgment tn default amatned against the Appellant, it had over one year to prepare car that However, even he t:cut1‘s dtretman In file an cause papers. pteadrrtgs, duwmenls to prepare tor that was not adneled to The eaurt had ctearty iterated several ttmes that the mat was given pdomy and that it would run he puslpuned. [32] Thrs court ands that there awearad tn be a taett of effort that shwwed the Appeltant was nonchatant about the sutt arm ataa he aounteruaim. The ecnducl at the Appettant showed and not take the case sertousty and look tor granted that the wurl would grant pustponement ol the that ttttetr request was tor three ta tour months) just by stating that they were not reaay with new soltmor the Magtstrata mum at paras 26- 27 “Tmdakan Defsndan dart/atau peguamcara Delendan dl dalam Imdakan rm aaa/an ndak munasabalt dart max wa,ar apatar/a pennoimnan pamanxan dm I-tanya amuat da/am mass 2 mmggu ssbslum (ankn pemlcarasll panun Alasan yang dtberrkan oterr peguamcsla Delandnn adslah anakguam memks tattu Datanaan rNIEvMvn.NuEG7tbqhrrIQEw “ «was. amt mmhnrwm s. u... a may r... mmnaflly am. dnuuvtmt Vfl artutta mat mm membaysr yum/l gunman Inl pada Ilemaf mahkamah adalall urusan da/amen dl arltam peglmmcara Defendan darl oevsnuen nnaexen Defender: yang gagal member! helyasama kapafla peguamcara merska yang telsh dilanrlk /ugls adslah fldak berlarlgqu/lgkawah flan max seaarulnya bsllsku selamrlya Dslandarl bsrpondillarl bailawa Defender! memplmyal pal-nbe/sun yangbannsrit Surat pennohanan penarlgguharl pelblcaman Dsfslldan yang msmlnla psnangguhan selama 2-: bulan menurlmkkan bahsws Delandarl Ildak serlus aengan tulllutan yang driallkan aleh Plainlll clan lunlulan balas Delendan sendlrl apsblla mahkamah relan memberlkarl prlomy ulalrla kepada kes lI‘Il dangsn pensraparl tarlkh psrblcsman sssagsm yang mungklll ' [:33] The alsoreuon of the maglstrate to enler judgmenl wvlhoul cnal. which she legally had the nghl lo. seemed in have taken all facts and clvcumslances imn oonsldelallun Therelore, the cam IS reluctant Io lnlerlere with the Meglszrele‘s decyslan to enter me send judgment agalnsl the Appellant and dismissed as oaunlevulalm There does not seem to be any error on the pan al the Maglsllale when she had exercised her disoreuun acwrdlrlg to Older 35 rule 112) Rec [34] A legal ecnon ln eeun must be taken senausly by all panes. There must be mmpllame wllh all me durecuons lol trlal lo ensure that justice will be done aomrdlngly There was no explanaliurl as la why an adloumment al two la lhree months was vaquired or necessary for me Appellanl Io appmnl new snllcltm There also were no laws for me Maglslrale Io oensldev lhe eflons undertaken by me Anpellanl to ensure INlEVMVmNLlEG7lbqhuuQEw " «mm. Smnl mmhnrwlll .. H... e may he nflnlrullly -mm: dnuuvlml y. .nuna ml lrlal me mel would proceed but was handicapped by reasons mat eeuld not be avolded by veasonable dillgerloe or arms All |hal was proflersd lo me Magistrate was ml the Appellam wanted a few months lo appolnl new sahollcr and refused lo plooeed will. lrlal mal had been scheduled several months eanler An equally lmpananfleature In «ms case IS mam-e judgmem m default which was ublalned agalnsl the Appellant more than a year poor was set aside on me its appllcallun agalnel ll was well appreclated [35] As held by me Fedeml Court in Lee M: Tee v Ong Tiaw Prmlg A ors[19u]1 ML! 107 at p109 “The dlsvvellon ollne Judge lo allow or re/use an app/icaoorl for adfuunlmerlf was sub/ac! dealr mm III depm lay me Calm 0/Appeal m Dick v Piller (19431 1 All ER 527 we agree (0 and adopt ms following pnnclplss as Isglsrds me drscretioll m allowmg arreluslng edloummenl — wwllerller or no: a party should be granlad an adjoummelll ls vmolly at me dlscrelioll cl me Judge He would sxemlse Ins dlsclutran solely upon me Vlew olme laels (2)Pnma lame this dlsclstloll is unfettered (3) me queslldn la ask m anypamculsr cm is whether on me /acts rllere are adequate OI slmclerll reasons to refuse Ills adjournment. (4)AI(IlolIgI-l an appellate court has me power tn inlanala mm llla .ludga's declslon In regard to me gl-ammg clan adjournment, ll would ralrsm (mm domg so unless I! appears that such dlsclsllorl has Dean Bxsmlssd m a way wmcn landed to show ma: al/ /NlEVMVmNLIEG7lbdhl;dQEw *5 “Nair ml nuvlhnrwm be u..a a may he nflmruflly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNa Wm! necessary matters wars not taken nlto consldelalmn or me dscismn was otherwise amlfrsnly made (5;Arl eppellele court ought lo be very slow to IIIIENEIE mm lne sxelclse orlne dlscrellon all: I1 I! appeals that me nesull ol rne order made below would be tn defeat the fights of {IVS names elmgemer or that there would be an llmlsfflve lo one ollne olluer oflns pemes men me eppellere court nee me power and lndeed a my lo IE1/rew me exerclse of me olemllon on v Pr//9! reviewed e number or eurnonlles on me exams ollne dlsclsllorl and amongst me cases med was Maxwell v Jean a 0/3 [1528] 1 KB 545 ln fhalcase, Alklrl Ll em out some nnponenr guldelmes in ms /udgmenr appeenng at pages 555 end 557 rsspsctlvely ll 75 uselul to repeal lnem end my are as folluws ‘The Calm ofAppeaI ollgn: to be V917 slow Indeed lo lnlerrele mm the discretion of me Ieamedjudge on Such a qussllorl as en adloummenrola lnel, and it IS very seldom does do so: but, on the olnerhand, mt appears that me lesull ollne ordermads beluw Is In defeat the rights ol me parties aftogevler, eno lo do mar wlllch lne Coal! 0/Appssl ls ssllsllad wnu/I1 be an lrlmsllce 10 one or omerol me pames, men me Court has power lo lavisw such an order, eno ll 75, to my mlnd, its my la :11: so ' -ln ms exemlse ole proper/udlcvlfl dlsclefloll no [Ildga ouglvl m mexe Such an under as would «else: (he rights ola parry and dsstmy mam ellogemer, llnlass he IS sallsfled me: ne nes been gullfy alsucll conduct melnlsllce can only pmpsny be done lo we olnerpeny by camlllg to lnel cancluslnn ' mlzmv...Nuzs7.eee.eezw *5 «we. sew lunhnrwm e. .l.... e may e. emu-y em. dnuamnl VI menu Wm! [36] Tms appeal Is dwsmlssed The mac and wdgment by me Magmrana we hereby alfirmed Cos1s av RM5,oo0 Is awarded In ma Respondent DATED 25 JANUARV 2023 R02 MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT or MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For ms Appellant rnayaran afl Moalmy T/n Dhsran L Thaya Fnl [Ive Respondent Mlsra /lsmarla Dlnll Mohamed F515! T/n The Chambers awaznee 5 Mtsla Aslnans sm IEvMvn.NuEG7:bqmrIQEw m. smm ...m.mm .. .4... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! [51 on 20 52u22 lrre Appellant personally had wrrlren la me eeun lo seek an alijaummem oflwc lp lnree rnpnllrs lp appornl a new eeunsel but The Magrslrale had alaled rn lrer grounds at ludgmenlt rnal lne Appellanl was rnlprrned or me pdurrs rereulpn pl suclr reduesr and mat me lnal would proceed Tlral was elsn lrre day may were served me 7101165 or applreallan lpr me dlscharge lrorn lrrair lprnrer lawyers. The reasons slated thereln were llre larlure to pay legal lees and me lailure lp respond/rnslrucr end ed-opernmon rd pdnrrnue wrln me sun [51 on 24 52022 ar me hearlng at me applrearren lo dlsdwarge‘ are former lawyers rrad srrown rlvougn an alnuaurr or servrae lrral proper servree on me Appellant mrs executed The Appellanr however dld nvl errend rrre lresnng. Tne Maglslme upon grarlllllg me drsenarge nad rnlernred me Appellanfs larnrer lawyers that ln apaenae ale sealed order, llrey would be deemed to sun on records represemrng lne Appellam The Respondent had submltled mar the Appellants lprrners lawyers nau confirmed wlm me cmlrl mar rrrey would nut arrend me Irlal and the court agiln rrrlarrned rnel lrre peerporrernem of me lnal would nor be allowed. [71 At lne day M the lnal an 1 (52022, are Appellants lprrner lawyers were not present almpuglr lne cleaned final order was yet In pe med rnrp pour: to be sealed rlelther were me Aupdlarrs. The ocurl was ready lpr lnal as was me Respondent The Appellarrrs lprrner lawyers mougrr eonlecreu py me epun rntprnred lrre eaun llrel lrrey would not allerld me rnal Al11am,a reprarsenlallve plllre Appellanlmmed up In calm and rred apugnl «or an adloummenl alme lnal Such requear was agarnrrl rejecled by rrre mud n lEvAIvrrrNuEG7lbqnlrIQEw “Nana s.r.r ...n.rwrrr .. UIQG M my r... prwlnallly mm: dnuurlml vn arlurm v-mxl [E] The Maglslrale, prerntead onorder 35 rule 1(2) Rot: had mhardered the Aopetlanrs reluctance to proceed with tnal and had allawed the Respondent's alarm and dtsnnssed the Appellant‘: counterclann The Magtstrate had also lrlvoked her powers under order 92 rule 4 Rot: [91 The Magtstlate lound that the conduct and ac1lohsvflheAppeHan€s lorrner lawyers were unreasonable and lnappropriate in dlscharglng thernselyea two weeks petore that was scheduled to commence. The court was not concerned wtth payment or rturhpayment of lees that was oiled as the reason for the discharge Nonetheless. the Magtshate lound that the Appellants conduct tn not coaperahhg wrth lts own counsel that it chase to aopotnt was lrrespnnsible and should not have happened it it had a nternpnpus detenee The Magistrate also found the request to adloum the tnal tor two at three months shewed that the Appellant was not serlous tn delendtng me Respondents alarm or V! oursutng tts oounterclalnr when the court had gtven the case pnority in hxlrrg the eartlest hearing dates. This appeal [10] The Appellam sought lot the deoteton ol the Maglstmte to be set aalde and the case to be re-heard It was suhmllled that the Magnstrate had mtsdtrected hersell in entertng the judgment as tf a lull that had been conducted when wttneaaes were not called, documents were not marked as exhlbits, when the test ol balance 01 prdpaplllties on the evtdenoe was not applred and that the Appellant was not glveh the nght to be heard [11] The Appellant contended that the Maglsllala had taken an lrlooned approach when she had assumed that the Aopellanta tanner lawyers rmemy...Nuse7.eaa.aasw ‘ «mm. and marlhnrwlll a. med w my r... pflnlnnllly sun. dnuurlml Vfl .nunc war were am: on record wnen «ney had lifled Io file m e «area order In be eeauea by me court order»: rule 7 R00 was re4srred to where a wdgmem or order Oakes eflen from the day a! ns dale and also to Palaniandy Sadayan v Aaku-h Greer. Enoryy Sdn Ehd [mu MLHRU m m submming me: me Appeuanrs vormer lawyers no ranger represented me Appellant an 24 5.2u22 orwnrds wrren we order for discharge was granted on me even dale nenoe, me Appeflant summed that me Magrsrrete had misdirected herself wnen she deemed Ihat mey wave sun on records as Ihelaived orderwas nut med oreeauea [121 u is me Appeuanrs conlemion mac reliance by me Magistrate an Order 35 Me 1 Rue was erroneous aslhe Appenam-e repreeerneme was in anendence when late — a!11am) The Nmellam compared In Bei Jiny Baa Shu rang 81:5-Tech Pnanrraesmicar Cu Ltd v Ban Kan ch.-I sun and A Anor[2019] 4 ML/U m where aner me ersenarge cl Vawyers was wowed, the court In that case amaurned the vial dates instead aiemering judgment The Aweflanl cned me loHarmng pan M me dedsion: -Trre preaomrrrarr: consrdelalron for me court was the reason by me appncanr [rad abserrzea n/rrrserl horn me mar. /I the absence was delmarale am not due (a aecruenr or mrslake, the court would be unllkelylc allow a reneerrrrg mere were (Wu avenues avatlab/e to the sheen! party who rmgm ertlrer appeal to me caurr of Appeal Ur allamsln/sly apply to sel asrae the/udgment rrr me Hm coun . Yanlals absence at me Ina! was not due to an aocmenz or mistake veruars sobcnols had ampre arms In prepare /or ma/. Even rr me sabcilors could not be lully ready, my mum nave appeared in cm”! as seek lur an adpummenl omre ma: " rNIEvAIvmNuEG7:bs:mrIQEw 5 “Nana saw mmhnrwm a. HIGH e mm .. mn.r-y mm: dnuumrrl _ murm mar [13] Tne Appellant submllled man there was no delay on its pan as tnis appeal was «led less than two weeks from the dale of the judgment oy tne Magislnala [14] Tire Respondents aocount was In oongmenl with the Magistrates oosrlron In mat on 24 52022 when she nad granted lne dlaonarge, the Appellants lonner lawyers were to me lne lalred order before 1 52022 wnere the iarlure to do so rnaant tnst Ihey were stlll acting for tire Appellant The Respondem oonlended mat the Magistrate nad ernonasrsed lnen tnaltnere would oe no postponement lor trial [15] on the day oi trial 1 s 2022, the lalred order had not been med Tire ooun men contacted me Appellant‘: fnmier lawyerswho lrad iniornred that may would not attend oodn for lrlal Tne Appellanfs representatne showed no late at 11am and trad sought lor a postponement lor three to tour nrontns to find new lawyers The Respondent had at all nralerlaltlmos attended calm and odnrpliad to all lnstructrons lor trial Thus, as me Appellant could not prooeed to delend the Respondent's clalnr, nor to pursue wllh its oounlemlalrn at lnal the Maglatrate allowed me Respondents alarm and dlsmlssed tne Appellants ommterdalm This Conn‘: conxidanlion [la] in exarnrnrng all «no documents and raoorda ol appeal, tnls court noted lnal trrat ttrere were some delems on me face at the Amended Nolloe ol Appeal dated 136.2022 First or all, ll was not sealed It also stated lnal lne Magrslrate rnade lts declsrdn atler lnal on 1 9.2022 when tne ludgmem was entered ex-pane lnnl Tne nollllcalion on wlrelnantwas rNlEvMvrnNuEG7lbqnlrIQEw 5 “None s.n.l nuvlhnrwlll rs. med m an r... nflnlrullly snn. dnumlmt Vfl aFluNa vtmxl an appeal agalnst me full judgment or only In pan Is also um clear Paragraph (0 whlch is me appeal egalnsr me dlsnllssal allne Appellanfs eeunreralainr nad been srruek oflbunhe Amended Nollce was run slgnedr nor sealed by me own [17] Thls matterwas nutdellberated durlng the neanng ollne arglnnenla allnearapeal Tne Federal courr ned ruled In R-«ang Paraaise Vacation Sdn Bhdv vap Chum Bin 5 Other Appeal: [2011] 1-7 cu m lnar ‘There rs no requrrerrrenl under Farm 111 «or any endorsement or sea! anrre calm la be placed on me nolree at appeal url/l'ke a wrrl or ongfnarillg process, are ln llgnl prom and oz arms Ros, rl ls nor an aplion Iarlhe courts lo slrlks nu! a rnaller lo: non-camplisrlce a! me rules wrrlrarn glwrlg an apporlumry la lrre lrtrganl lo ragulale ma prlweedlngs orlo condarle rrre rrregularrry by me nalonlre mun ll ls ullly in exnernely rare cases wrrere the Iran-comp/lance cannol be condone at all that the calm WIN D5 DD/Iged la sinks nu! Me matter. Those are live cases when the respondent can demonstrate pIE[udlDe as well as can establish that me braanh earn-lal be camper-saled by c0515.’ [18] The Federal cpun ruled lnal me Rec only requlred a aupllcale copy ol ma norms of appeal la be served wrlmn me we lrame ln aornpllanea wlm Order 55 rule 3(4) Rec and lnal [here was no legal raqurranrenl or rules mat requlred an endorsed rlcllce ol appeal |u be served wllhln me urne lrarne ol |he appeal. [19] ms caun nmed lnal llle Respondent was gwen sulrrclenl nmlce and was aware 0| ma appeal agalnal are daclzrlan el lna Maglslrale Tm: rNIEvAIvrnNuEG7lbqhlrIl2Ew 7 “Nana Smnl mmhnrwul a. n... m mm a. aflnlruflly mm: dnuuvlml vn aFluNa vtmxl Courl flnds trtatttra Appellants appeal re nnly agiirlinhe declsiun toallpw me Respprraerrrs appeal and nut agalnst lrre alamtaaal at the Appelterrts caunlerclalm The Respondent was also nmlfied at the paints ol appeal as apparent py lls submlsstcns and arguments up plejudloe had occurved [20] ms court now turns to the crux of the appeal whlch a trrat the Magistrate ervad in law by uivlng judgment to the Resparrttenta wrtrrput trtal even lhough ttte Appellarrra represemalive was present In own The Maprstrate lnvoked the powers under oruer 32 rule 112) Rot: that provide ‘If, wnsll metrralorarr acfloll ls called all, one party does rloteppaar, the Judge may pmcssd wllil the rival of me avtlon or any counlerplarm In trre absence of that party or wrrtrout me: give /udgmerlfurdlsmlsslhe aclmn, olmaks any olllemrderas rretrrrnlrs Ill." [71] Flrsl and lorerrraat, me Maglslrale was not In enor when she held tttat me Appellantdld not appear. me Appetlarrt had ta be represenrea Dy a solicnuv ln own as II was a body eerperate. On me date olthe trral, the Appellant had rrpt appointed a my sallcllnr The court had slood down the tnal arm contacted lts prevtpus lawyers as the sealed dram order to ttraeharge had yet ta be llled. upprr cprrtaa vlde me telephone‘ the Appellants tanner aelleltara lrltomtau the courl that may would nol be allerlding the "la! The Appellanrs leplesenlallve then came I0 cclurl late and had asked «or an adluummenl and trre Magratrata nan relteratea Ihal adloulrlmenl was not gmnled IN IEvAIvmNuEs7.bqnpaqEw “Nair a.r.l mmhnrwlll be .r.... e vuny r... nflglnlllly mm. dnuuvlnnl VI nFluNQ pans‘ [22] As the Appeunrn s a wmpany. order 5 Me 5(2) RoC requires me wmpany lmganl to be represented by a sulvcnor In own proceedings 'Excapl as expressly pnmdeu by m under any wntrsn «aw, a body corporate may no! begm or carry on any such proceecnngs on-erwrse Man by a soncuor " [23] The law as per Ifluslraled m (he Hrgn Cnurfs declswon In Jun cnsng Construction sun End y Shanlis Consvucfion mm (M) Sdn and (2015) uuu 229 Is that the enea of me Appeuanr in not appornmng schcnur Ia represent them an mar. though a represenrauya from me Appeuanrwar. pressnr, was mar rne Appellant was nvl represented’ ‘Semasa meme/vnlalrkan agar kss mr allsmskan (sepem mane dinyatakan di arasy, saya lelah mengamml km: Arman 35 kaedah 1(2) Kaeanmrneaan Mihkamah (KKM) 2912 Says yugn bersetupl dengan nuyansn psguamcara P/MM terpe/a/ar bahawa wslaupun wakll Defandan hadlr Iatapr da/am undang-undang, dra max dapa! mewak:/r Defendan kerana Defsndan hanya men drwakr/I wen peguarncara Kesannya, Dsfsndan be/sh drkslakan trdak hadrr dalam pemicaraan mi " [24] This cmm had looked me me mslcry D! me Me and loans! that me words “any person” reders re a “namml person who can be legally rdemrfiea‘. M Ivaced back to me pracmoe sxrsrea In England where a body eorporars cannm appear by as oflicels or mremors (map: wnere express\y psvmmed to as so unaer the lam) and may appenr omy by counyax Instructed on we {may corporates benan Thus‘ rnn. coun cannot accept me Appellanls argument mar there was a rnrsairecnon by way of rNIEvMvmNuEs7‘m-rnuuqiw '5 «mm. s.nn nmhnrwm .. U... w my r... nnnnnn mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-max non—diracnan hy the Maginrate when she did not \ake unto canswderalvon that me representanve oi (he Aflbellam had fiweaved an the max dale or I 6 2022. [25] m suhmmmg that the Magistrate dud nol err m law‘ the Reapmdem had alsn cited Jun chem; consuuczinn Sdn Bhd (supra) where Abdm Karim Abdul Jam J (as he then was) mled to proceed wmh me Inal even cmugh the some: for the defendant oumd nm repreaam the daleudam as he had not yet ub\aIned ms pracncmg oemrcate under me Lagax Prolesam An 1967 for me year and had sought ad admumment of he M31. The learned page ruled: ‘[8] Memandangkan kes ml zeran d/telapkan unmk permcamsn Penuh seawal bulan Oktober 2014‘ Dennononan unluk penanggunan yang drbuar 0/eh Encrk Mohd Azn-am‘ paaa nan psrbicarasn lsrsebur Isiah dim/ak dan perblcalaan dralahkan mtemskan Dalam msngarahkan ssdsmrklan aaya /uga re/an mengambil kua bahawa uada sebarang permanonan awn! drkemukikan o)eIv peguamcala Derendan senammya psguamcara Derendan nanya memaklumkan dan membual pemlohonan m saa!— aaar aklur sedsngkan pmak Plamul sudalv pun bersedta dengan saksr msrsks Kenapaksn psmak/uman Ielan dmuaz secam mangam m Mahkamah pada ha! Ivakrkat In: rslah sedra drkerahm unmk sekran lama senemm nen!ucaraan7 Sepsmmya poguamcars alau Derenaan membuat segala persrspan bag: mangnadap: kemungkmun Iorsebu! lermasuk me/an!/k peguamcara bani. Wu/aupun wakll Dsfenann, Encrk Pomngm Em Palan, msngnadllksn am namun ma lrdak dapal mewak//1 Derenuam 4/ rN1EvAIvmNuEG7:bqnwQEw «mm. saw nmhnrwm .. U... w my me mm-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-max

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-45A-72-05/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA ] TERTUDUH 1. ) JEFFERY WONG CHOW CHUEN 2. ) HONG DE XIAN 3. ) CHEAH WEI SHENG 4. ) AARON FREDRICK D'ALMEIDA 5. ) Nguyen Thi Thu Thao

Perbicaraan jenayah - pertuduhan kesalahan seksyen 39B(1)(a) dan seksyen 12(2) ADB 1952;Kelompangan dalam rantaian keterangan berkenaan barang kes dadah, kegagalan membuktikan jagaan, kawalan serta pengetahuan, kegagalan membuktikan elemen niat bersama dan kelemahan siasatan;Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie. Oleh itu Tertuduh-Tertuduh telah dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada semua pertuduhan kesalahan.

11/12/2023

YA Tuan Hasbullah bin Adam

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=11419671-9501-4d8d-90fa-642bc4a026a5&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO. BA-45A-72-05/2021 & BA-45-15-05/2021 PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN 1. JEFFERY WONG CHOW CHUEN [750818-07-5029] 2. HONG DE XIAN [970309-01-5743] 3. CHEAH WEI SHENG [830510-10-5535] 4. AARON FREDRICK D’ALMEIDA [Passport: K1779011E] 5. NGUYEN THI THU THAO [Passport: C8847623] ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Jeffery Wong Chow Chuen (“Tertuduh 1”), Hong De Xian (“Tertuduh 2”), Cheah Wei Sheng (”Tertuduh 3”), Aaron Fredrick D’Almeida (“Tertuduh 4”) dan Nguyen Thi Thu Thao (“Tertuduh 5”) (secara kolektif dirujuk sebagai “Tertuduh-Tertuduh”) telah dituduh bersama-sama dalam 2 kes dengan jumlah tiga (3) pertuduhan iaitu pertuduhan yang pertama bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) 11/12/2023 10:10:32 BA-45A-72-05/2021 Kand. 260 S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234] (“ADB”) serta pertuduhan yang kedua dan pertuduhan yang ketiga bagi kesalahan-kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB, yang mana kesemua pertuduhan kesalahan tersebut dibaca bersama dengan seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan. [2] Ketiga-tiga pertuduhan terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh adalah seperti berikut: Pertuduhan Pertama [ekshibit P4] “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 10 Julai 2020 jam lebih kurang 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bagi mencapai niat bersama telah memperedarkan dadah berbahaya iaitu 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) seberat 90.29 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.” Pertuduhan Kedua [ekshibit P5] “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 10 Julai 2020 jam lebih kurang 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bagi mencapai niat bersama telah memiliki dadah berbahaya iaitu Nimetazepam seberat 0.39 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.” Pertuduhan Ketiga [ekshibit P6] “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 10 Julai 2020 jam lebih kurang 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bagi mencapai niat bersama telah memiliki dadah berbahaya iaitu Ketamine seberat 26.73 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.” [3] Pada 23.6.2023, Mahkamah ini memutuskan di akhir kes pendakwaan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh atas ketiga-tiga pertuduhan S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 kesalahan tersebut. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini telah memerintahkan supaya Tertuduh-Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri. [4] Pihak pendakwaan telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini dalam kedua-dua kes tersebut melalui notis-notis rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia yang mana kedua-duanya bertarikh 4.7.2023. Ringkasan Kes Pendakwaan [5] Perbicaraan kes pendakwaan telah bermula pada 9.8.2022 dan pihak pendakwaan telah menutup kes pendakwaan pada 21.3.2023 setelah memanggil seramai 13 orang saksi pendakwaan seperti berikut: SP1: Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap (Ahli Kimia Narkotik) SP2: Sjn. Shahrom bin Md Saad (Jurustor) SP3: Insp. Darwis bin Aripin (rakam gambar / sampel darah) SP4: Robert Ong Thien Cheng (Pemilik rumah) SP5: Wong Heong Leng (Isteri dan pemilik bersama rumah) SP6: ASP Shaiful Hezreen bin Shariman (Pegawai serbuan) SP7: Sjn. Nik Abdullah bin Zakaria (Jurufoto) SP8: Izrin John a/l Jebasingam Issace (Penyewa bilik) SP9: Insp. Prabu a/l Avadiappan (Peg dan anggota serbuan) SP10: Hong Joon Wei (Kawan Tertuduh 1) SP11: Siti Hajar binti Hussin (Ahli Kimia Forensik) S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 SP12: Insp. Mohamad Amir Asrah bin Mohamed Ariffin (Peg Forensik PDRM) SP13: ASP Sukri bin Ahmad (Pegawai Penyiasat). [6] Kronologi kes ini bermula daripada maklumat yang diterima oleh ASP Shaiful Hezreen bin Shahriman (SP6) tentang sebuah rumah yang dijadikan tempat pengedaran dan memproses dadah serta kemudiannya telah membuat taklimat penugasan pada 10.7.2020 jam lebih kurang 12.00 tengahari dan seterusnya membentuk 4 pasukan serbuan. Serbuan telah dijalankan pada jam 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (“Rumah Serbuan”). [7] Rumah Serbuan tersebut merupakan sebuah rumah teres 3 tingkat dan tidak berpagar. Secara lebih jelas, susun atur Rumah Serbuan tersebut adalah seperti mana lakaran tempat kejadian [ekshibit P104] oleh Pegawai Penyiasat, ASP Sukri bin Ahmad (SP13). Malahan lakaran tempat kejadian tersebut disahkan oleh Robert Ong Thien Cheng (SP4), pemilik rumah tersebut. Susun atur Rumah Serbuan tersebut adalah seperti berikut: (a) Tingkat bawah Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Tingkat Satu’ terdapat pintu masuk (tanpa grill), ruang tamu, stor dan tandas di hadapannya, sebuah meja kayu di ruang tamu, ruang dapur, rak almari besi, bilik di bahagian belakang menerusi ruang dapur dengan tandas serta sebuah meja di dalam bilik tersebut; S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (b) Tingkat atas Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Tingkat Dua’ terdapat 3 buah bilik iaitu bilik yang bertanda ‘C’ mengandungi bilik mandi dan tandas, bilik yang bertanda ‘D’ yang mengandungi tandas dan bilik yang bertanda ‘E yang mengandungi tandas; dan (c) Tingkat paling atas Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Tingkat Tiga’ terdapat 2 buah bilik iaitu bilik yang bertanda ‘A’ dan bilik yang bertanda ‘B’ yang mengandungi tandas dan bilik mandi. [8] Menurut SP6, semasa menyerbu masuk ke Rumah Serbuan tersebut, pintu depan rumah tersebut adalah bertutup tetapi tidak berkunci. SP6 telah membuat tangkapan ke atas Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 yang sedang berbaring di ruang tamu di Tingkat Satu. Manakala Tertuduh 4 ditangkap di kawasan tangga untuk naik ke tingkat atas dan Tertuduh 5 ditangkap semasa didapati sedang berbaring atas katil dalam bilik yang ditanda sebagai ‘E’ di Tingkat Dua. Pemeriksaan tubuh badan ke atas Tertuduh-Tertuduh tidak menjumpai apa-apa barang salah. [9] SP6 telah membuat rampasan di Rumah Serbuan tersebut seperti yang disenaraikan dalam Borang Senarai Geledah [ekshibit P123] yang meliputi barang kes dadah dan barang kes bukan dadah. Rampasan barang kes dan semua tangkapan telah dibawa balik ke pejabat Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik (BSJN) IPD Petaling Jaya. SP6 telah S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 membuat 2 laporan polis iaitu Damansara Report No. 8123/20 [ekshibit P105] dan Damansara Report No. 8138-8141/20 [ekshibit P106]. [10] Menurut SP6 lagi, semasa di BSJN IPD Petaling Jaya, semua tangkapan telah dibuat ujian saringan awal urin dan hasil ujian mendapati bahawa Tertuduh 1, 2 dan 3 adalah positif dadah jenis Ketamine. Manakala hasil ujian saringan urin ke atas Tertuduh 4 dan 5 adalah negatif dadah. [11] SP13 selaku Pegawai Penyiasat telah dimaklumkan tentang rampasan serta tangkapan tersebut pada hari yang sama iaitu 10.7.2020 jam lebih kurang 5.30 petang. SP13 telah pergi dan sampai di Rumah Serbuan pada jam lebih kurang 6.45 petang. [12] Insp. Mohamad Amir Asrah bin Mohamed Ariffin, Pegawai Forensik PDRM (SP12) telah sampai ke Rumah Serbuan atas permintaan SP13 pada jam lebih kurang 8.45 malam hari yang sama, bagi membantu siasatan dan menjalankan pengambilan sampel DNA dan juga dusting cap jari. SP12 akhirnya telah menyerahkan barang-barang kes yang dipungut di tempat kejadian kepada SP13 pada jam lebih kurang 1.00 pagi 11.7.2020 seperti mana dinyatakan dalam Akuan Serah/Terima Barang Kes [ekshibit P166] dan menyediakan Laporan Pemeriksaan Tempat Kejadian [ekshibit P167]. [13] SP13 telah menerima semua rampasan barang kes, tangkapan- tangkapan dan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan pada 11.7.2020 jam lebih kurang 10.00 pagi seperti mana dalam Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [ekshibit P124]. SP13 juga telah membuat tandaan beliau sendiri ke atas barang-barang kes tersebut. [14] Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap, Ahli Kimia Narkotik (SP1) telah menjalankan pemeriksaan ke atas rampasan barang-barang kes atas permintaan SP13 pada 14.7.2020 di pejabat narkotik IPD Petaling Jaya dan akhirnya telah meminta SP13 menghantar item-item yang telah dikenalpasti (sebanyak 19 item iaitu item No. 1, 4-13, 18, 19, 47-50, 55 dan 58 dalam Laporan) supaya dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk tujuan analisis. Laporan pemeriksaan oleh SP1 tersebut adalah seperti mana dilaporkan dalam Laporan No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-12987 [ekshibit P8]. [15] Lanjutan daripada itu, pada 15.7.2020 SP13 telah menyerahkan 1 kotak bertanda ‘SA’ yang mengandungi item-item yang telah dikenalpasti untuk analisis oleh Ahli Kimia menurut borang Polis 31 [ekshibit P10] dan disahkan penerimaannya oleh SP1 serta dikeluarkan Resit Rasmi Jabatan Kimia Malaysia [ekshibit P9]. [16] SP1 telah menjalankan analisis dan hasil analisis beliau adalah seperti mana dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-12988 [ekshibit P11]. Antara lain, hasil analisis SP1 mendapati tablet-tablet dan serbuk berwarna putih daripada item yang dijalankan analisis tersebut adalah mengandungi 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), Ketamine dan Nimetazepam yang merupakan dadah berbahaya seperti mana yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual Pertama ADB. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Hujahan Pihak-Pihak Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan Pihak Pendakwaan [17] Pihak pendakwaan telah menghujahkan berkenaan elemen- elemen pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan iaitu: (a) Dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti yang tersenarai dalam ADB dengan berat bersih seperti mana dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan; (b) Dadah tersebut berada dalam milikan (possession) Tertuduh- Tertuduh; (c) Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah yang dirampas; dan (d) Tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatan mengedar (trafficking) dadah tersebut. [18] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa elemen pertama berkenaan identiti dadah berbahaya tersebut telah berjaya dibuktikan melalui keterangan Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap, Ahli Kimia (SP1) yang melakukan analisis terhadap barang kes dadah tersebut. SP1 mengesahkan bahawa barang kes dadah tersebut merupakan dadah berbahaya jenis Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), Nimetazepam dan Ketamine. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [19] SP1 juga turut mengesahkan bahawa jenis dadah yang dianalisis adalah sebagai mana yang ditakrifkan di bawah seksyen 2 dan tersenarai dalam Jadual Pertama ADB. Lanjutan daripada analisis yang telah dijalankan, SP1 telah menyediakan Laporan Kimia No. 20-FR-B-12987 bertarikh 24.2.2021 [ekshibit P8] dengan sedikit pindaan. [20] Selanjutnya pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan (control and custody) terhadap barang kes dadah tersebut berdasarkan yang berikut: (a) Kedudukan barang kes dadah yang ditemui di aras bawah Rumah Serbuan tersebut iaitu: (i) di atas meja di ruang tamu; (ii) di atas meja di bilik stor; (iii) di atas meja aluminium di sebelah kanan belakang ruang dapur; (b) Dadah dalam keadaan terbuka, tidak disorok serta boleh dilihat; (c) Gambar-gambar tempat kejadian [ekshibit P93] adalah merujuk kepada kedudukan asal barang-barang kes yang ditemui di atas meja kayu di ruang tamu dan di atas meja aluminium di ruang dapur; (d) Kedudukan meja kayu dalam gambar [ekshibit P93 (6) dan (7)] jelas menunjukkan kedudukan meja kayu di ruang tamu S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 itu yang berhadapan dengan pintu masuk utama dan tangga Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang mana Tertuduh-Tertuduh boleh melihat dengan jelas meja kayu itu dan barang-barang di atasnya, apabila mereka membuka pintu untuk masuk ke dalam Rumah Serbuan tersebut atau ketika turun/naik menggunakan tangga rumah tersebut; (e) Pintu bilik di bahagian belakang dapur di mana dadah yang dijumpai daripada atas meja aluminium juga tidak bertutup dan tidak berkunci ketika serbuan dijalankan di mana Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai akses ke dalam bilik tersebut dan satu-satunya laluan ke tandas di aras bawah tersebut hendaklah melalui meja aluminium yang terdapat dalam bilik tersebut; (f) Mana-mana individu yang tinggal bersama ataupun hadir sebagai tetamu dalam Rumah Serbuan tersebut pasti mempunyai kebebasan bergerak ke seluruh bahagian rumah tersebut walaupun perjanjian sewa Rumah Serbuan tersebut adalah antara Tertuduh 1 dan Robert Ong Thien Cheng, pemilik rumah (SP4). [21] Mengenai elemen pengetahuan pula, pihak pendakwaan telah menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah-dadah yang ditemui tersebut melalui inferens yang berikut: S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (a) Reaksi Tertuduh-Tertuduh ketika serbuan (i) Reaksi Tertuduh 1 yang gelisah dan berulang kali mengulangi percakapannya “Kita cerita luar boleh, tuan”; (ii) Reaksi Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 yang kelihatan shaking atau menggeletar; (iii) Reaksi Tertuduh 4 dan Tertuduh 5 yang kelihatan gelisah pada wajah mereka. (b) Kedudukan Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 ketika serbuan (i) Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 berada di ruang tamu tidak jauh atau berdekatan dengan meja kayu di ruang tamu yang dibuat inferens mereka mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah atas meja kayu tersebut; (ii) Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 5 adalah pasangan kekasih dan merupakan tetamu dalam Rumah Serbuan itu. Namun ketika serbuan, Tertuduh 2 tidak berada bersama Tertuduh 5 di dalam bilik tetapi berada di ruang tamu; S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (iii) Tertuduh 3 dikatakan tinggal sementara di Rumah Serbuan tersebut dan hanya menumpang tinggal di ruang tamu di aras bawah; (iv) Keputusan saringan urin Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 didapati positif dadah jenis Ketamine. (c) Kedudukan dadah Kedudukan dadah dalam keadaan terdedah, terbuka dan boleh dilihat atau tidak disorokkan. Gambar-gambar tempat kejadian [ekshibit P93] dihujahkan sebagai gambar kedudukan asal dadah ditemui semasa serbuan. Maka dihujahkan suatu inferens bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan dadah tersebut yang tidak perlu disorokkan pun. (d) Keberadaan Tertuduh 2, Tertuduh 3, Tertuduh 4 dan Tertuduh 5 di Rumah Serbuan Ketika serbuan tersebut dijalankan, ia masih dalam tempoh Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan Pemulihan (PKPP) oleh sebab pandemik di Negeri Selangor yang mana aktiviti rentas negeri telah dibenarkan. Pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa alasan Tertuduh 2, Tertuduh 3, Tertuduh 4 dan Tertuduh 5 menumpang Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang disewa oleh Tertuduh 1 adalah tidak masuk akal dan keberadaan mereka S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 bersama dalam Rumah Serbuan ketika serbuan itu bukanlah suatu kebetulan tetapi adalah untuk satu tujuan yang sama (aktiviti dadah). [22] Mengenai elemen pengedaran (trafficking) pula, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa terdapat keterangan langsung yang menunjukkan Tertuduh-Tertuduh melakukan perbuatan ‘pengedaran’ (trafficking) menurut takrifan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB berdasarkan perbuatan-perbuatan ‘menyimpan’ (keeping) dadah tersebut di atas meja kayu di ruang tamu dan atas meja aluminium di ruang dapur. Selain itu, pihak pendakwaan juga menghujahkan wujud elemen pengedaran dadah itu berdasarkan inferens kepada kuantiti dadah yang besar iaitu 90.29 gram bagi dadah 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) yang dikatakan merupakan jumlah yang besar dan Tertuduh-Tertuduh menyimpannya bagi tujuan pengedaran. Dalam masa yang sama, pihak pendakwaan juga mengguna pakai anggapan statutori di bawah seksyen 37(d) ADB bagi elemen mengedar dadah tersebut. [23] Pihak pendakwaan juga menghujahkan bahawa rantaian keterangan barang kes dadah tersebut adalah tidak terputus daripada mula pemeriksaan dan penemuan oleh pegawai serbuan SP6 yang telah menyediakan Borang Senarai Geledah [ekshibit P23] bertarikh 11.7.2020 dan seterusnya menyerahkan kepada ASP Sukri bin Ahmad selaku Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13). [24] SP13 juga telah menerima semua rampasan barang kes, tangkapan-tangkapan dan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan pada 11.7.2020 S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 jam lebih kurang 10.00 pagi seperti mana dalam Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes [ekshibit P124]. SP13 juga telah membuat tandaan beliau sendiri ke atas barang-barang kes tersebut. [25] Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap, Ahli Kimia Narkotik (SP1) telah menjalankan pemeriksaan ke atas rampasan barang-barang kes atas permintaan SP13 pada 14.7.2020 dan akhirnya telah meminta SP13 menghantar item-item yang telah dikenalpasti (sebanyak 19 item iaitu item bernombor 1, 4 hingga 13, 18, 19, 47 hingga 50, 55 dan 58) supaya dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk tujuan analisis. Laporan pemeriksaan oleh SP1 tersebut adalah seperti mana dilaporkan dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-12987 [ekshibit P8]. [26] SP13 pula telah menghantar barang kes dadah yang dimasukkan ke dalam satu kotak bertanda ‘SA’ kepada Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk tujuan analisis yang mana telah diserahkan oleh beliau pada 15.7.2020 kepada Ahli Kimia bernama Abd Rahim bin Ismail (SP1) berserta Borang Pol 31 [ekshibit P10] dan dikeluarkan resit rasmi Jabatan Kimia Malaysia bertarikh 15.7.2020 sebagai bukti penerimaan [ekshibit P9]. [27] Selepas analisis oleh Ahli Kimia (SP1) disempurnakan, SP13 telah mengambil dan menerima semula barang kes dadah tersebut sebelum disimpan di setor barang kes dan didaftarkan dalam Buku Daftar Barang Kes [ekshibit P12]. [28] Oleh yang demikian, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan berdasarkan keterangan di atas rantaian keterangan barang kes adalah S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 tidak terputus dan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah kredibel, konsisten dan saling menyokong antara satu sama lain. [29] Kesimpulannya, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan dengan membuat penilaian dan mempertimbangkan keterangan-keterangan yang ada secara keseluruhan, suatu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan berkenaan telah berjaya dibuktikan terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh dan memohon Tertuduh-Tertuduh dipanggil membela diri. Pihak Pembelaan [30] Secara ringkasnya, pihak pembelaan menghujahkan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh ke atas ketiga-tiga pertuduhan kesalahan tersebut. [31] Peguambela Tertuduh 1 dalam penghujahannya telah membangkitkan antara lain, isu-isu berikut: (a) Percanggahan keterangan pegawai serbuan (SP6) dengan keterangan saksi pendakwaan yang lain; (b) Rangkaian keterangan yang terputus (break in the chain of evidence) terutamanya apabila Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13) mengesahkan dalam keterangannya bahawa SP6 ada meninggalkan Rumah Serbuan antara jam 6 hingga 8 malam pada 10.7.2020 untuk membuat laporan polis. Oleh yang S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 demikian menimbulkan lompang ke atas pemerhatian dan pemantauan barang kes yang belum dibuat penandaan; (c) Bahawa Tertuduh 1 tidak mempunyai milikan (possession) ke atas dadah yang ditemui di atas meja di ruang tamu yang merupakan ruang terbuka dan di bilik stor yang tidak berkunci yang mana individu lain juga mempunyai akses; (d) Bahawa semua peralatan dan bahan-bahan yang ditemui adalah untuk tujuan pembuatan ‘bath bomb’; (e) Kewujudan individu lain yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Moon’ yang ditimbulkan nama itu oleh saksi pendakwaan, Izrin John a/l Jebasingam Issace (SP8) iaitu seorang penyewa bilik di Rumah Serbuan tersebut; (f) Inferens pihak pendakwaan bahawa perbuatan Tertuduh 2, 3, 4 dan 5 pindah masuk dan tinggal dalam rumah sewa bersama dengan Tertuduh 1 sebagai bukti ‘pre-planning’ adalah merupakan suatu spekulatif dan tidak berasas; (g) Penyiasatan yang tidak memuaskan seperti pengambilan sampel DNA dan pengesanan cap jari di tingkat bawah di mana dadah tersebut ditemui dalam Rumah Serbuan yang dihuni oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh; (h) Tiada niat bersama (common intention). S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [32] Peguambela Tertuduh 2 pula telah membangkitkan dalam hujahannya yang berikut: (a) Terputus rantaian keterangan; (b) Ketiadaan jagaan, kawalan dan pengetahuan Tertuduh- Tertuduh ke atas dadah yang ditemui; (c) Adanya akses ke atas Rumah Serbuan tersebut oleh orang lain; (d) Ketiadaan keterangan Tertuduh yang sedang melakukan ‘overt act’ memproses dan/atau mengedar dadah tersebut; (e) Tiada niat bersama; (f) Siasatan yang tidak lengkap; dan (g) Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi (Moon) menimbulkan ‘adverse inference’. [33] Manakala peguambela Tertuduh 3 pula menghujahkan isu Tertuduh 3 yang tiada kaitan dengan dadah yang dirampas dan hanyalah hadir sebagai pelawat Rumah Serbuan. [34] Seterusnya peguambela Tertuduh 4 pula menghujahkan kegagalan pihak pendakwaan membuktikan suatu kes prima facie berdasarkan alasan-alasan berikut: S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 (a) Kegagalan membuktikan intipati-intipati pertuduhan; (b) Siasatan yang tidak sempurna; (c) Percanggahan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan; (d) Pergerakan barang-barang kes yang meragukan; dan (e) Tertuduh 4 tidak mempunyai pengetahuan tentang dadah yang dijumpai. [35] Akhirnya peguambela Tertuduh 5 pula menghujahkan isu-isu yang berikut: (a) Tertuduh 5 yang tidak mempunyai milikan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai; (b) Kegagalan memanggil atau menawarkan saksi yang bernama “Moon”; (c) Borang Senarai Geledah yang cacat dan defektif; (d) Buku Daftar Barang Kes yang cacat dan defektif; (e) Kegagalan membuktikan niat bersama Tertuduh 5; (f) Siasatan yang tidak lengkap dan menyeluruh. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Tugas Mahkamah Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan [36] Tugas Mahkamah di akhir kes pendakwaan adalah bagi memutuskan samada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie seperti mana yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 180(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. “When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.” [37] Suatu kes prima facie dikatakan berjaya dibuktikan hanyalah apabila pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya mengemukakan keterangan- keterangan yang kukuh bagi membuktikan setiap dan tiap-tiap intipati/elemen kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan yang mana sekiranya gagal dipatahkan akan membawa kepada sabitan, seperti mana diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 180(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah: “For the purpose of this section, a prima facie is made out against the accused where the prosecution had adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction.” (Penekanan ditambah) [38] Prinsip-prinsip tugas mahkamah di akhir kes pendakwaan ini telah dijelaskan dalam beberapa kes tersohor termasuklah PP v Mohd Radzi S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 yang mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan: “[15] For the guidance of the court below, we summarise as follows the steps that should be taken by trial court at the close of the prosecution’s case: (i) the close of the prosecution’s case, subject the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinise the credibility of each of the prosecution’s witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. If the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused; (ii) ask yourself the question: if I call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that question is “Yes”, then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is “No” then, a prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted;” (Penekanan ditambah) S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [39] Elemen-elemen (ingredients) pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan adalah: (a) Perkara atau ‘subject matter’ yang terlibat bagi pertuduhan kesalahan-kesalahan tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya menurut jenis dan kuantiti seperti berikut: (i) 90.29 gram 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); (ii) 0.39 gram Nimetazepam; dan (iii) 26.73 gram Ketamine. (b) Tertuduh mempunyai pemilikan (jagaan atau kawalan dan pengetahuan) ke atas kesemua dadah berbahaya tersebut pada tempat, masa dan tarikh yang dipertuduhkan; (c) Tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatan mengedar dadah atau ‘trafficking’ (bagi pertuduhan kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); dan (d) Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai niat bersama dalam perbuatan mengedar dadah berbahaya dan memiliki dadah berbahaya seperti mana dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan tersebut. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Analisa dan Dapatan Mahkamah Identiti Dadah Berbahaya [40] Adalah dapatan (finding) Mahkamah ini di akhir kes pendakwaan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan elemen pertama bahawa perkara sabjek kepada pertuduhan ke atas Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti mana dipertuduhkan seperti mana keterangan lisan dan keterangan dokumentar Laporan Kimia (ekshibit P11) oleh Ahli Kimia (SP1) yang gagal dicabar atau dipatahkan oleh pihak pembelaan. [41] Tiada sebarang cabaran yang serius oleh peguambela terhadap identiti dadah berbahaya yang telah diterima dan dianalisis oleh SP1. Peguambela Tertuduh-Tertuduh lebih banyak mencadangkan kepada SP1 tentang kewujudan bahan-bahan lain yang bukan dadah (seperti palmitic acid, octadecanol/stearyl alcohol, oleic acid dll) dan mencadangkan kegunaannya dalam industri pembuatan kosmetik dan sabun. Begitu juga dengan kegunaan mesin ‘Pinch Points’ yang dicadangkan kegunaannya untuk membuat ‘bath bomb’. [42] Walaupun ada cubaan mencabar keterangan SP1 berkenaan proses analisis yang dijalankan, Mahkamah ini masih berpuas hati dan menerima keterangan lisan oleh SP1 dan keterangan dokumentar melalui ekshibit P11 tersebut. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [43] Di dalam kes Munusamy Vengadasalam v PP [1987] CLJ (Rep) 221, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “…the Court is entitled to accept the opinion of the expert of its face value, unless it is inherently incredible of the defence calls evidence in rebuttal by another expert to contradict the opinion. So long as some credible evidence is given by the Chemist to support his opinion, there is no necessity for him to go into details of what he did in the laboratory, step by step.” (Penekanan ditambah) [44] Malahan peguambela Tertuduh 3 dalam hujahan bertulisnya di perenggan 8 telah menyatakan bahawa tiada isu berkenaan elemen pertama di mana Ahli Kimia (SP1) telah memberi keterangan bahawa dadah yang dianalisa adalah merupakan dadah berbahaya seperti mana yang disenaraikan di bawah Jadual Pertama, ADB. [45] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya mengemukakan keterangan yang kukuh bagi membuktikan barang kes yang menjadi subject matter dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan ke atas Tertuduh-Tertuduh adalah merupakan dadah berbahaya (3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), Nimetazepam dan Ketamine) seperti mana ditakrifkan dan tersenarai dalam Jadual Pertama ADB. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 Rantaian keterangan [46] Adalah menjadi hujahan pihak pembelaan khususnya oleh Tertuduh 1 dan Tertuduh 2 bahawa terdapat kelompangan dalam rantaian keterangan (break in the chain of evidence) berkenaan dengan barang kes dadah yang dirampas sehinggalah ia dikemukakan ke dalam Mahkamah ini semasa perbicaraan. [47] Merujuk kepada ringkasan kes pendakwaan dalam perenggan 9 hingga 16 di atas, rampasan barang kes telah dibuat hasil serbuan pada 10.7.2020 yang meliputi barang kes dadah dan barang kes bukan dadah oleh SP6 dan disenaraikan dalam Borang Senarai Geledah [ekshibit P123]. Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13) telah menerima rampasan barang- barang kes tersebut daripada SP6 pada keesokan harinya iaitu 11.7.2020 seperti mana dalam Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes [ekshibit P124]. [48] Selanjutnya SP13 hanya memanggil SP1 bagi membuat pemeriksaan barang kes pada 14.7.2020 di pejabat narkotik IPD Petaling Jaya, iaitu selepas beberapa hari SP13 menerima semua barang kes tersebut. Setelah SP1 membuat pemeriksaan dan mengenalpasti beberapa barang kes dadah, SP13 telah menyerahkan 1 kotak bertanda ‘SA’ yang mengandungi barang-barang kes yang telah dikenalpasti kepada SP1 di Jabatan Kimia Malaysia bagi tujuan analisa pada 15.7.2020. [49] Peguambela Tertuduh 1 dan Tertuduh 2 telah membangkitkan isu kelompangan dalam rantaian keterangan berkenaan barang-barang kes S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 dadah tersebut dengan menghujahkan tiada rekod pergerakan barang kes dan tempat di mana barang kes disimpan dalam tempoh antara 11.7.2020 hingga 14.7.2020. Dalam kes Mohd Osman bin Pawan v. PP [1989] 2 MLJ 110, antara lain penghakiman Supreme Court menyatakan: “In a serious case such as this it is pertinent to emphasize again that investigation officers should not treat the custody of exhibits lightly so as to leave a gap in the chain of evidence relating to the exhibits before their production in court.” (Penekanan ditambah) [50] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti keterangan SP13 yang menjelaskan bahawa dalam tempoh 11.1.2020 hingga 14.7.2020, barang-barang kes tersebut tidak pun disimpan atau didaftarkan dalam stor barang kes atas alasan ruang stor yang telah penuh/padat dan sebaliknya meletakkan barang-barang kes tersebut di atas lantai dalam biliknya. [51] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa SP13 telah menyebabkan barang-barang kes/ekshibit tersebut terdedah kepada risiko tercemar dan kebarangkalian dikacau ganggu. Adalah amat meragukan bagi Mahkamah ini untuk mempercayai tiada sesiapa orang lain pun yang akan keluar dan masuk ke dalam bilik SP13 atau untuk mempercayai bahawa SP13 tidak akan meninggalkan biliknya dalam tempoh tersebut atau beberapa hari. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [52] Adalah lebih mengecewakan lagi apabila dirujuk kepada buku Pendaftaran Barang-Barang Kes [ekshibit P96] ada mencatatkan bahawa barang-barang kes tersebut didaftar simpan dalam stor pada 11.7.2020 yang mana amat bercanggah dengan keterangan SP13 bahawa ia disimpan dalam bilik pejabat beliau. Semasa pemeriksaan balas, SP13 menjawab bahawa tarikh yang sepatutnya dicatat dalam ruang (2) buku Pendaftaran Barang-Barang Kes tersebut ialah 15.7.2020. Walau bagaimanapun, apabila dicadangkan oleh peguambela Tertuduh 1 bahawa tarikh 15.7.2020 adalah merupakan tarikh barang kes dadah dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, SP13 telah bersetuju dan akhirnya menyatakan tidak pasti bilakah masa atau tarikh sebenar barang-barang kes disimpan dan didaftarkan dalam stor barang kes seperti dalam ekshibit P96. [53] Malahan juga, SP13 semasa pemeriksaan balas telah bersetuju bahawa item-item yang didaftarkan dalam ruang (5) ekshibit P96 wujud kesilapan kerana ia merujuk kepada keseluruhan barang kes yang dirampas sedangkan terdapat sebahagian barang kes yang sebenarnya telah dihantar kepada Ahli Kimia (SP1) untuk dijalankan analisis. [54] Dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. SIM, ODITA, Muhammad Architects Sdn. Bhd. [2008] 3 CLJ 623 telah diputuskan seperti berikut: “[10] It was also the contention of the defence that there is break in chain of evidence, as during the testimonies of the prosecution and the defence witnesses, evidence tends to show that there is opportunity for tampering to S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 exist, if the opportunity of tampering existed, there would be a break in the chain of evidence, irrespective of whether the opportunity was taken or not.” (Penekanan ditambah) [55] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini mendapati wujud kelompangan ke atas rantai keterangan berkenaan dengan barang kes khususnya barang kes dadah yang menjadi perkara sabjek dalam kes ini yang menimbulkan keraguan ke atas kes pendakwaan. Milikan (possession) ke atas dadah berbahaya [56] Bagi membuktikan elemen milikan, dua unsur utama yang perlu dibuktikan ialah elemen fizikal iaitu milikan yang merujuk kepada jagaan dan kawalan fizikal (control and custody) ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut serta elemen mental iaitu pengetahuan (knowledge). [57] Di dalam kes Chan Pean Leon v PP [1956] 22 MLJ 237, Hakim Thomson telah menjelaskan tentang kedua-dua unsur tersebut pada muka surat 239 seperti berikut: “A movable thing is said to be in possession of a person when he is situated with respect to it that he has the power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other persons and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need. To put it otherwise, there is a physical element and S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 mental element which must both be present before possession is made out.” (Penekanan ditambah) [58] Berpandukan kepada nas yang dinyatakan di atas, adalah menjadi suatu prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa bagi membuktikan seseorang itu mempunyai “milikan”, perlulah dibuktikan melalui keterangan bahawa seseorang itu mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan ke atas sesuatu barang tersebut dan bebas berurusan atau mengendalikan barang tersebut sepenuhnya tanpa penglibatan orang lain (power of disposal to the exclusion of others) dan mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas sesuatu barang tersebut. [59] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh telah mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan ke atas dadah-dadah berbahaya tersebut dan seterusnya mempunyai pengetahuan melalui inferens yang dibuat berdasarkan faktor reaksi, kedudukan dadah, kelakuan (conduct) dan keberadaan Tertuduh-Tertuduh seperti mana dinyatakan dalam perenggan 21 di atas. [60] Walau bagaimanapun, berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan, Mahkamah ini mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai milikan atau kawalan dan jagaan serta pengetahuan ke atas dadah-dadah berbahaya tersebut. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [61] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan serta pengetahuan ke atas dadah-dadah berbahaya tersebut atas alasan- alasan yang berikut: (a) Tempat rampasan barang kes dijumpai adalah berkisar di meja kayu, rak almari besi dan meja dalam bilik belakang yang mana semuanya berada di tingkat bawah atau ‘Tingkat Satu’ dalam Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang boleh diakses oleh sesiapa jua yang memasuki Rumah Serbuan tersebut; (b) Keadaan Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang sememangnya tidak berpagar dan tiada pintu grill. Malahan pintu rumah tersebut adalah tidak berkunci semasa serbuan dijalankan; (c) Tiada apa-apa penemuan cap jari yang boleh mengkaitkan akses Tertuduh-Tertuduh kepada barang kes dadah tersebut atau mana-mana barang lain yang bukan dadah; (d) SP13 sendiri semasa dicadangkan oleh peguambela Tertuduh 3 bersetuju bahawa Tertuduh 3 tidak mendiami mana-mana bilik dalam rumah tersebut dan hanya menumpang tidur di rumah tersebut. Malahan saksi pendakwaan iaitu Izrin John a/l Jebasingam Issace (SP8) yang merupakan salah seorang penyewa di rumah tersebut juga mengesahkan perkara ini; S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 (e) Malahan seorang lagi saksi pendakwaan iaitu Hong Joon Wei (SP10) juga mengatakan pernah dan biasa pergi ke rumah tersebut untuk minum-minum; (f) Laporan DNA hanya menyatakan tentang penemuan profil DNA ke atas sampel yang dipungut yang mana bukanlah daripada mana-mana item rampasan yang mengandungi dadah; (g) Tiada sebarang rampasan atau penemuan apa-apa kunci Rumah Serbuan tersebut dan berpadanan dengan keterangan SP8 yang merupakan salah seorang penyewa dalam rumah tersebut bahawa beliau tidak pernah diberikan dengan kunci bagi rumah tersebut; (h) Terdapat keraguan tentang kegunaan barang-barang rampasan lain atau bahan kimia untuk membuat ‘bath bomb’ atau sabun. Malahan Ahli Kimia (SP1) juga bersetuju dan tidak menafikan cadangan oleh pihak pembelaan tersebut. Niat Bersama oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh [62] Mahkamah ini juga mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan niat bersama (common intention) antara Tertuduh- Tertuduh bagi perbuatan kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya ‘3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)’ dan/atau kesalahan memiliki dadah berbahaya ‘Nimetazepam’ serta ‘Ketamine’ seperti mana S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 maksud peruntukan seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan, ‘in furtherance of the common intention which presupposes permutation or pre-concept of mind’ bersama-sama oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut. [63] Mahkamah ini merumuskan bahawa dengan hanya setakat keberadaan Tertuduh-Tertuduh di suatu tempat dan masa yang sama sahaja adalah tidak mencukupi bagi membuktikan ‘premeditation or prearranged plan’ oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh (Re case Ram Nath Madhoprasad & Ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh Air [1953] SC 420 atau pun bagi membuktikan bahawa wujud suatu perancangan (plan) atau ‘meeting of mind’ antara Tertuduh-Tertuduh (Re case Krishna Rao Gurumurthi v PP & Another Appeal [2009] 2 CLJ 603). [64] Mahkamah ini tidak mendapati apa-apa keterangan yang boleh menunjukkan atau membuktikan wujudnya suatu perancangan (plan) atau ‘meeting of mind’ antara Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut. Pihak pendakwaan sekadar membuktikan keberadaan Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut dalam Rumah Serbuan itu pada masa yang material sahaja. Pengedaran (trafficking) dadah berbahaya [65] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh bersama-sama terlibat dalam kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) berdasarkan tafsiran ‘trafficking’ di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952 dengan bergantung kepada unsur atau elemen ‘menyimpan’ (keeping) ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut (rujuk perenggan 66 dan 67 penghujahan bertulis pihak S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 pendakwaan). Malahan lagi pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa tindakan Tertuduh-Tertuduh ‘menyimpan’ dadah tersebut di atas meja kayu di ruang tamu serta di atas meja aluminium di dapur Rumah Serbuan tersebut dan memandangkan jumlah berat dadah 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) iaitu 90.29 gram yang dianggap sebagai suatu jumlah yang besar, maka dihujahkan bahawa ia terjumlah kepada perbuatan pengedaran secara langsung menurut definisi pengedaran di bawah seksyen 2 ADB. [66] Namun Mahkamah ini tidak mendapati apa-apa keterangan lain yang dapat menunjukkan aktiviti Tertuduh-Tertuduh dengan pengedaran dadah atau melakukan apa-apa ‘overt act’ selain daripada sekadar perbuatan ‘menyimpan’ yang boleh dikaitkan sebagai pengedaran dadah. [67] Selain itu, pihak pendakwaan juga dalam perenggan 65 penghujahan bertulisnya mengguna pakai anggapan statutori di bawah seksyen 37(d) ADB bagi elemen mengedar dadah. Walau bagaimanapun, berdasarkan dapatan terdahulu Mahkamah ini bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan elemen milikan (possession) Tertuduh-Tertuduh ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut, maka anggapan statutori mengedar di bawah seksyen 37(d) ADB adalah tidak terpakai. Anggapan statutori tersebut hanyalah terpakai apabila elemen jagaan, kawalan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 Kelemahan siasatan [68] Mahkamah ini juga mendapati kelemahan siasatan yang dijalankan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13) seperti berikut: (a) Gagal mengarahkan pihak forensik supaya menjalankan ‘dusting’ ke atas semua barang kes yang mana boleh membantu mengenal pasti individu sebenar yang mempunyai akses kepada dadah tersebut; (b) Gagal menyimpan semua barang rampasan di dalam stor atau tempat yang sesuai bagi mengelakkan timbul keraguan tentang barang kes tersebut daripada tercemar atau dikacau ganggu; (c) Gagal memastikan pendaftaran kemasukan barang kes secara tepat dan betul; (d) Gagal memastikan pergerakan keluar/masuk barang kes dengan tepat dalam Buku Daftar Barang Kes [ekshibit P96]; (e) Gagal membuat siasatan lebih mendalam terhadap individu bernama ‘Moon’ seperti mana yang dibangkitkan dalam keterangan saksi pendakwaan sendiri atau merakam percakapannya; S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 (f) Gagal menyiasat sama ada Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai kunci Rumah Serbuan tersebut atau tidak; (g) Gagal menyiasat sama ada pintu belakang Rumah Serbuan itu berkunci atau tidak pada hari kejadian; dan (h) Gagal untuk meneliti hasil laporan kimia DNA [ekshibit P165] yang telah diterima oleh beliau sendiri. Keputusan [69] Setelah meneliti dan membuat penilaian maksimum ke atas keterangan-keterangan yang telah dikemukakan, Mahkamah ini telah merumuskan pada akhir kes pendakwaan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan sepenuhnya elemen-elemen kesalahan seperti mana dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan tersebut. [70] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini memutuskan berdasarkan alasan-alasan dan dapatan Mahkamah ini seperti mana dinyatakan di atas serta dengan mengguna pakai test/ujian untuk membuktikan kes prima facie seperti mana dijelaskan dalam kes PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar (supra), Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh- Tertuduh bagi pertuduhan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 tersebut. S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cZZBEQGVjU2QmQrxKAmpQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-682-04/2022

PERAYU 1. ) YAP KIM HIN 2. ) LIM GEOK KIM RESPONDEN 1. ) CHUA BOON HOCK 2. ) CHUA YOK SIN 3. ) LIM KIEN HUAT

(a) whether the Court of Appeal (CA) - (i) is functus officio and cannot extend the time period to perform an earlier peremptory order made by the CA (Previous CA’s Order); or(ii) has a discretionary power under r 93 read with r 1A of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 (RCA) to extend the time period stipulated in the Previous CA’s Order; (b) can the CA vary the Previous CA’s Order pursuant to -(i) r 105 RCA; and(ii) s 69(4) and (5) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964?

11/12/2023

YA Datuk Wong Kian KheongKorumYA Dato' Lee Swee SengYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=882e34e7-0fcd-4e37-9e1e-2fbe1d640d47&Inline=true

11/12/2023 12:42:33 W-02(IM)(NCvC)-682-04/2022 Kand. 34 S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 5zQuiM0PN06eHiHWQNRw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w—n2(m) (ncvc)—sa2—ua/2022 Kand. 34 n/:2/mu 12:42-:4 m we count or ADPiM. or muvsu wrmuas Junlanlcnom M APP w :4 1 «main aawszn I up KIM mu man: No. sunm.m.a:m) 2. uuGEoKKIM(NmCNo:a2o4:n-106524) .. APPELLANTS AND 1. cum soon nacxmmc ND:6m2nb1fl—Ml1) 2. mun vox sm wuc no: 501214-Incas) a um KIEN numumc ma; sunszsntsaas) xzsvcmneurs mm-H umlum r r.a.un.mm gm: 5 No w»2z~cvm9~.m@;q Between mm: soon How mmc No canine-vn43Ae7) 2 mm. m Sm (Nmc No swzwvnuais) 3 mm nu mm mm: Nu 690523055169) Pmrmrvs AMI Yap Km: Hm mm Na 59052149-szm 2 hm Gum: Km (NRVC No azmmmssm n.~.nuams1 memo voazmzk mm m me count or upm as muvsu wvznmz Jmusmcuany M: Arllzu u w an IEMEEN . ur Km nm was NO‘5iDl21-‘N241! 2. ma uzox Km man: no: szoamoasz» .. upmmvs mu 1 CNIIABOON Nockwnlc N0:0In1nb1n-W11) cum vok sw (Mme no. somumwz» um mm nunmmc no Ianszsnu-54m) REsPcNnENts . N szummawnnaeuwwnufiw mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm hCauIInlMall (Kal In (F mYe Qw ; MNn WA-22Ng&(1E1gg_pg_u Eelwecn awn Ewan Huck(NRlC' Nu ssnzasmum 5 Guns Yuk Sm (mu: Nu 5912IA—IB»66DI) a llm Km: mmmmc Nn saoszsoawzw Ptamnr ma 4 Vlp mm Hm (me No snuszuoszw 5 mm cm mmmmc Nu szomuoaazoy Dehndants] coma: LEE swss was, ac: mnnnnuw svsn (sum. 4:4 mm Kw: xnzous, «ca JUDGMENT A. Background 1 For ease av retevenoe, we shall rs(er an pames as they were in the H(gh own (He). 2. Three Walnflfs (Plalntlfls) have med a sun in me He (Sui!) against Mo aetendams (Defendants) (or, among mixers, an order ov specmc performance 04 a Sa\e and Purchasa Agreement dated 24.2.2016 (SPA). 3. Am 9 to the SPA, among omers, the Defendants as ea- pvupnelcrs at a maze ov land held under GranIA7136, Lot no. 4472, Mukwm Ulu Langal, Ulu Lsngal Dlslricl. Selangor (um), had sold Ihe Land at a pmze of RM2,s mm" m five ea-purchasers, namewy. sw szummuwnnaerwwnunw -we smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm Jainder Avnhcanarr (He), Paragraph (b) [CA': Order (25.a.2o21)] mum not «hereafter be invoked by (he Defendants lo slnke out the Sun! If omerwise, «his will deiear me Purpose [Paragraph (a)] and the sun wrn be struck out due In a mere Iechnicahiy. name!)/r me Plarmifis‘ laHure In abvain a Jomder Order wimin 14 days lrorrr the dais at cA's Older (251.2021); and (4; as decided in Nlwacus. me above inlerprstalmn wrn ‘give srrecr (0 every part at CA‘; Order (25.21.2021), namely. Paragraph (5) [CA’s Order (25 52021)] and Paragraph (la) [CA’s Order (25.8 2021)]. F. wrrunrcr CA can wag Pzragragh (I7) [cA's omr125.n.2n2I)1 25. To name Enc 19 |Delendants' 1“Appeal) and the Defendants’ 2"“ Appeal (CA). we have no hesrtallon to exercrse our drscreuorr |u vary Paragraph (I7) [CNS Order (2532021)) as vouaws - the Prarrmns shall me an apphcahun in the Hi? to jorrr aH relevanl pamas In the Sum wrmin 14 days iruru me da|e oi Ihe ordar of W: CA (1s.4.2a2:s) and r1 me Plamlrffs Vail in do so, [he sum shaH be slruck out (Variation [Paragraph (b)]) 26. our reasons for the Venetian [Paragraph (bjj are as lolkws: (1) as explained rn me above paragraph 24, the variarron [Paragraph (b)] gives eflecl to the CA‘: Older (25.s.2u21), espscrany Purpose [Paragraph [21]] and Purpose IPBHQFEWI M]: n srrr szuurmuwnnaeuruwnmiw rm! sum In-nhnv WW r. used m mm rr. nvVn\ruH|y mm; dun-mm VII murm wrur :2; rr the Vanaucn [Paragraph (5)1 Is not made, here will be in Imusllce re me Phmufls because - (3) the Plaintiffs’ Jarndernppucaciun (HG) was made wsH wnmrr me 14 Days Period [Paragraph am] but me Deverrdancs had ubjecled la the P\ain|ifis‘ Jcinder Apphcacrarr (HC) [Do rrd.rrrw Objection (Plalrrnu-' Jolndor Applluuorrn The Defendants‘ obpcuon qP|armr«s' Jarrraer Applwcalicn) was me 5019 reasnn why me previuus Paragraph (up [CA's Order (25 3 2021)] could not be Iumuea by me mainms; and (b) the Delendanls would be awe to s1nke om me Sm: wrmom a mal In other wards, ms Puarrrmr would be deprived annerr consurunorral rrgm olaooess lo jusnae without the Suil being Ined and deems?! by Ihe cnurl on W; mems. The CA has an mherenl powsr(as dedared by r 105 RCA) ‘to make any order as may be necessary In prsvarrz rnjusfics“. Anomdmg to r 105 RCA - r ms rrrn-rorrxpw-r. with: court For In. vofdlncl nl dullbl, n I: mnmv mu rruwny In mm [RCA] 5'1!’/bl dumnd to nrrrrr nrnlhct nr. irmuvvl pomrsnrrm Courrrumakt anyomulu In-ybc nlnssary to pm-rrr lniuxlia at In pmvsnl an ahuse arm. pvosess aim Cowl “ (emphasis added) IN szuurmuwnnaerwwnunw -ms sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm rr. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII mum Wm The vanalion [Paragraph (ml is made by us HI the interest of jusuoe Dursuant lo cu inherent pawel; and (3) win regard In ma Defendants’ 2*-1 Appeal (CA), the CA is empowered by s 69(4) and 15) CJA in make me Variallon [Paragmph (bu. we reproduce balm: s 5914; and (5) CM - ‘a 59 Hunnq uflppuls. (4) nu ma uIAppMI may draw immim ol rm, and g/vs any luagmnl, and mm my ordw mien cum in rim bun ulvon or N160, and mm such rim.’ or other onion‘ as in. cm nquin: (5; rue pawn: nfwusa/:1 may be Ixllchud nanwllnmnalny inn the noflcu of appeal ruin» only no pm or can duclslon, and ill! powets may Ilsa b. Ixarclud In mm of .1: ol my al ma rvspondults or purl-s mnnugn in. responflenrs or um: um rml .pp..l..1 from or complained am. dnclslon ' (emphasis added); and (4; ms Variallnn [Paragraph 02)] does no| occasion any lnlustics lo we Defendants, The Defendants have me ngm to resist to me mil the Pleirlllfls‘ second appllcahan in the HC to join all ralevsrll names In Ihs Suit [PlalMNfs' 2'-i Jolndu Application (non lnhe Defendanls are dissatisfied wim Ihe nos decision in me P|ain|n1s‘2”‘Jolndel Appll4:al1an(HCj, they have a runner right to appeal In CA Ihereafler. 13 sw szummawnnaeuiuwnmiw 'Nnl2 Sum mm. will he HSQG M mm u. nllmrullly MIN; dun-mm VII .mm mm G. Qgn CA mulls variation [Parlnugh lb) wimeul guy g|ml'gl|on i_:r mpg-l by Plnlmlfm 27. riielly, lne above iimgmenl is given puieuanl lo lnia oaurfs aeci en in Eric. 19 (De1endanls‘ 1" Appeal) and Defendants‘ 2"“ Appeal 10:) in olher words, lrie cA is nal aeling an ils mm mo|i0rl in making me vanalien [Paiegi-apn lei]. 25. Secondly, as explained in lne above sub-paraglaph 25(2), ma CA IS enly axamlslng iis inhelerlt power lo make lna Variation [Paraglaph (h)] we are unable to find any case in Malaysia and me ceinnienwealui wnien naa decided tl1aH|1e men can only exercise ils inlieienl power when male is a specific applieaiicn or parllcular appeal wnieli nas hsen filed by a pany for me calm in invoke lla lnnaienl pawer. 2:: Lastly, in VIEW oflhe Delerldarlls‘ 2"" Appeal (CA; namllhslanding me can lnai ine Plainlms have ne| applied in appealed to CA. cA IS empowered under 5 59(4) and (5) CJA (0 make the Varlaflun [Paragraph (b)]. H-Em 30. ll is nol uiapinad lnal CA nae a wide aiscieliun up award coal: in all preoeedlngs before me CA pursuant lo 5 70 CJA read iagainer willi IT 54 and as RCA 31. we unhesilallrlgly order me Flalnllfls in pay in me nelenuania oasis iei Eric. 19 (Defsndanls' 1-‘ Appeal) and Defendants‘ 2m Appeal (CA) This Is because inna Plalnlifls had at me aeniinenaanienl pl u in 52DulMOPNn£eHlHWDMRw wane s.ii.i llnlflhll will he used a mm we nllnlrullly MIN; dnunvllnl via AFVLING Wflxl me sun mined Mr Sun and Ms um, mmer as cu-Dlulnmfs or 09* dslendanls lhe Detenaanw Smkmg om AppI>1:a(mn and a1! subsequem proceedmgs mersm wumd have been unnecessary. I. Cgnclullcn :2 Prermsed on ma above reasons, we make me vauowmg avdavs var Elm. 19 (De1endan|s‘ 1“ Appeal) and De{andan|s‘ zm Appual (cm (1) Elm. 19 (Delendants‘ vi Appell) N msnmea winn soaks M RM5‘UOD no lo be pm by me Plainmfs «a me Defendants (sumecuo aHoI:amNeej‘ (2) [he Waintifis sham me an apphcallmv to jam an velavanl panlas m Ina HG wnmn 14 days «om me da|e oi ms ordev 01 CA 413 A 2023) and upon such a tame‘ the sun shall be struck am. am: 13) me nerendancs 2"‘ Aapezx (CA) Is msmissed wnn cos: of RM5,nm7 on to be paw by me Plaunws «a ma Deoenaams (sumac: lo auocsmr fee) DAVE; I DECEMBER zuzs wane KIAN Susana Juage Conn av Appeak Malayswa u ‘yn 5zumMnPNmaHMwuMRw ‘Nuns smm ...n.mn be used m van; .. mn.u.y mm; dun-mm VII mum pans! For the Anne//ans Mr Justin Voon rmam Yu 5 Ms. Carolina Um seen Le (Messrs Justin voon chow‘ & Wmg) Fol ms Respondents: Mr. um Klen Huat .4 Ms. Kathy Wong Ker Smg (Messrs Les .4 Um) IN 5zumMuPNnaaHxHwnMRw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm the F'|’iilrl|lWs, Mr. Soo Tack Lee (Mr. Son) and Ms Lirn Siew Klan (uir. Llm). 4. The deleriee in the Elm had pleaded, among others, that lire SPA was a sham agieemenl because ine Land was aciually used as a securiryidr uenain pumriasee between irie parties 5. The Delsnderiis Had an appiicaiiun in the HC to strike out the Sull on me ground inai iiie Plairims lied lailed to pin Mr. 500 and Ms. Llm as names in me Sui! 1Dof1ndInlI' Slrlklng our Applicaridn) e The ieenied HC Judge drsiriiesed me nereridarirs Slrlklrlg our Appirearrori wiiri easis [HC's Dlsmlssal (bvfondlnlf Striking our Applli::llan)]. 7. The Delerrdarns appealed to the Calm al Appeal (GA) egninsi the HC5 Dismissal (De1endari(s‘ sinking Out Applicahun) [DnfIndnnI:' 1" Appul (cA)] e. wiiii regard to the Defendants‘ 1‘ Appeal (CA), me ioiidiwrrig order was made by CA on 25.8 2021 [CHI order (25.a.2n2I)], among diners- in (he De!endanls' 1“ Appeal (cm was dismissed iparagrapn (I) [on Ordnr (2s.a.2o21)l}: erid (2) irie HG‘: nisriirseai ir;eieiidams' Shlklrlg Dui Appiiearrerii was varied wherein rrie Plainmls were required re ieiri Mr S00 and Ms. Lim as corplairilllfs er no-dalsridanls in me Suil wnriiri 14 days rrarii me date ei CA’: Order (Z5.B.2l121)(H Buys Porlod in 5zDuiMOPNn£eHiHWDNRw -we s.ii.i lldlflhll will re ire... M mm Die nilnlrrnllly MVM5 dun-vinrrl vn nFlLING Wflxl [Fangraph (am and w ma P\a\nWs (all to an so‘ me Sm! shafl anana as slruck ow (Pnruurnph (b) [on om: (25.a.2o21))). 9. Pursuant (0 Paragraph (:7) [CA‘s Order (25 52021)], on 2.9 2021 me mamws mad an appncanon to join Mr. 300 and Ms. mm as parties In Ihe Sull [P|ainliffs' Joindur Application (HC)] Th: Flamm'ls' Jomder Apphcauon (HC) was supported by an affidavn purporledw amrmed on 2.9.2021 by the second walnlifl (2-= Plailltifl) belore a Commissioner far Oaths, VM Tengku Fanddudm bm Tengku Smalman (cm; 10. The Defendants nhiecled to me Pmnuffs‘ Jomder Appllwliun (HC) on the ground mat among others, the 2"“ Flainlnfs avfidavm had nol been amrrned bevore the CFO, 11 The learned HC Judge struck out the Plainmfs‘ Jamar Appucauon (HG) wm: - 11) no order as to costs; and (2; liberty to me a (rash F\alntifis' Jmnder Apphcation (HO) smnam lo 'dIrsI7fiL7n" (arahan) wmch may be oblamed by the Plawnlms mm the CA mm Iegard to the 14 Days Period [Paragraph can ((ime period «or the Plamhffs us .a.n Mr 500 and Ms. Lnm as names In the Salt) [HC's Ordar (PIaimi«s' Jolndlr Aupllclflonfl 12. The Defendants have filed an appeav tn CA agawnsl the Hos Order (F\aimflls’ Jmnder Applicalmn) [D-manna’ 2"‘ Appeal (cA)]. sw szummuwnaeuxuwnufiw ma s.nn In-uhnv M“ be used m mm s. nflmnnflly MW; flan-mm VII mum pm Procuodlngs ln cA 1:5. In the De¢endarrcs' 1" Appear (CA), lhe Delendams med a name ul motion in mun enuoeure no. 19 [Enc. 1n (Dmndnnw 1" Appean] Vorthe iollowrng orders (ram the CA, among others. (1) an order to snloroe Paragraph (by [CM Order (25.8 2021)], and (2; an artist in! the Suit In be slmck an 14 The Dslehdarws‘ 2'-1 Appea\ (CA) has saugm (or the CA to reverse the HC‘s order |PlamWs' Jomder Apphcahon)anrHor1rre Smt to be struck out pursuant \o Paragraph (by [CM Order (25.a.2a21)] 15. As Em: 19 (De1endanIs‘ 1-‘ Appeal) and me De1endanLs' 2“ Apnea‘ (CA) ooncemed the same facts and issues, we have deemed to hear rogemer Em: 19 (De1endahIs' 1" Appemj and me Defendants‘ 2" Appear (CA). Imus 16, The following mree questions shau be deuded In this judgmem (1; whslher the CA Is Iunclus uflrcic and cannot extend the 14 Days Period [Paragraph (b)] This issue drsousses me CA's drscreuonary power under r 93 read wmh r 1A 0! the Rules of the com or Appeal 1994 (RCA); (2) can the CA vary Paragraph (b) [cA's Order 125 B 2021)] and order one F\avmfls to flln an appnnariu in me HO |o jam an 5 SN 5zDmMOPNn£eH\HWDMRw -we sum In-nhnv wm be used m mm no nflmrrnfllli mm; dun-mm wa nF\uNG wrm reVevanI pamss \n he Sum wrmir. 14 days lmm the date er me order a! (N3 CA an 15.4.2023 tmslread ol the lequlvamenl for me Flawnliffs to ubvam an ordor vmrrr me HC la rorrr Mr 500 and Ms. vn me sun): This concerns an rrrzerprenanrorr 0! me purpose or CA‘s Order (25.1: mm), and 13) whether the CA can vary Paragraph (b) [CA's Order (25.s.2o21)] pursuant to - 1a) r105RCA:and my 56914]and(5)afIhsCnurvsolJudu:alureAc119B41CJA); - wimnut any appeax or applicanoh by the marnuws to the CA. 17. we are not alfle to find any prewous Malaysian case whhzh has deuded on me above queshons. n whnhor CA is Igggms omclu with raga:-rs to gm; order 25 021 131 The firs| quesnon «o be ds|ermIned rs whether this CA » (1) has the arscrenronery power to extend H1: 14 Days Period [Peragraph1b)l:ar (2) rs barred by me Iurlclus alflcro aacmrre «mm revl Days Period [Paragraph (en. mg the M 19. The doctrine av /unclus ammo has been explained by Nelh Palhmanathan FCJ In Ihe Federal Ooun case 0! Stony World sun 5 SN szuurmuwnnaeuruwnmiw -we s.rr.r nu-nhnv wm re used m mm we mrrrmrr-y mm; dun-mm VII AFVLING Wm! and v Engansll (M) Sdn BM [2020] 12 MLJ 237. at [13]. as follows ‘[13] n 1. sound ma um anm . cam! nu wunaunm . n...: ma. n am not pants: 4». mnamy to II-opvn -rm. nrmnd -nd xunplemern the hull ardcr mfljuflgmem romlng In on dispute :1 has Idludlcpted upan. This mu, known 1: ma doctrlnu oliunrlut amen» stems Inn: 1!» pm.a:,,:. nillnllny n. Inlynion. finru rmuld pa amt Imcnrlnlmy and mm It courts wen pervnlnad tn ruvitw and ncvmldw final omurs nnd luflgmuntr ' (emphasis added). 2o. wa rspmduce bekaw rr1A and 93 RCA: ‘M r M Cour! auudgo shall nu raganv Ivjltsfloo In udmlnrslulnfl any orIRcA1 honln, tho com or .1 Judy: smll Inn ruglrd to nnajusuaa anna narflcular me and not only to uh: tmhnicnl mm-cnmplilnzl alany oI[RCA[ nmm r 9.7 Puwel ol com or ./nag. la anmga at lbridgo mm. Me com on Judge mu law pawur to enlarge or abridge ma nme appafntod by masa Rum, at {hr by an war Inlzryinq limu for dafng lny let M Inklng lny piucuding, upnn such mm: 1» any) as ma [nation of m. an my rvquiu, and any sum smargamsnt may be omsmd aflhaugh ma npahcalrnn /01 mo same rs nor mm unnl alter ma Jxkrralron anna mna appmntpd or alien/Pct’ Prm/mad max when me I/me rm aemnng any pleadmg 0! document 0! my any smdsvu, answer or dacurmlvt, or flumg any 50115 or has oaan mac or nnmaa by any ullhese Rules nr by any dwucnon an 0! under ma summons fur dwadmns u by an we: or ma Court or a 2 N szummuwnaeuwwnufiw ma sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; flan-mm vn mum pm Judge ms cont: D/BHY appucarron In oxrvnd sum (we and or any ardlr mado mason mu be home by me many mlkmg sum app!/cal/on.“ (emphasis added) 21 We have no nasrxauon to deduce mat the CA has a discrmmnary power rd extend any nme peflod which has been prevlausly ordered by me CA. sucn a drscrerrdnary power rs clsarlram r as RCA (me CA -snan have paws: rd fix by an M16! enlarging urns, for dorng any 50! Dr Ialdng any ploceedmg, upon such Iemvs (if any) as me juslfce dune case may rsqufmfi. Furthermore. by vmue 0! r 1A RCA, in ma applrcauan cl r 93 RCA, the CA -snau have regard 10 ms juslrcs of the pamculsr case and nor only la the lechmcal rmlh compliance 0! any uI[RCA] 22 The /umus olficfc dacmne rs provided by case law and cannot override wnnen law. Aceamlngw, [Ms CA is not lunctus offcio and ms in drscrerronary pawar under r 93 lead wnn r M RCA lo extend me 14 Days Period [Paragraph m] In rne Vnlerest of wstwoe In pavagraph 25 beluw. we provide aw reasons In! extending me 14 Days Period [Paragraph (b)] as war! as an why Paragraph (b) [CA's order (25.a.2u2r)1 shown be varied by «ms edun. E. wnag via; gurggg 91 CA‘: Ordor [25.I.1D2l)? 23. wun regard to me eonscnmrm of CA‘: Order (25 3.202‘ ), we adapr ms rondwing approach ran: down by cnong sraw Far CJ (sedan ar Sarawak) in me Federa\ Courl case of Nuwacrei Sdn and v Srl Mam Still and 12000] 2 MLJ 353, an 374; rn 5zumMaPNnaaHrHwnMRw Wane smm n-nhnrwm r. used M mm r.. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] mum wrm "n. R. Stnnd Music ran 50 m (was; .15 Boav 15:, so John Rnmilry we oburvld 4:: y 155) n.. amply mad: nlcnnstmlng my mm mummm I: m um mm to my Dart um um: M possrnn. -nu not in man out or nutmy on elm" in - dud, mm 1: b1 imporsfbll to mconclll u wm. lnaklmr mdrnon -xprvts clean in the sums ma rnougn mo mm cum: p-ssm mm-.1 ta a and, m. dacllndprincipln .pp:m, m my mw, oquuryzo. cnunon1Ir' (emphasws added). 24. We are av the consmered mew that Ihe purpose 0! CA‘: Order (25 6 mm Vs as (aHows* (1; by reason of Paragraph (5) [CA's Order |25.a.2a21)], me CA had decided «mu nmwunscanamg (he P|ain| 5' non-‘cinder av M( 300 and Ms Lwm VI! the Sun (Plaintiffs Non-Jollldlr (Mr. sac and Ms. Llm)], the CA did nol strike out Ihe Suil H VS thsrefnre clear that me purpose o1 Paragraph (a) [cA‘s Order as a 2021;] is lor me man av the Sun m proceed aespue the Hamxirrs Nan-Jalndsr (Mr, 500 and Ms, um) (Purpose [Paragraph (an). The Purpose [Paragraph (a)] is in consnnanue mm o 15 r em M me Rules 0! com 2m2 which pruwdes as muoms - “A caun at mum mu not an durum by reason aims mtqamdlr or nun-1e:n¢.r or my wry. nu ma Caun my 1!! lny cum or mlflur d-hrmin: m. mm or qmuom in 9 IN szummawnnaeuwwnufiw -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm (2) (3) drama. in Br I: my arm: rm mama and lnnnsu arm- parsuns who In p-um to urn sum or rn-mu " (ernpnasrs added): Paragraph (up [CA's Drder(25.8.2021|] requrred rne Plainms to pm Mr. 500 and Ms. Lum In ma sun. The purpose 0! Paragraph (b) [CA‘s order 125 3.2021» rs up ensure nnamy m Imgaurm. namely‘ the oourfs fina\ deersrdn in me sun [courfl Flnal De n (Su1I)] shafl net nnly and ma Prarnnns and Deiendanls bul anau s\so brnd Mr. S00 and Ms. Llm (Furpnn [Paragraph (am If the ca drd not drder Paragraph (5) [CA‘s ordar (25.a.2o2n]. ML 500 and Ms. Lrrn may sunsaquenuy rrnpugn me val y at me Caurl’s Fina! Daersran (sum on the ground char Mr. S00 and Ms. Lrrn have not been afiordsd merr ngm of hearing In aeoardanca with me second rura of natural mslma. Paragraph (:2) [CA's order (25.3 2021)] we-supposed mat upon me mrng 0! We Plavnlms‘ Jomder Application (HC), me Delendams wdurd nnl amen merera and me HC wourd mamafier make an order In rain Mr. S00 and Ms Lrm as parties in We Suit (Joinder Order! Defendants were to cmecl la the PIBIHIWS‘ Jamder Applrcaliun (HG) for any raasarr (as had happened m nns case), are Plalnlms mum nn| be expects-1 to uhtarn E Joinder Order Wflhm 14 days rrdrn me dale or CA‘s Order(25.8.2021). Trns was because rl me In view 0! the above inlerprelanon of Paragraph (b) [CA‘s order (25.a.2n21)1r If ma Dslendants were rd object to me PIainM1s' no srn 5zuurMaPNnaaHrHwnMRw "Nuns s.n.r In-uhnv M“ be used a mm rs. arwmnauly MW; dun-mm VI] mum wnxr

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCvC-312-06/2022

PLAINTIF Firdaus bin Mohd Zait DEFENDAN 1. ) NORNADIA SHAFLEENA BINTI DATO' SHAFII 2. ) GANESH A/L PERUMAL (beramal di bawah nama dan gaya TETUAN GANESH & CO)

The application by the Second Defendant to strike out the action against him is allowed with costs of RM10,000.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f7004ec3-cbb3-4d50-939e-a04cb70b76ff&Inline=true

11/12/2023 13:59:06 WA-22NCvC-312-06/2022 Kand. 32 S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w04A97PLUE2TnqBMtwt2/w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—22IIcvc—312—o6/2022 Kand. 32 ,1,I2,:o2: uv HIGH ccIuRI' or MALAVA AT KUALA LUMFUR IN THE FEDERAL YERRITORV. MALAVSIA CIVIL surr N0: WA-22Ncvc-312-as/2022 ,,,aE‘rwEEN,_,, , , ,, FIRDAUS am MOI-ID IAIY ....FLAlNTIFF (I/E No: asnszs-so-57:1) AND 1. NORNADIA SHAFLEENA BINTI MOHD DATD' SHAFII (IIC No: 880320-56—5flI4) 2. GANESH AIL FERUMAL ....DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT [1] Enc 715 a smkmg out appncaunn under Order 1B RIIla19 Rules M com zmz (Rec) by the Semnd Dsfendanl, an advocate and sanmr who had represented me ms: Dzlendanl in 5 civil suimgairvsllhe Plammr. max cv suit lSuil 39) Involved the Second Delendanl, me I=IainIiII, me I=IamIiIrs wwe (Tengku Syazanah Tengku Shah Mamdmn) and NIIse\ hm zmmr Thai sun In: conspvacy was [or Injury to me Fm Deoenaanrs repmsmon am mm mencax distress, was seilled an 1142022 mm 5 IN wu4AI‘I1PLUE2YnqBMIwIz!w 1 mm Sum M... M“ be used M mm I. nflmrufllv mm; “Mm. VII muwa pm consent Judgement The said consent Judgment entered into and recorded by the High court Judge involved the Plaintitt and the First Detendant. suit as [2] Frlor to the said Consent Judgment, the Plaintm had railed to enter his appearance in suit as and thus a Judgment in Deiault was entered against him an liabilfly on ID 92021 The Flaintin, on 15.112021 was served with a nutizzs dated 11.11.2021 to attend the hearings for assessment 1dr damages Awarding to the riofce. the hearing date was tixed on 2.3.2022 and 3 .2022 in which the Plaintm has tailed to swear andlor appoint lawyer to represent himself. Another notice was then served on the Plalntill. nottlytng the new hearing date ot 11.4.2022 The Plaintiffs wite then had oanlacted the First oelendant with a view to settle the matter and discussions were held at the Ssoorld nelendanrs pinee on 7.4.2022 lertne Plaintlrr and his wire to resnlve suit 39 [3] on 11.4.2022 the Flalntifl and his wile were belore the High court where the teamed High court Judge took it upon himeellte verity with the Plaintitt and his wite that they were willing and voluntaniy intended to settle suit as The Plaintitl who was not represented was given ample opportunity to explain and pprnplain to the teamed High court Judge wnion he did net The Plaintiff had aohnmied that he was willing to pay r-wutsdtltm and that RM5fl.0fl0 had already been paid before the even date. The notes at proceedings snow that ootn the Platntitt and his wife had confirmed with the leemed High court Judge that the sacnnd instalment payment was to be made hy 15 5.2022 fur RM3,U0fl and the third oy 15 3.21122 lot RM12.l)da The subsequent payments were in the sum of RM12,mm respectrvely on the ls.7 2022. 15 5.2022, 15 9.2022. in wD4Av1PLUEZYnqBMIwI2iw 2 -use Shim Illflhlv will be used m mm a. nllmnnilly MIN; dun-rinnt vta nFit.lNG WM! sun. Once me conseritjudgmenl had been psdecisa, the parties are bound by it and the com V5 duty bound to worse the ag/earl terms al me same The court also cannot vary any 0! the aglssd terms unless W717! the mutual oonsenloflhe names. Helios, one can say that [he COLIVI is funclus oflrcro or /1‘! other words, the court is bereft of /‘unsdicl/on (0 entertain any rsquesf to S9! aside such [udgmem " [15] The Cnun 01 Appeai fuund nu msril in set aside the consent judgment and Tuund that Ihere was an attempt to reopen and femigélie the matte! whereby me principle oi res iudicam applied. And to that. this Court is guided by me Supreme cows decision In Am Commorclnl Finance (M) and v Kaw-I Tam! Sdn Bhd[1§.v5] 3 ML] ill‘ “When a matter between two pamss has been adjudicated by a court 13/ competent iurlsdlct/an, may and [hell pm/res am no! permitted to /Ilrgale once more the res jildlcata, as live judgmelvl becomes (he MAI! belwsen such parties. AI! esvoppel per ram judicafum has been created as a result “ [15] This Court find inst mus aciian by me Piamiirf is not my unsustainable bmalse an atlempllo escape his cmiiganuns under me said Consent Judgmam ip which he had aglasd lo and is an abuse oi wur! process bound lo. which IN w04Av1PLUEZYnqBMIwI1!w n -um s.n.i ...m.mm be used m mm d. nflmruflly mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [17] The applucauon by the Second Defendant cu strike uu| me acliun against mm Is allowed with costs cf RM1G,DDO. DATED 15 DECEMBER 202 W ROZ MAWAR ROZAVN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMFUR Forlhe P/amxm: Ema Ruzanna bum A/mar T/rv Effa Ruzanns Anus! & Co. Fol Ihs Defendant: Ganssh Psmmal Iugslhar with Amila Huda Ahmad T/n Ganesh & ca. IN wo4Av1PLUEZYnqBMIwI1!w 22 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 15.10.2022. on 15111022 the payment wouid be tar RM5U,Duo. Subsequenfly Rmzoun by 15.12 2022 and RM25,ooo an the |5"‘ of every month iespenivaty iron. January lo November 2023. The Piainiiff had given a dennite paeitive lesponate in agreement This Ictlon [41 The Piaintiit had tied a suit nature this court against the Fiiat and sedand netahdant seeking an Drdel to set aside the said Consent Judgment. The piainiiii ieiaiinad that the seadnd Defendant had represented in hini td sign the diati consent Judgment and that there wauid he no anion taken against hini bin against Niisai bin zainii, The order sought «or as stated in his Slalemsnl di ciaini isto eeteside iriesaid consent Judgment with oosts. [5] The Deienee med by the second Deiandant disclosed that the Plsinllfl was in anandance peiadnaiiy at the High court when the consent Judgment was recarded. Pnditn lhaldiscussions dn sattieniantweia held with the Piaintiirs wife who was authorised by the Plaintiii The drain censentdddgnient was in the possession or the Fiaintin when the paniasi were beiore me teamed High court Judge. The contents 0! the dreit consent Judgment that the Piaintiir dantendad he had signed upon the mlsrenresenlalicri oi the seddnd Deiendant was the same as that the Piaintm had verbally agreed ta, consented and edntinned before the iaanied High Cuun Judge [is] The Piaintiirs iepiy sated he was ndt iiving wifll this wiia at the inatenai tinie. He had he itnumadge at what his wiia negdtiated urllil 7 4.2022 (before the hearing when the said Consent Order was recorded) and he had sunken (U the Sewnd Defendani. in wD4Av1PLUEZYnaBMIwI2iw 1 we s.ii.i IIIVVDIV M“ be ta... M mm a. hnimiin MW; dnunvinril n. nF\uNG WM! Thu Sacond n-rendnmu Ippllcnllon to Itvlko om ml: aeuon lgalnat Mm m AI ine outset‘ tnia Court is concerned with me actien taken by the FlE\M\«. He had Had a claim against Ihe First and Second Defendants for an order that the said Cnnsent Judgment he set aside The Consent Judgment was entered inln on 11.4.2022 and “us aclion was filed on 7 s 2022 This Cuurl ednsiders me aimos: Mo monins' iirne ieken here IS inaminaia daiay which has nu! been explained. It IS inordinaie daisy aa me Plaimm nad mu knowledge 04 me said cansem Judgment and me ienns and cundmons. Tna Piainim was neiaonaiiy involved in fmahsmg and confirming his agreement as to me judgmenl wnen he had given verification and consent to the High COLII1. The P\a\MW had not accounted hr «ma nine iepae. [a] This Court finds lhal mere is norI—cump|Ian::e to Order 42 Rule 13 Rac that pnmaes ‘Save as umerwise provided in these Rules, where provisions are made in the Rules for the serving aside 0/ I/srymg of any order m judgment, a pony intending to ser aslds or io vary such order m /udgmenl shallmaks an application to the cam and serve it on me pany who has emained the order oqudgmenl‘ wimm miny days we! me receipt pnne mdsr oljudgmenl by him. ' [9] This Courl is eisa concerned winn me made dmsen by me Piaimm, This application shmfld be by way dtanginanng summnns and me aueged grounds man he had entered me me said consent Judgment was due to mlsrepresenlaflnn and hand must be panicularised am at «ms iunclurei in wD4Av1PLUEZrnqBMIwI2!w A we Sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm we pnmneuly sun; dun-mm wa enum ma mis cauit addresses that \avdirIess and non—compiiaince in me (irnehne stipulamd by 0rderA2 Rule 1: RHC [101 The Word snail is inanaaiory. As held by me leaned Momi Nazian ennzaii J (as he then was in snining Cnst Sdn Bhd (appointed receiver and innnag-r) .9 on y Maiayaia suiiuing socmy Bhi:l[101E] 1oML./4a1aip5ci -in iiia Ilm place, ma word ‘shall’ in o 42 I is IS nianciaioiy in naiura (sea ma Court of Appeal decision in Law ciiang Sour! y TA saanniiaa Sdri and goasz 1 ML] 392' (2002) MLRA 29.7). its mandalory rlaluls is plain and um/fans. us iaiionala ice is inaniiest, far it will absolutely run caniiary la the requiremsnls aifinaiiry and cenafrvnr aibiridiny orders onne coun i/imganis are at llbsfly la file any orders oiiudgnianzc oi ziia coun at any rune, iiusnaiing ina realisation oi the iruils oi iiiigaiion ai ma winning pany, and ai a highs! and more Iundamsnlsl iavai brings ma iagai syaiain mm disarray. Secondly, and more impalfamly, me consequence for non- compliance with ma rima sziizuiazibn under 0 42 r 13 is (rite The aapiicaiion must be reiuced In the Fedeval caun uacisian in Hang KWI saang y Gsnad Media sun Bird and anoinar apaaai 120131 6 ML! 755 Sur1yaI1i'FCJhaldinsrruc1rveIymus.' [121 in amsr words a pany inianuing to sel aside an order nuudgmerit must make his sflnlfcalion and saiva ii on me party wna omaincci the order oijudginenr Wllh/I1 rniny days after reoeipzonns oldalorjudgmsnl oy iiiin /[ms appiicaiicnis inaaa ouisiaa zna Ilwfy day period, uniass iinia is enlarged, ma appiiaaiion mus? fai'I[DavsIapmen( a Cammemial Hank Lld y in wD4Av1PLUEZYnuBMIwIZ!w 5 "Nuns s.ii.i Ilnflhlv vim be used m my a. uiiiimiiiy MIN; dun-mm wa nfluNG WM! Dinssh Kumar M laenehai Nagiiphai & ore gooz 7 MLJ grizaozj 3 cu 108). Whether an enlargement 0/ time will be granted, on the premise that an application was been filed, will depend very niucli an llie facts and ciicunrstanoes ol lnat application {VVDN Sockallngam crieltlar And Two Olllsrs u KRPRSM soinaaundarani cnettiai [1941 1 ML] 103 {CA)) (13) it is eiystal daai that no erllargsmerlr‘ ai time was ever applied /or by the appellant prior to the filing al enela 129130. A brief scrutiny ol the dates olall ol the relevant uniers, and their dates olservice, shows mat the appellant was out oltirne by at least a year. Despite knowing that ends 129-130 were filed pursuant to 0 42 r 13 of the RHC the appellant riad dlslsgs/dad tlie Mme facial prescribed to iegulertse tlie app/lcarlbn. lMth no application flied to extend time pursuant to 0 3 r 5 at me RHC pm)! la filing orlliose applications (and areauiae no reasonaple explanation was given loi lne aaid delay), anals 129430 were incompetent. [141 rrie iailure to adhere to the pmlirninary requirenrenl to extend time in the eiieunietaneee oi the case rnuet be dealt with strictly, as otherwise the rules iequiiing an extension oillnie will and up as e deadlettei. rliey, pnnia teeie, must lie apeyad loi atneiwisa me party in piaaeri or lrie rules will deleat the very purpose and apjeat 0!‘ me need to obsewe the time line (as an analogy see orig Guan Tack a. are v l<aeturi[19a21 1 ML! 10511952] cLl Rep 616. [Emphssls added.) case law autnoiities have held mat wnaia lriare is delay an line par? cl an applicant to act will! ieasonatile pmrruzlilude to apply to set aside ajudgrrlentwrtnin the stipulated 30 clay period, it is IN wD4AV1PLUEZYlVaBMIwIZlw s ‘Nata e.i.i n-nhnrwm be used m mm has etiimuiy MVMS dnunmlvl via aF\uNG Wm lneurnbenl upon me app/lean: Io dlscl-large lne burden olpmilel-mg e serisleclory explanellon /or the delay. Thus, li mere )6 no exp/anarlon for me delay and (hem Is no epplloellon far an sxlarlslorl oltlms la apply, lne Court ompoeelm Ng Han Sang 3. om v seolen Lssslng sun BM (appoinladrscsll/sis and managers) (200314 MLJ an held me: me semng aside epplloeuon shauld be dismlsssd in llmlne, withnul mnsidsnrlg me meals orlne epplleanan " [11] On mls ground alone, we com is minded In allow me slriking out appllcafiun by the Second Delendenx. Nevertheless, Lhls ccun had assessed me Dleadlngs and concluded that «he Plelnllll does rlnl have a suslalnable cause of action egalnsl me seoona Delenoam as follows: ll) There are no panlculars ol misrepresentation orlraud me by me Plelmlll mal me Ssmnd Delenuanl was alleged lo nave onmmllted l IS me that mey must be pleaded. Tne Court 0! Appeal‘: oeeislen in Alk Fling (M) Sdn End 5 are v Chang China Chum 5 on and another Appul[19!5] 2 MLJ 77l7orl lnle poirll ls louna al pm: “I! cannot be gamssld lner procedural law is exlremely me» In cases such as llns. Amtrighlly so For e charge afccnsplracytc oerrelm IS a ssncus one to make. I: ougm not to be naumena/lced by e court unless properly xaken ln e part,»/'5 pleaulngs. Such e charge must be supponeo by full pan/cu/sis. The awdsncs lad must be ln pmof or we pleeaeu case. me standani olpmor whats e consulvacy lo deneuo is alleged (as oppased II: where. eg a conspiracy to induce me breach o/ a carlhact alleged) ls [he same as where fraud ls alleged. A olelnmr mus! pmve his case beyond a reasonable doubt. lN wu4Al11PLuEzrnaBMIwIzlw 7 -we Snllnl ...m.. M“ be used m mm we nllnlnnllly enn; dun-vlnnl VI] nFluNG Wflxl /mprudenre is not and ought never id be equated with dishonesty. This, then, is the Iirst rule ' In [his case the allegation is against an advocate and eolicnor and is M a serious nature. vet the particulars uflads showing misrepresentation, other than a statement that the seeond Detendant was alleged to have said that action would be taken against Nisral hin zainir instead oi the Plaintm, were not plsaded (2) It is untenable tor the Plaintiit to oontend that he was indeed misrepresented by the seoond Datendant because (a) suit as was against him personally, ta) There was already a Judgment in Defaun agalnsl him on 10.9.2021 on liability tor pdnspiiacy to injure the First uetendanrs teputation and inflic| mental distress on the First , Defendant: to) His own wite had negotiated tor a settlement at the quantum or damages: td) He had with him the dralt of the said Consent Judgment when he attended the High Courl hearing on 11 4 zozt. ta) The teamed High Court Judge had undertaken assessment In ansuie the Flaintilt understood and had agreed to the settlement sum and the tenne therete and he had given his oonsent and oontinnatidn: (i) The oontents cf the diatt Consent Judgment were the same as to the ones he had personally agreed to in open court at the heanng; in wu4Al11PLuEzrnqBMtwlzlw I we a.n.i In-vlhnrvim be used M mm i.. anni.ii-y Mimi flnnnvllnl VI] uFlt.lNG WM! (9) Suit as was agairisi him, his wiie and Nisiai bin zainii His ediiianiinii mac his uiideisiahding was niai Nisiai hm zairiii was to be sdieiy iiahie in unlenabiei (h) There had aiieady been a payment oi RM5o,ooo leading up ln iiie said cdiissni Judgment, me sum oi which were ' elusive oi iris wial sum 01 RM45u,uou agreed. (3)This Courl agrees Mm |he sunmissieni. oi iiia Second Deleridanl that the Plaintiff had nut shown he was mis edi pressured or under miiipuisinri when new g me said Consent Judgment On the other hand, he was free In answer and explain if that was his predicament tn the learned Hlyh Court Judge. The nines ol proceedings show ma! zhe Piainiiii was given me oppoiiuriny to side his posiiioii as us me said Consent Judgment and the terms thereto. [12] In me premises, (his cum can oiiiy donciuds ihai lhis a Is urieusiaiiisnie is an afleflhaught and is an attempt In siiirk imiii me ndiigaiioiis iris Piainm had agreed In in the said cdnsehi Judgment [Young Klmng Fnh L Dr: v NFC ciooiier Sdn Bhd riormarvy known as Nichii Fashion sdii BM) [1017] MLJII 157 refers). ii which [131 The iudameni or shining Croat Sdn Bhd (supra) applies here, specindsiiy at p50 . ‘The mhiaxz of me backgruund to me corisentjudgmsm must be appreciated tao nie agreement M the lam. of me canseriijudgmeni which was reached among iha parties had the eirecz ollha deiehdaiiz not pmdeedihg wtlh me suit 339 against the p/aimirrs, which s! the: [urlClllrB, were awaiimg me hearing fur IN wfi4Av1PLUEZYnqBMIwIZ!w 9 -we s.ii.i llulflhlv M“ be used M mm Die aiiiii.ii-y MIN; dnunvinril VIA JVLING WM! Ins dsfendanrls summary/udgmenlapplfcafinn against the plalnms. Ths glalnms had firs! daraulred under the laclllry agreement, and nad Every reason to gel lne defendant no: to pursue me sun 339 and agreed to me nonsenljudgmenl. val, desplte rne canserltjudgmerll ednralnlng temvs dalaylng payment ol the oursrandlng by me plalnlllrs, znay lallsd to adhere ID the same by not making the lnmal payment. And ndw anar some nine months, and after the defendant vigorously pursuing enforcement proceedings agams! lhu plainlifls, Me plaintiffs quite conveniently lils an spphcaflon to 591 aslds the cnnsentjudgmerll, and brazenly assert lack of knowledge on the effect oflhe consent /udgmanl to: ma delay. This is far nun. being a satisfactory explanallorl lol me delay I! ls not a genuine explallatlcn even. /rcsnnot be accepted The orfgirlali/lg summons ol the plalnnlls must /all an IIIIS ground of unexplained and inordinate delay aldna - [14] The Court dc Appeal W Abdul Rank an. Shaikh Mahmoud 5 Ors vAman.Ih Ray: Bhd A Dr: and another appeal (20131 2 ML! V25 had deliberated wnelner there were grounds |o set name the consent judgment VI that case wnan mere was no ausgauon ol mud, undue lnnuenoa or ooerclnn. Tnere Is an absenoe cl that mo In «Ms acnan as ma wlalnmv did not pamculansed |he same. ln lad, the addnsal lanne Plaunnn submitled man mare was no lraud. This ls what \he Cuun. of Appeal ruled an consent judgments at pm- ‘The law on setting aslde consenuddgmenl I3 mots than samad and it is znls. A oansanuudglnanr /5 only recorded wnan lha rsspscrlvs lltfgants had spread 77! wrltfng as m how to resolve a legal ln wD4Av1PLUEZYnqBMIwIZlw ad 'Nn|E s.n.l n-nhnrwm be dad m mm In: nlwlnaflly MIN: dnunmnl Va .nanc mm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCvC-336-06/2022

PLAINTIF ROXANDE MICHELLE KIMBALL DEFENDAN DAN VANCE KIMBALL

The Supreme Court in Bandar Builder (supra) pronounced the principles for the Court in the exercise of the power to strike out a claim summarily under Order 18 Rule 19 RoC. This Court concludes that this is an appropriate case to exercise the said power to strike out as it can be clearly seen that the Plaintiff’s claim on the face of the pleadings is unsustainable. It is otherwise an abuse of the court process. The application to strike out the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, which is prayer (a) of Enc 7 is hereby allowed with costs of RM10,000.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5a051d93-b650-4495-a59f-4cc88555e1e7&Inline=true

11/12/2023 14:00:45 WA-22NCvC-336-06/2022 Kand. 31 S/N kx0FWlC2lUSln0zIhVXh5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kx0FWlC2lUSln0zIhVXh5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kx0FWlC2lUSln0zIhVXh5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kx0FWlC2lUSln0zIhVXh5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kx0FWlC2lUSln0zIhVXh5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kx0FWlC2lUSln0zIhVXh5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kx0FWlC2lUSln0zIhVXh5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kx0FWlC2lUSln0zIhVXh5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kx0FWlC2lUSln0zIhVXh5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kx0FWlC2lUSln0zIhVXh5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HA—22m:vc—33s—o6/2022 ,1, 12 HIGH COURT or IIIALAVA AT KUALA LUMFUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY. MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO: wA-22Ncvc.3:s-ne/2n22 BETWEEN xoxmne MICHELLE KIMBALL ....PLAINT|FF (Passport No. 5a5u27u21) AND DAN vmc: KIMEALL WDEFENDANT (Pauper: No. 120415924) JUDGMENT Tim Striking om Applicalinn Enulusurn 7 (Em: 1): The D-lonaunrs nppllcnllon to sum out me Flnimivrs nlalm [1] By EN: 7, the Defendant had appned m sinks out me Slalemenl of Claim Ned by me wramm, pursuant to Order «a Rule 19 onhe Rum of Cuun 2012 (Ruc) The application was alluwed with busts cf RM1u_nno oo sumecx paymenl at me auocamr tee. sw kxnrwwczwusmnxmvxnsw ‘ -ms Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm [2] niis Cuun is nuw dealing wiiri me reasons «or sinking cul me Plaintiff‘: Statement of Ciaim [3] The Flainlifl med 5 ciaim egainai ms Deieniiani our ccmpanaaiien aria damages. The reliefs soagrii are gerieraiiy caiegarisea as ipiicwe: (E) Morieiary ciaima relating ic spoiiaai support and maintenance «or irieir criiicren. (b) compeneaiion «or expenses given ip a pampany; (cj Raimpiiraameni ipr iegai fees paid py ina piainiiir ipr an on- going ciini sun iriniaieu by me Deiemianz, (H) Special damages «or an years or amise in irie marriage. Evaluation and Fin gs 0! [ho noun [4] This Courl derives its pemerircm Order is Rule 9(1) (Rec) to strike out iris P iirs claim on the graund man: (a) ll aiacioses no reasonable cause pi aeiiaii. (b) It is scarmaipiis, irivpiaus pr vexaliausl (pi ii may prejudice, embarrass or peiay ine fair trial or the action; pi (e) II is otherwise an abuse of me open process. [5] Belem inia Caun begins in apply me «me iegai priiicipie eniindaiec in Blndlr suimer sun and L Dr: v uniied Malayan aariking car-pemian Bhd[199J] 3 MLJ 35. This Court considered ine ienowirig fans s1emmIng from me pieauirigs: (i) Bum names are eiiizena onne Unllad siaies emmanea (USA). They are both nei ciizena oi Maiaysia; 2 sin kxDFWiCZiUSinDxihVXh5~« -nae s.ii.i ...na.i vim be used m mm me niimruflly MVM5 dnunvinril wa nFiuNG WM! (ii) The Plairilili claimed lo have a realdemlal address atCyhsl1aya selarigdr Malaysia and claimed lrialilis Delendarir is res ' me USA The neieridanl had ayarred iri riis amdavii lhal ne had me resldenlial addresses — ene in cdloredd, USA and anoIhe( In Cyheqaya selarigdr Malaysia. Howe»/err me Plairiliii challenged that lac: and eorilericled mal lhe Dslerldarll had never resided in ma Malaysian address b|!l an all malarial limes was in me USA: (i may get married in same Barbara caliidrriia USA in 1990; (iv; They bulh moved la Malaysia, legellier wllh llielr clilldreri in 2013: (V) The Plairilili decided lo leave me marriage in 2015 um me neleridaril ralueed in aeeepl all divorce papers‘ They are sull I10! legally divdreed. (VI) in Decembev zms me Deleridariz Initiated a civil suil agairismie Plainlm regarding me larriily irusi lriai is currerilly origeing, ( )T|VeV iliree eriildreri are cl rriaiorily age lever 18 years at ags) and had moved back lo the USA and are nd lenger living with me Plairii - (VlVl)The Plaintiff is oi Musllm «aim. [s] A study M the Plalllffs claim snows mat K is aredemiriariuy ldr rridrialary dlalms lriai are based on me iidlieri eisaousal slippers and sriiid rriairilanaride. in panlcular, claims ilerriixed in para 21 iiylxl, [XIIJ>(XV) or Ihe Slalemenl Of Clalm. m The Plainlm edmerrded Ihallhe Defendant had annanaal oeligalieri as me riiiseand and father \U pay spousal arid child supporl during the marriage and upon separalicn Tria Plalrmfl pleadsd llnai a term in 3 SN kxDFWlCZlUSlnDx\hVXh5« -use s.n.i 1-vlhnrwm be used m yaw has nflnlnaflly MIME dun-mm wa aFluNG WM! neghgenoe and abuss mnarrorai, domestic. and erriononni) occurred in me marriage. [5] The Law Reionn (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 rum) governs rnaners oonoerrrirrgme rneimrenenoe ol spouses. Tne powers omre ocurl. wnrcn is me iarniiy com and rim ine our: court hers, are aiipuiaced under mm LRA: ‘The Court may ordera man to pay rnarniananaa to his who or runner wrfe — (5) Dur/ng ma course orany rnarrrrrronralprooeedrngs: (:2) wrian granring or arroeeouenr ro me gran! ora decree oldivome or judicial separation; (D) If. after a decree deorarrng her preaurnod io oe dead, she rs found to oe e/rye. ' [9] For nrainxenenoe 0! children, the Plarmm in her cialni had sued «or me children's edueauorrai expenses, 593 pmvides. “The court may at any rtme order a man In pay maintenance for me bsnslft ufhis child — (a; Win nas refused or negleoradrsesonao/yxo plovide «or me child,‘ (o) mra has deserted ms wire and ma amid Is in her charge; (c) During me pendenoy o/any nrarnrnonrar procaedmgs; or (d) When makmg or suoseqrranr to me making oran mdsrp/acmg me child In the custody of any olhsrparson," [1u] Thus, m begin wrlh. this oiairrr for reiieis sought VI para 21 (rm), (xii)-|xv)u1Ihe smenreni o1Claim is med in me wrong ooun. The Plamliff in her submissions nad iterated mac her said oiairns were premised on me aueged neglect 0! me oaienriarri in rirmiiirrg his duty as the nusoand. 4 SN kxwwicziusinnxinvxnsw -use a.n.r n-nhnrwm be used m yaw ms annmuu sun. dun-mm via .nuue wnxi breadwinner. and provrderlorlhe larnlly. This coun, a ivil oourl, does not have me power to hear lhe lssues under me pumew ol me larnlly ooun lhal presides over menere under the LRA who can. where and when satisfied, award lo the Plalmllnhe cl.-urns lor spousal suppan and chlld malntenarloe. [111 So as car as we open lsoannemed, in relarioruerhe prayera smlghl {or in pare 21(lHx). (xrmxv) ollhe slalemenl olclalnr are unsuslalnable. whereby should not be med in a crvil eoun. [12] There are two more issues In relallon to me claims lor spousal support and mud mainlenanoe. The F uff oonlended that she ls a Muslim, Hence, even me lanuly mun may not be me oorrecl legal lprum ler her In venulele her grouse: — s3(:l) LRA slales ‘This Act shall nut apply to a Muslim or to anyperson who ls mamed undsr lslarnlc law and no méllriags 0/ one af lhe penres which prolesses lhe relrgron or ls/arn shell oe salemnlsed or registered under lhls Aer; but nolhrng herelrr shall oe construed to prevenr a noun lreiore whlch a peullon for divorce has been made undsl seclron 51 fmm grenling a deoree ororvoroe on the pemrorr or one perry lo a rnerrrege where the olher parry has convened Ia Islam, and such decree shell, norwlthsrandlrrg any other wrmer. law In me eorrlrary, be valld ogornsr the psrfy la lhe marriage who has so converted lo lslorrr. ~ [131 Funhermore, lhe pleadings dld nul close that may are dpmlolled H1 Malaysla. They aremvlenclan clllzens and melr rnernage was reglslersd in me USA. Addlnnnafly. wllh the dlsputed resldendal address ol me 5 SW kxDFW\CZ\US\nDx\hVXh5« None Sum! In-rlhnrwm be used m mm are pflmnullly sun. dun-rlnrrl wa .nune wnxl Defendant. the LRA may not even be apphcable tertne Ftetntnra cam in be tnmated in the Mataystan tanuly courts [14] Be that as tt may, this Court w‘tH mt attow the pmoeedlng ta hear and try the ctaun suught (or In para 2ttt)-txt, (xIx}(xv) ol the statement of Ctatm. It had occurred to this COUI1 to transler (NS case In the farmty court but as apparent Vmm the fins, because the Plainlm Is 3 Muslim. hsr mamage issues. and ctatnt terspeusat suppurt, and child maintenance do nut even run under our ctvtt turis mun. [15] Next, tn pat-a 2100) of the statement of Claim. the Ptatntm claimed tor the amount she had paid fur the busmess mtpenses nf Venture creatton Cate Oowmch had stnee closed down and abenttenect. Her cteirn stated that she had In pay the secretary, aeeauntant. and the euntpanys snutctewn tees. [1 6] This court finds that the Ptatntttt sued the wrong Dam! as tt was the amount owed by venture creatten care Cu and not the Detendant atthuugn tt was ctatnteu that it was the Defendant's business. obteetivery assesstng the taste. the Detendent and nut enter tnte any oentzamuet retattonshtp with ma Flzwttifl tor the payment at ntuney but with the eempany. Tnts court refers to the tnte Ieget pnnctpte 0! separate teget entities that separates mrpar-alien ILS sharenatders/directers/pnamoters (see — Salomon v Salomon A co Lld 11395.99] ALL ER Rep :1). Tnts cletnt against the Defendant, tee. is unsustetnahte a and [17] This Court noted that the Ptatntm nau ats/a contended that the mmpany was a subsvdlsry at Her awn company. Jentth Kenassnt Sfln 6 sn kxDFw\CZtUStnDxtnvxn5« -use Sum ...te.. wm be used m yaw ea mtmnaflly sun; dun-nun! vta .nuns Wm! ahd. Theielore, llie lesl1|u\ion does not lie in ilils sill lhenhe Flainlill had filed here in lhls claim. [1 B] on me submission by me F-leiniiir one: «his Cuun should lm llie eoi-peiele vell In siisiisin his action lor «his claim in pain 2|(xl) ol lhe slalenienl or claim against lhe uelendenl. lhis Court is relueieni to do so as (Ms ls nol the appmpriale Inslanl allcrwed by law, There was no lraud pleaded and the pleadings do nol shim that the company was abused by «he nelendanl In pmcure money lioni ihe Pleiniill. the facts here eie unlike those in any Loony chlou 5 Anal V mm (M; Sdn End 5 ors 1202113 MLJ 922 oiled by the l=laini . [191 This ceiinwill noi oieioelhe eerpoiele lveiiliiie Creation cele Co In enable me purswl against the Dsiandanl fur lhe payments (ha! the Flalnfiff made (0 the company The ease or Mooney 1 Or: v Put, Marwick, Mitchell a co A Anor min) 1 MLJ 37 was clled by lne Delendanl where the decision emphasised the cardinal pnnclple mat a company which IS a legal enliiy should pnnie leeie liilng an acfiun under lls mi name In redress a wrung done In ii, as en analngyln be applicable here when lie argued mat ihe Plalnlm had llleil egeinsl me wrong early {or para 21(xi) DI the Svslemerlt 0! Claim. [20] More iinponeni lo inis Conn‘: mind is the ruling nrl llie power lo sirike am ‘is only eppmpileve in cases which we plain and obvious so that a [udgs can say al mice me: a sialeinenl al claim as it siands in insurcienl, even ifpmved. io enmle the pleinlirr [DI the relleroi which he asks rorrneie Azlan shnli J [as lie llien was) he . 7 sin kxDFWlCZlUSlnDxlhVXh5« -use s.ii.i nnvlhnl will be in... m mm he niiin.iiiy MVM5 dnunvlnnl via .niiiie WM! ‘VI/have Ihs srtusliorl arises, the pleadings and particulars alone shall be corlsideled and all the allegations in it shall be presumed (0 be hue, and it ia only on that assumption that any suitable case can be made for this application; sea Peck y Russell (1923; A FMSLR 32 51 p31 The court camel and indeed is no! smpawsred to look behind the pleadings and particulars it it dlsdoses a reasonable cause of action. So long as the statement 01 daim discloses some ground afacftan, there raot that the plaln!lli‘ls not /lke/y to succeed on I! at the trial is no ground /orl! to be sbuck Dill" [21] Here it ls plain and obvious that the Paintttrs claim lor ussstulxl that she had paid for the company’: expenses carinm he sustained against the Delenderit [22] The third category ol the claim is tor the legal tees the Plaintm had inauned in the said etvtl suit initiated by the Detemlant as prayed tor in para 21(xv‘l) of the statement ol claim. The Plaiiitill did not plead how she had some up with the hguie. Nevertheless, that suit is still on-going and should the ooutt find in her favour, th there. This court rules that this claim is lrivolous and vmtatlous and us at costs can be dealt with unsuslainable It is plainly and obviously unsustainable. [23] The final category at claim soughl is stated in pam 21(xvli) at the statement at claim which are special damages to tie determined by this Court 707 the alleged suflerlrlg and abuses by the Delendanl lhmughoul the so years ol marriage. [24] The supreme court lield in ran Kuan Vlll v sunindrtmani [1955] 2 ML] 22 at p23 held. 1 SN kxDFWiCZiUSinDxihVXh5w -use s.ii.i n-vlhnrwlll be used m yaw has ntwituiily MIME dun-vlnril wa .nuua WM! '/I is to be observed that the law in regard to a alarm for special damages is clear /aw in that it must not only he pleaded our preued Diplack u {as he men was) in //klw u sarnuals clearly expressed the uiaw that: it is P/an /sw - so plain that there appears to be no direct authority, because everyone has accepted it as being the law over the last hundred years — that one can recuver in an action url/y special damage wlircli has been pleaded, and of course, pm:/ad.” [25] upon examination olthe statement ol clatm, thls court hnds that the Platntlli did not plead the specilic abuse in the niantage The laets as authored in the pleading are complaints about muney and the Deleriderits unaucoesslul ventures and ellorts in not making enough for the Pleintttrs needs and to supbcn the iamtly The main contention is a lemily trust and a trust deed which seemed to be the suhject matter ol the other concurrent civil suil The Pteinttll stated that her claim was pursued because she had hrieneed the upkeep ot the marriage, lamily, and chtldrerva education when it should have heen the Delendent to have done so. [26] As such. fur those claims, H13 Plaimiff should verifilale the arguments there. Here. the (ads at a purported abusive marriage to warrant special damages to be awarded were not pleaded by the Plalmifl. In any event, the proper legal avena I0 bring such a Suit would be the lamily court and not here cenolusien [271 The supreme court in tzanaar auild-r (supra) pronounced the prlnaiples tor the court tn the exeroise oi the power to strike out a claim summarily under order 15 Rule 19 Ron. This court oancludes that this is s sin kxDFWlCZlUSlnDxlhVXh5r« -roe s.ri.i In-vlhhrwlll be used m mm he oflmhhllly MIN: dun-vlhril vta hFlt.ING Wflxl an apprupliaie case to exercise me said power |o sinks cm as il can be dearly seen mat the Piainiii-rs cisirn on the lace oi the pleadings is unsustainable It IS otherwise nri abuse nnhe noun prooess. [25] The application Io strike out the Plainms Statement 01 C IS prayer (21) av Eric 7 is hereby allowed wiiri oasis al RM1o,con. DATED 14 DECEMBER 2022 “Twit ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Pleinliil: Klranjrr Kaur T/n Kiranjrt Randhawa a co. For iris Defendant. Slelan Aaron Mai-rrari 7/rr Ann 3. Anna! in SIN kxDFW\CZ\US\nDx\hVxh5« ‘Nata s.r.i nnrihnrwm be used M mm n. mn.u-y sum. m.n.n n. nFiuNG WM!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-12ANCvC-85-03/2022

PERAYU GAVIN ANDREW CLYDE RESPONDEN AGENSI PEKERJAAN HRNET ONE SDN BHD

Upon assessment, this Court concludes that this was a plain and obvious case. The Appellant had no reasonable cause of action. The Appellant’s claim is unsustainable with no prospect of success at trial. There are no errors by the Session Court. This Court comes to the same finding. As such, the appeals are hereby dismissed. Costs of RM8,000 is awarded to the Respondents.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2dc6e673-2a9a-4d7e-9704-517a60c3c6c9&Inline=true

11/12/2023 14:20:24 WA-12ANCvC-85-03/2022 Kand. 25 S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cbGLZoqfk2XBFF6YMPGyQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HA—12mcvc—as—o3/2022 l<and. 25 ,1»: ]4'2C'AA IN THE HIGH couRT OF MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR In THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL APPEAL No: WA-1zANcvc-as-nmuzz a. wA-12ANtwc_ae-as/2022 BETWEEN GAVIN ANDREW cLvnE ....APPELANT (uc Nu: 500105075123) AND AGENSI FEKERJAAN HRNET ONE SDN am: ....REsPoNDEN‘r (Comp. Nu: a1s957.NI) JUDGMENT [1] ms Is an appeaI against the Session Courrs declslons, one for striking um me Appellanfs wm cf Summons and soacemem of C|aIm under Dldel 18 Rule 1§(1)(a)(h)(t1) of Rules of Cour! 2012 (ROG) wilh casts of RMILDDO an the basis lhal (ha Session CDIAFI was not (he W006! forum far «he Appellant‘: cIairrI, and the order Ior summary Iuagmem of IN cbeuwvxzxarrsvmfieyu I -m Sum M... WW be used M mm u. nIWIruIV|Y mm; “Mm. VII muwa VWLII lne Respondents Counlerclaim urlder0rder14 Rpc. As perlne summary ]udgmen|order,l|1e Appellanlwas ordered by lne Session Cam in pay to tire Respondem an amount of RM1 1,214.79 (with 5% inleresl on me said sum from date at judgment 10.3.2022 until full and llnal sememenl) with costs of RM:s,ool7. [21 ‘mo undllpmnd ltd: omre case: (i) Tne Appellant nad worked with the Respondent andlor its related campanies lur 17 years lrprn 200:5: (rr) Upon mandatory retirernenl in July 2o2u at so years out as a trusinm leader. the Respondent wide letter dated 1.1.2u2n uttered a contract oi 1 year tor me same position, pay, scope and rsspnrlslblmy lcantracl olernplpyrnentl which was aepepted by tne Appellant; (lill me Appellant had neld 5 prelerenoe shares In the Reeponoent bought in 2015 lor RM144,s5U; (iv) On 22.10 zuzu the Appellant trad in writing stated that :4o.lu.2u2c was me last day 0| employment; (v) on an.1o,2o2o me Appellant had lefl the ernploymerrt pl tne Respondent: (vi)Tne Respondent mo Serve tne eorrtraciual period upon lsmllrlallon nmiee. SIN cmsilnqnzxarrsvmfieylz I more s.n.r ...rt.r will .. used m mm we nllmnallly MVM5 dnunvlnnl via .nt.ne wnxl [13] ms cpun further finds me: me Resppnaenc was snmled co revwew and assess the Appellanfs perfurmanw. The Respandanl also had the hbedy, upon review, cp suggsc and resolve me type m work thal would best sun nis snnuon and ms abmty. me Is acknomsdgsd in me mnlram whereby in paragraph 3 01 the eanlraci at employment, VI ewdantly mated “WS 575 however, pleased )0 0173! yml a 1—year contract rule 07 which will [)3 reviewed an a yes!/y basis subject to performance. Vuur canbacf appmnflnenk will begin on 9* July 2024: and end on m July 2021. We may Imm to time change the scope OI duties and responsibility that best un‘/rze your strength Im good business vulcvme. “ [14] There is no svidsnce before this own that me Respondent had umlalerauy and premawvely Iermmaled Ihs AppeHanl's employment Gmusafrumlmz/Ippellanl olhaving been treated uncanny omy amounled (0 that The emafls (mm the Respondenl are clearthal it had mnlinuuusly poured eflans Ia assist the Appsflanl to ensure UIBI he could ocnlmue serve ms empmymsnl. [15] Aside vrprn the Appel\an('s own interpretation or evems. men: \s nothing else (0 aninn that anegacipn that he was unilanerzuy and premaunexy terminated. The wrmen responses from me Appellant syn cmauuqnzxarrsvmveyu 11 -use sum nnnhnv M“ be used m mm ue nvVn\ruH|Y MW; dun-mm wa mum pm showed man he was not open In ms Resnondent. [151 This Cnurlfurther considered whelherlhe argumenllhal (he awons by the Respondent amounted lo cons|ruc1ive dwsmlssal of me Appellant. This Court concludes that the conditions are nol fulfilled as NSC and foremost lhere was no breach of ms Dumraci 111 emplaymeni by me Respondent The dscxsion M Bayer (M) Sdn Bhd V Anwxr Abd Rahim {ma} 2 cu 41 a! p52 .s referred to: ‘In my /udgmenl. 7| larder to sucoeed in a claim /07 constructive dlsmrssa/, the employee must pmve to me samscuon 0/ me court [he empluyer is guilty or a breach which goes la Ihs ma! a! the DOHDTCI 071/ the employer has svmoed an inlsnliarl no longer [0 be bound by n 1: Is anly In sltuauon ms! Ills employee is armed to regard the canlrsrt as hzrminated and treat himself as being dismrssed cansmm dismissal was no! mean that an employee can ambmarrca/Iy remvfnale ms contract when his employer acts or behaves unreasonably lowsrris hrm. lmissd, 4 :2 were so, it is dangerous and can lead :9 abuse and Imsemed industrial relations. Thus, 4 rs selfisd law mar me test applicable in a constructive dismissal case is the ‘contract lest" and no! "(ha [551 L7!‘ reasonableness". To claim constructive dismissal, Iaul conditions sw cmaunqnzxarrsvmveyu 11 -um Sum ...m.. WW be used M mm b. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm mus! be /u/iv/led. These condflians are (r) [here must be a breach of contract by me employer; (II) ms mach must be sumcren:/y Important to ,usMy ms ampluyes rssigmng: (in) me emp/ayes musl have m rsapansa In the bleach and not lol any urns: unconnected masons,‘ and {n/) he must not occasion any undue delay in Isrmmafing the contract, otherwise he will be deemed to have waived me breach and agresd :0 very me come: - [171 Furlhermare. m succeed m pmvmg constructive dxsmxssal, me AppeHaru must have gwen sumclent ncnice period «a Ihe Respondent for me Walter in remedy Ihe detect. on the unwary m |ms case, me Appeflanl had terminated lha mnlract by swing on 22.10.2020 thal 30.10.2020 WES his Vast day of employment. and VI was only aller that an 2710 2020015! he had iterated his eomwarnfs. The law laud down in Gov/ndasamy Munuslmy v Industrial Court Mlllysla 5 Anal mm 1-: cu m is recensa [13] As wilh me sassmn coun, this Court alsu observed that (he Appellamma not Vodge any oomplainllc me Dmsclor General «or Indusuial Relations for unvarr d\'smissa\ where the Vndusmal Relauons Act 1957 pmvmes for greaterrehefs than coming to me em: nouns ma decxswon on breach ofnonlvacl ciempbyment where the remedy, wax an. womd be the sw cmaunqnzxarrsvmveyu '3 -ms Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm payment 0! the wages o1 me notice period In «ms case, as it was the Appanam wha had breached me lawn in Clause 5 ov me oomracx of employment m rml sewing 1—munIh notice, he was not entitled to claim wt, what more a back pay of a months [19] Thus Cuun agreaa with me findmgs of the Session cum that mere are no criable issues as In me Raapnndanrs munlemlalm and mm iteomd be delermmsd oi summanly — sank Nagara Malaysia vMnhd Ismail A. Ors 11992] 1 MLJ um [20] This cum amrms Ihe summary judgment by me Ssssmn Conn under Order 14 R012. The Appawam Is to pay the Raspnnaancs Int: 1. month salary aller dsducfing the 5 days annua\ leave in me amoum of RMI1.214.79 wxlh 5% lnlerests frum 1u,a‘2o22 unm run and final samsmsm. The oasis of Rmaoan for the proceedings at me Sassxcn Courl Vs a\so uphe\d Thu Appanamm 5 units af prlfarencn ma s [211 On 29 mum the Appellant had purchased 5-/.. preverenuaw shares \n the Respondent lvom Hfinel Gmup Lwmited and HROns PIE Ltd, companies registered m Smgapore Then upon his mandamry ram-mm, me Appellant on 1.7.2020 executed Co»0wners' Letterwith them and one am cmsunqnzxarrsvmweyu I- 'NnI2 Sum na-nhav WW he used m mm s. nflmnaflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm cnoong Seng Kong. tt was kn governed their shareholdtng retatronanip. As one of me snaranotder Roger Tan had sdtd ms shares on «.7 me. the co-owners Latte! superseded nu errnier agreements. Amongs1 omers, nna uf are terms agreed upon was tnat eacn Ca-Owner etran be subjsci in a right Dfflrsl refusal gmnied by each In lavuur U1 Hfinet GIOLID Ltmiled so WI the event the Appellanl wtshed tn sell any 09 ms preference shares. he snan nrst duar such shares tn HRneI Group Lirnrted for purchase. The eansrdsratron payable was also strputatad, Another lerm agreed K0 was lhsl any disputes was In be subjected to the stngaporean courts. [22] As are evtdence above, on 22.10.2020 the Appellant had zrrfurrnsd tne Respondent that me last day of ernptdymerrt was to be 30 10.2020. Then on 27.10.2020 rte complained man the Respondent had tnrnated the Share Purvhase Agreement and nnpused on mm to sign tna same without that discussing wnln on the terms. [23] The next day on 2a.1o.2n2a the Respondent renrtndea the Appellant that t( was mm wtro trad inniated aonversaflnns about SeHmg hts snarennldtngs and asked when he eoutd reserve the proceeds. Tne dren sate Purchase Agreement was sent to the Appellam at nis request. srn rsarzeenzxarrsmpeye 15 ‘Nata Sum In-nhnv wm re ta... m mm me nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm wa .rtune mm [24] on 29 tu.2o2o the Appellantdisputed that he had asked lor the drall and stated that his queries were not to be misinterpreted as his desire to sell his shareholdings He had requested tor clause 4 to be rerneved. This ceurt hrids that the eonversations point otherwise as he had indeed inquired abclul the peyrnent ol proceeds and the share Purchase Agreement was not imposed erlomed upon the Appellant [25] At the end ol the day, the Appellant had executed the share Purchase Agrserllsnt an 31.10.2020 He expressed dissatisfaction WWI Clause 4 but that had only reiterated the obligations agreed to and contacted in the Cc-Owners‘ Letter. [26] Nonetheless, what is pertinent is that the opmracts were all entered into with HRnel Group Lirnned and HRne\ one Pie Ltd and not the Raspum1enl.ADoclrding|y, the Appellants d ' that the Respondent pays tor the 5% preference shares and dividends cannot be sustained This Dourl finds that the Appellant should and could not have pursued the Respcndsril ior this matter. There is no error with the session Courfs decision lo strike out that the Appellants writ olsunrrnone and statement otciainr under order is ruie19|1)RoC. sin ctststlnqrkzxarrsvwtfieylz 15 -use Snlini Illvlhll will re used m mm we nilnlrullly MIN; dnunvlnril VI] nFluNG Wflxl [271 The trlle legal posilion is as enunolaled ln sanol.-rsulluer Sdn BM 5. 2 Or: v uniledlwalayan Banking corporrllon Ehd[1E9.‘l]4 cl..l Ia! p11: ‘The pnncrples upon wnlen the Court aele in exercising its power under any onne iour llrnbs of am 13 new Rules cl llre Hrgn Coun‘ are well sovlled. /r rs only in plain and obvious eases me: recourse sneulo be nao lo ma summaw prooess under ml: rule...eno lnls summary procedure can only be eoopleo wnen ll can be dearly seen rnal a claim of answer ls In lne face af ll “nhl/l'nusIy unsuslalneble" ..lr cannot be exercraeo by a rnlnule examinatlcl-l ol the documents and leels of the case, ln order zo see wnelher lne parrynas a cause olsction braefenaa The Court muslbe sellslleo rlral (here rs no reasonable cause ol action or me: lne olarms are irlva/ous or l/sxaliaus :1! mar me dslsnces ralsao are nol arguable " [25] upon assessment. this coun concludes man this was a plaln ano ubvlous case. The Appellant nao no reasonable cause ol aouon. The Appellann. clalm is unsusrainable wnn no prospeel or success al (rial more are no ermrs by me Session com. me Cmlrt comes In me same findlrlg. As soon, the appeals are hereby dlsmlssed. slN cmsueqnzxarrsvmfieyu *7 -we Snllbl ...ra.r on he used a my a. ollmrrallly MW; dun-mm vn aFluNG ma [29] Costs av RM8.0D0 ws awarded to me Respurmems. DATED 5 DECEMBER 2022 MM‘) Roz MAWAR ROZNN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For me Appellant‘ Aq/Iah Aprlanto T/n Ra/a S Devan A Van? For me Respondent: Nursabrfna mm" Jami/uddfn T/n Shook Lin 5 Bok sw cmsunqnzxarravmfieyu " um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm nu uumrutn av-n-ploym-m [3] employment. The vwal Ienn of me wmlacl amptoymem daled 1. The essence ov me quarrel Is Mm had hrsadmed me oonlraol M 2020 lhal Is bmdlng on bmn pamss read » -5. Tamlinalvon aIEmpIoym9rIt Tna employment relalronshfp may be Iermmated by arms! pany by giving to me any one rnonrfi‘: notice in wrrlfny or bypayfng a sum equal to one month’: basic salary in /rsu of such novcs. rns Employee may no: oil-ssl any accrued annual leave agama: ma psflod olnollcs except with ma Company's consent Any ranawal nr axtsnsinn of (ma canhacr anal: be at our sale and absolute nfismetlan and in ma absence thereof this Contract shall lapse on ma adore-slated exprry dale. vau acknowledge that you are nor entitled to any secumy of continued ampmymanr and you shall no! he enmvaa to any cf:/m whatsoever against the Company upnn ma Iarlnlnation at expiry anrna canrzacz ' [4] 22.10.2020 was the firs: notice In wrmng nn1.l1e|smunaIlan aflhe mnlraa The ernafl that me Appellant had sent to the Defendant on or amplcymenl on 30.10.2020 Ha did not serve me one nmmn nunoe peflod as bound by me contract ulemploymenl. aw cmsunqnzxarravmweyu I "Nana saw ...n.mn be used m mm .. mxmuuy mm: dun-mm wa mum pm [5] whelner ll was [me indeed, as the Appellanl oonisniled lnal it was ins This coun now scours lnmugn the lasls ln lhis case lo asoenain Respondent lhmugh ils mndud that pieniamisly |emlinated ins ooniiaa of employnienl or ellieiwise Tms wuuld then help lnis coun delomiines whelher me decision in! ins session court to strike on: ins Appellant's claim and gave lndgrrlenl summarily agalnsl the Appsllam loi lne sum ol RM11.2l4.79 being ins amovnl owingiolns Responaenl in lieu oi serving the noiice Denud in clause 5 above oi me contract or employmenl, fladualng ms 5 days annual ieave erlcashmenl. was light based on [acts and our laws his Appallallfs nanllnlion ls] submissions (oi the Appsllanl curllsnded llisl in Augusl 2021 onwards (lhis com finds lnal there was a Iypnglaphlcal error in me Appellsnrs wiillen submissions and the dale ought la nave been my: and noi 2021;, me Rsspomlsni attempted lo remove me Apoellsni via: (a) Reduolion in me Aopellsnrs team members iron. 15 lo 6-7 (mus liniiiing ms Innis Onlafle and capabllilylo gens.-alsine same or nlgnei lnoome Io llis eompany as oeiens, (b) Famed lne Apoellam In piapare a handover lisl M cases/mu, and Ms! o1 clients: sin cmsllnqrkzxarrsvmfiaylz 4 -use Sum Ilnvihll MU be HSQG M mm is. nlimnaflly MIN; dun-mm v.. aFiuNG WM! (c) imposed on the Appellant to undergo a 2"“ handover and exit run ttirougn: (d) Persueded/ioroeo tne Aopollant to become a ireelanoer on an incentive endior oornnileslori trasis wittr no salary given; (e) Gave tire Appellant an ultimatum tnat is wtietner to become tire Respondents treelanuer and/or exit tne company. [7] on 2i .io.2a2o itie Appellant clsinied that the Respondent nad prenratureiy terminated tne contract at employment when it lnslmtfled tne Appellant to nand over ell oornpany items and nxed two exit nrnstnrougti sessions nre Rnpondonrs position [at The Respondent tiao maintained that it dio not tenriinate tne Appellants employment at any material time. At tlie opposite, tne Respondentoiainred ttiat it had at all material timvs. nsd put in ettorts and tried to tind solutions to ensure the Appellant could continue to work in 09 his alleged Su|>par performance. The Respondent submitted on me evidence wnron snowed tliet tne Resparidenit had lned tn resolve tire problem togetirer wrtn tire Appellant rrorri suggestions of dlanqlng ion soopes to varying tne working tiours, amongst clhers. sin asorzoanzxarrsmpero 5 'NnI2 s.ii.i lldlvlhll will re .5... m mm s. nllflinnilly Minis dnunvinril VII nFlLING Wflxl [9] The Respondent highlighted the last that it was the Appellant who had abandoned his duty and left wllholn serving the 1-month rlmloe period. Thus, the Respundehl claimed that it was ehhlled in the 1»munIIl salary in lieu anhe Said notice. The chronology of a is [1 0] This coun examined me evidence unhe chronology al events which are as lollows: 22.10.2020 The Appellant via email ll) the Respondent He slalaa lhal min 2020 was his last day of employment and asked me Respanuenllm back pay ol B-munlhs wages on the premise lhal his employmem was In and on 5.7.2021: ‘I would like to propose la Ills Company in considsl giving me an opliarl m be released from employment by honoring my Orle-Veal Fixed Term Contract {equivalent to 12 month: contract) which runs fmnl 5" July 2020 In 5'" July 2021 via letter M’ amp/aymerlt dated 1-4 July 2029 In WBW ofthe /aflw, and Octobu an, mu being my last day of work as lndlcaled, The Company shall 5 SN cmslluqlkzxarravmfieylz -we s.n.l In-vlhnlwm be flied M mm he nlwlrullly ml. mm. VI] nFluNG Wlhl pay me a sum orRM1mz,8oo which (5 equivalent lo my be/moo siym (9) manfhs fixed leml connect based on my last drawn salary, fogslhal with in. number ofdsys nfmy eemed ennuelleeve as at Oct 39,2020. This paymsrll is in be lnaazad as e galderl handshake payment or gratuity fur ease al accounting. ' 25.10.2020 me Respdndenl veplled via email in me Appellant |ha\ ms email did nol reiieci Iha eseanee ai discussion. Tne Appellenl had adneuiled various options lanne Appellanuo move lmwand, pm as me Appellant had wanted lo slay in nie current mie, the Company will ppminde win that posilion and reminded that ne was to improve and meal his job ska. 2110,2020 SIN cmsllnqrhzxarravmvayd The Apneilanl via email lo lne Respondent rnninleining met lie was unilaleieliy and prematurely leinunaled demanding me mnxended arrears due in mm. 7 we s.n.i In-vihnrwm be used m mm ms ennmun MVMS dun-mm wa .nnne pm The Appellanl informed lnel he would be in me Plainmrs ulfiue on 30.10 2020 In do me nanoover. 25.10.2020 The Respondent via email 10 the Appellant elirmed and cmlflmled that there was no decision to Iemlinate me Appellanvs ernployinenl. The Rsswnderlt also confirmed lnsl its Chairman spoke lo me Appellanl on hls subpar pednmlanoe and dlscussed rssclulinns and the Respanderifs assistance by wimuut even aonlsling his salary The Appellant did nul ubledlu unis i There were no handover meelings carried oul. 29.10.2020 The Respondent via email lo we Appellanfadvisad that nis conducl in abandoning employment despite the Respondsnl iniorniing that it dld not Inland la lemnnale me employment was in hream anne oontlaci M empluymem ll lne Appellant insisted that nis lesl day was 30.10.2020 lnen. he may handm/er all ol lne Respandanfs assets on lhal even dale. sin msllnqrhzxarravmfiayd ' -one s.n.i n-vlhnrwm be flied m mm s. nflnlnnflly mi. mmn wa nrlum mm The Appellant Vla small la lna Respmldenl reileraled lne wmenls M 27 10 202:; and repealed his deC4Sl0l'| ln dedimng the Respondenrs requfitlo continue wlln employment. The Appellanl confirmed lnal nls lasl working day 30.10.2020. [11] wramlsad on me evldence. in la clear Ihal the Appellam had breached clause Sofme corllran afemploymanlaa he had called la serve the required 1 lnanln nnlioe penod As sum. ma Respondent ls enlllled to me 1-month salary ln Ileu onna nnlioe perlod. ln «ms case ms amounl ls RM11214.‘/9 whlch was calculated alcerdaducl-ng me Appellanrs 5 days annual leave [12] Therefore, me Sesslnn Court's flndingslhal flwaslhe Appellanl who had (ermlnaled the aonhalzt ulanlpluylnenlmas nol erroneous. at para 29 ol the ludgmenr “Mahkamah ml mendapall daluzads eksibfl-eksibit yang dikernukakan, bahsws Plafnlifi‘ lelan rrlanalak Iawaran unluk msrlslusksrl paksrjaarl uangan Defender: den Ielah menfngga/kan aw auauaamzxarramweyu 9 -uua Sum! luvlhnrwm be used m mm .. mlmuuy MIN: dun-mm VI] .nunc pm perkh/dmatan balrau dengan Delendan dengan ma/slakkan /awarannya pada 30.10.2020 (anpa memenul-u tampon pslkhhimstan yang drtslspksn dlbswan konuak lsmla razap dsngan Dsfsndan. Daram ha! mi, Mahkamah ini /uga msrldapafi bahawa Plainm hdak menafikan balvawa beliau za/an memakkan ,awarannya, narmm Plsimif cubs menya/ahkan Deiendan yang drktmskan re/ah mengembfl findadkan-I/ndakan unluk me/naksa Plainrr’/' melelakkan iawalannya. P/a/mi! /uga msngakul bshawa Delendan max ads mengerusrkan not/s psnamalan lsmsdap bahau. Mahkamah berpsndapat, apabr/B Plainlil‘ dengan sukalela meninggalkan psrkhrdmalannya ssbe/um tame! rsmpnh, ranpa memberv‘ /vofis sazu bu/an atau Q51!‘ satu bu/an sebsgar gann kepada Dsfsndan sabagarmana yang drtelspkan dalam Krausa 5 krmlrak terms map Plamm, maka Phiinflf Iisda asaa unruk msnunml gajr bsgrbakr zampon perkhidmatan beliau Knnfraklslma [slap mnalan dipersellllut darv unandarangam oleh P/amm, maka P/amm adalah renkav dsngan syamt-syarat komrak Ierma map reuazm. Sshubungsn dsngsn rm, Mahksmah mr bsrpandangan bahawa Plamm Isiah msmungkIri.sya:a1—\q/era! kanlrak Dalian ' aw amsuuqmxarravmweyu W -ma saw n-nhnrwm be used a mm a. nrW\ruH|:I mm: dun-mm VI] .mm mm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-24NCvC-898-03/2023

PEMOHON Astana Setia & Euro Saga Sdn Bhd RESPONDEN 1. ) Pritam Singh A/L Harchand 2. ) Kamal Bin Che Soh 3. ) Mohd Rusydi Bin Jamaluddin 4. ) Jamaluddin Bin Ngah Zainon 5. ) Ahmad Daniel Bin Jamaluddin 6. ) Muhammad Idris Bin Mohd Nor 7. ) Iskandar Affizzul Khan Bin Sikender Azam Khan 8. ) Palhammah A/P Mira 9. ) Salawtin Bin Pariakutty 10. ) Abd Lah @ Abdul Latif Bin Yaziz @ Yazid11. ) Mazliwati Binti Abdul Latif1 2. ) Salmah Binti Saat1 3. ) Norisah Binti Ibrahim1 4. ) Fahmi Bin Sjafri1 5. ) Muhammad Arif Bin Shafei1 6. ) Nasir Bin Abdul Rahman1 7. ) Muhammad Zulfaidhi Bin Nasir1 8. ) Muhammad Zulhilmi Bin Nasir1 9. ) Ismail Bin Abas20. ) Muhammad Amirul Bin Suaib21. ) Rohaiza Isma Binti Ismail2 2. ) Zamali Bin Manaf2 3. ) Hamzi Amni Bin Zamali2 4. ) Nazrul Izwan Zamali2 5. ) Abdullah Bin Idris2 6. ) Suhaimi Bin Muhammad2 7. ) Mohamed Shafik Bin Abdul Hamid2 8. ) Mohd Nor Bin Ibrahim2 9. ) Mohamad Harulhisyam Bin Ab Halim30. ) Muhammad Harish Bin Mohd Nor31. ) Mohammad Nor Bin Pariakutty3 2. ) Nor Al Fansol Soldain Bin Nordin3 3. ) Muhamad Zulhairi Bin Nasir3 4. ) Mohd Norrazman Bin Razali3 5. ) Nur Syamila Binti Mohd Sofri3 6. ) Nur Azleen Binti Mohd Razeip

The Defendants pay the Plaintiff damages in the event of non-compliance with this Court’s Order, to be assessed by this court. Costs of RM2,000 to be paid by each Defendant to the Plaintiff, which this Court opined as fair and reasonable taking into the trouble and much expenses incurred by the Plaintiff.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=bd4bef21-931f-4245-857f-0e2a2a4afddf&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24NCvC-898-03/2023 BETWEEN ASTANA SETIA & EURO SAGA SDN BHD (COMPANY No: 200201027772 (595435-T) … PLAINTIFF AND 1. PRITAM SINGH A/L HARCHAND SINGH (NRIC No: 610714-10-5997) (Didakwa secara peribadi dan sebagai pengerusi dan pemegang jawatan Persatuan Penduduk Kampung Pinang Sektor C Sungai Besi Kuala Lumpur [No. Pendaftaran PPM-002-14-01062022]) 2. KAMAL BIN CHE SOH (NRIC No: 610115-03-5739) 3. MOHD RUSYDI BIN JAMALUDDIN (NRIC No: 901123-09-5037) 11/12/2023 14:43:34 WA-24NCvC-898-03/2023 Kand. 28 S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 4. Jamaluddin Bin Ngah Zainon (NRIC No: 650309-08-6573) 5. Ahmad Daniel Bin Jamaluddin (NRIC No: 920518-07-5077) 6. Muhammad Idris Bin Mohd Nor (NRIC No: 930429-08-6339) 7. Iskandar Affizzul Khan Bin Sikender Azam Khan (NRIC No: 971126-14-6075) 8. Palhammah A/P Mira (NRIC No: 551127-10-5944) 9. Salawtin Bin Pariakutty (NRIC No: 670123-10-6351) 10. Abd Lah @ Abdul Latif Bin Yaziz @ Yazid (NRIC No: 471101-05-5029) S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 11. Mazliwati Binti Abdul Latif (NRIC No: 780921-10-5588) 12. Salmah Binti Saat (NRIC No: 420718-04-5090) 13. Norisah Binti Ibrahim (NRIC No: 640823-04-5118) 14. Fahmi Bin Sjafri (NRIC No: 850212-14-5561) 15. Muhammad Arif Bin Shafei (NRIC No: 960221-01-5459) 16. Nasir Bin Abdul Rahman (NRIC No: 650910-08-6881) 17. Muhammad Zulfaidhi Bin Nasir (NRIC No: 960201-10-5529) S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 18. Muhammad Zulhilmi Bin Nasir [NRIC No: 890920-08-5711) 19. Ismail Bin Abas (NRIC No: 590913-06-5291) 20. Muhammad Amirul Bin Suaib (NRIC No: 880904-02-5429) 21. Rohaiza Isma Binti Ismail (NRIC No: 840711-13-5828) 22. Zamali Bin Manaf (NRIC No: 550613-05-5263) 23. Hamzi Amni Bin Zamali (NRIC No: 860505-14-5089) 24. Nazrul Izwan Zamali (NRIC No: 980611-14-6313) S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 25. Abdullah Bin Idris (NRIC No: 490329-04-5015) 26. Suhaimi Bin Muhammad (NRIC No: 740202-03-6057) 27. Mohamed Shafik Bin Abdul Hamid (NRIC No: 860204-56-5063) 28. Mohd Nor Bin Ibrahim (NRIC No: 621013-04-5657) 29. Mohamad Harulhisyam Bin Ab Halim (NRIC No: 960722-03-5861) 30. Muhammad Harish Bin Mohd Nor (NRIC No: 920410-04-5335) 31. Mohammad Nor Bin Pariakutty (NRIC No: 691219-10-5591) S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 32. Nor Al Fansol Soldain Bin Nordin (NRIC No: 720325-06-5597) 33. Muhamad Zulhairi Bin Nasir (NRIC No: 920902-14-6319) 34. Mohd Norrazman Bin Razali (NRIC No: 820426-03-5985) 35. Nur Syamila Binti Mohd Sofri (NRIC No: 971210-10-5428) 36. Nur Azleen Binti Mohd Razeip (NRIC No: 900209-14-6558) …. DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT The relief sought by the Plaintiff [1] Few matters command as much reverence and meticulous scrutiny as the adjudication of land ownership and the pursuit of vacant possession through summary procedures. The sanctity of land rights demands the utmost care and discernment from this Court. With justice at the forefront, this Court stand poised at the precipice of conflicting interests: the S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 irrefutable claims of rightful ownership pitted against the steadfast assertions for possession. [2] The Plaintiff’s action vide this Originating Summons (OS) was to recover the possession of its property. The Plaintiff’s main prayer was to re-possess a parcel of its land held under Lot 103675 (previously known as HS (D) 120762, PT 50001) Mukim Petaling, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan and that the Defendants who are the Occupiers, vacate the said land and deliver the vacant possession thereof. This Court’s decision [3] The solemnity of deciding this matter was not bereft of judicial precedents that bound this Court. Upon a cautious deliberation, this Plaintiff’s claim was allowed, and this Court granted all the prayers prayed for. The Defendants were ordered to vacate the land and deliver vacant possession thereof. Preliminary Objection [4] The Defendants raised a preliminary objection whereby the OS against the First Defendant was as an individual and also in his capacity as Chairman and office-bearer of the Persatuan Penduduk Kampung Pinang Sektor C Sungai Besi Kuala Lumpur (the "Association") is defective. It was argued that the Association is neither an individual nor a person occupying the said land. Therefore, the Defendants submitted that the Association should not have been made a party in the legal suit. In essence, the Defendants argued that it is legally improper to sue the S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Association under an Order 89 RoC proceedings, as the Association itself does not physically occupy the land in question. [5] This Court in adjudicating this OS did not belabour much on this preliminary objection as the First Defendant was cited in his personal capacity, and not just in his capacity as chairman and office bearer of the Association. This Court had observed from the reading of the affidavits that the First Defendant had corresponded with the Plaintiff in his capacity as Chairman of the Association. The Association’s registered address was on the land. See precedents of Order 89 RoC suits against associations – Remoc Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd Lwn Persatuan Penganut Dewa Sri Meenatchi Sockalingeswarar [2019] 1 LNS 1968, Triple H Auto Oarts Sdn Bhd v Persatuan Penganut OM Sri Maha Kakum Madurai Veeran Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2020] 1 LNS 1548 and Lim Lip Eng v Ong Ka Chuan [2022] 4 MLJ 454. [6] Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the Defendants was not accepted to dismiss this application by the Plaintiff. The background facts [7] The Plaintiff, a property developer is the registered proprietor of the land in question. The land was alienated to the Plaintiff under s76 National Land Code (NLC) on 14.8.2018 when the Plaintiff obtained the issue document of title for the land. [8] The Plaintiff intends to develop the land into a mixed development known as Lake Side Homes. It was amid obtaining approval of development order for the project. S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [9] The Defendants occupy an area on the land known as Kampung Pinang Sektor C as identified by the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) pursuant to a census performed by them in February 2022. DBKL identified 55 illegal structures that consisted of 33 residential structures and 22 non-residential structures. The Defendants’ occupation of the land was without the license, consent, or approval of the Plaintiff. [10] The First Defendant is currently the president of the resident’s association (the Association) that was registered on 1.6.2022. [11] On 25.8.2022, the Plaintiff issued notices demanding the defendants to vacate the land within three months. However, the Defendants refused to vacate the land. That resulted in this OS which was filed by the Plaintiff on 13.3.2023 that sought for various orders including recovery of vacant possession of the land from the Defendants. The defence raised by the Defendants [12] The First Defendant alleged that some of the Defendants' ancestors have been occupying the land since 1885 with permission of previous landowners. It was additionally contended that they have applied for temporary occupancy licenses over parts of the land. The Defendants also alleged that DBKL had approved repairs of houses of some of the defendants. Order 89 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC) [13] The premise of the Plaintiff’s suit was Order 89 RoC that provides: S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 “Where a person claims possession of land which he alleges is occupied solely by a person or persons (not being a tenant or tenants holding over the termination of the tenancy) who entered into or remained in occupation without his license or consent or that of any predecessor in title of his, this proceedings may be brought by originating summons in accordance with the provisions of this Order.” [14] That reference to persons who occupy or settle on land or property without legal ownership, permission or right to do in legal terms often uses the reference of "squatters" (see Tjia Swan Nio v Ng Nyuk Moi & Ors [1992] 2 MLJ 666). In Malaysia, the concept of adverse possession is not recognised (refer to Sidek bin Haji Mohamad v Kerajaan Negeri Perak [1982] 1 MLJ 313). Hence, Order 89 RoC provides the lawful solution to evict squatters by way of summary proceedings. [15] Based on the legal authorities, the legal position of squatters under Order 89 RoC is quite straightforward and can be summarized as follows: 1. Squatters have no legal or equitable rights to remain on land that belongs to the registered proprietor. They can be summarily evicted under Order 89 (see Tetuan Tokoyaki Property Sdn Bhd v Sam Kok Sang [2001] 1 MLJ 585). 2. The fundamental issue is whether the squatters entered and remained on the land without license or consent of the registered proprietor or predecessor in title (refer to Bohari S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 Bin Taib v Pengarah Tanah Galian Selangor [1991] 1 MLJ 343). 3. To oppose the matter being adjudicated summarily, the burden was on the squatters to show that there were triable issues (refer to Chiu Wing Wa & Ors v Ong Beng Cheng [1994] 1 MLJ 89). So, if the squatters claim that they had licence of consent to occupy the land, the burden of proof is on them as mere occupation itself does not amount to license or consent (see K Elizabeth Sumana De Silva v Amir Singh [2013] 9 MLJ 625). 4. Having had amenities e.g. water/electricity provided for by the authorities does not amount to consent for the squatters’ occupation of the land (refer to Lee Loy v Poh Kam Sang & Anor [2018] 3 MLJ 240). 5. Where triable issues arise e.g. regarding license/consent or ownership, the matter cannot be dealt with summarily under Order 89 RoC and should proceed to a full trial (refer to Chiu Wing Wa (supra)). No triable issue [16] It could not be disputed that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the land. The Plaintiff is conferred indefeasible title and right over the land – s340 NLC. Uncontested too was the fact that the Plaintiff had not given any license, consent or approval to the Defendants to occupy the S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 land. As such, they have no rights to remain on the Plaintiff’s registered land. [17] In their attempts to show the exception of Order 89 RoC, the Defendants contended that they have remained in occupation of the land with the consent of the predecessor in title of the land and produced a temporary occupation license (TOL) issued by the Land Office. The First Defendant averred that some of the Defendants' ancestors had occupied the land since 1885 with permission of previous landowners, long before the Plaintiff had purchased the land and became the registered proprietor. [18] The TOL which the First Defendant relied on to corroborate his contention however was dated 6.11.1990. The TOL had allowed or rather, given licence to the late First Defendant’s mother to stay on the land until 31.12.1990 with the payment of RM30. There is no evidence of any other form of licence or consent for the First Defendant’s mother or him to remain on the land. The late First Defendant’s mother and in this case even the First Defendant cannot remain or continue to occupy the land from 1.1.1991 onwards when the TOL has expired. The TOL in any event was granted to the late First Defendant’s mother who had since passed away. See Lee Toon Hian v Kok Siew Tong & Ors [2019] MLJU 81. [19] The First Defendant’s application in 1999 for a TOL cannot be equated to having acquired such licence to lawfully remain on the land. It is this Court’s considered view that not having received any rejected to the application could also not be equated as having permission. The position must surely be that unless and until expressed consent and/or licence was given, no one can take for granted that it was lawful to remain on the land which was not theirs. See Ng Swee Chiow v Tan Siow Yoke S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 & Ors [2011] MLJU 919 and Cahaya Ideal (M) Sdn Bhd v Orang-Orang yang mengenali diri sebagai Ponga (Poongavanam a/l Vadivelu) & Ors [1999] MLJU 125. [20] The Defendants argued that the Land Office had knowledge of the Defendants’ occupation of the land. That still did not amount to taking away the Plaintiff’s indefeasible title, rights and benefits of the land, as its registered proprietor. The Defendants could still not presume that they had permission and consent to occupy the land, hence the application to apply for the TOL by the First Defendant. [21] Prior to alienation of the land when it was then sold to the Plaintiff, the land was state land. However, the Defendants were not allowed to claim adverse possession against the State as provided by s48 NLC. [22] The Defendants had stated that DBKL had approved repairs and/or renovations to some of the Defendants’ houses; in fact, the reference was ‘rumah setinggan’ (squatter houses). Adversely to the Defendants, the fact that they were squatters were further confirmed in this instance – see UDA Sentosa Sdn Bhd v Jonathan a/l Sinnapan & Ors [2022] 7 MLJ 923. [23] They had also the provision of water and electricity supplied to them. The contention that it amounted to licence to occupy the land was untenable as the DBKL and the regulators that supply the amnesties are not the owner (nor predecessor for that matter) of the land. They could not grant any licence or permission to occupy the land. It could further not be construed as implied consent from the Plaintiff or the State as predecessor. See Dzulfi bin Juhalni v Suriani bt Mohd Mukaram [2019] S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 MLJU 1765, Chong Wooi Leong & Ors v Lebbey Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 MLJ 644, Premier Supreme Sdn Bhd Lwn Ooi Chee Wah & Satu Lagi [2017] 1 LNS 1923, distinguished Tekad Urus Sdn Bhd (as the Attorney for KCSB Konsertium Sdn Bhd v Penduduk yang Menduduki Kawasan yang dipanggil Desa Perwira dan Lain-Lain [2004] 2 MLJ 306. [24] The Defendant cited some authorities which facts were clearly distinguishable to the ones featured here in this case. The Defendants had not shown that there was an agreement for a transfer of interest with the State, which was the predecessor, nor that the Plaintiff had express knowledge thereof. The Defendants had not shown that they remained in occupation on the land with consent by virtue of an alienation already approved prior to the expiry of the licence (which was not even granted). Distinguished Norimah Mohamed & Ors v Bukit Lenang Development Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2000] 3 CLJ 133, Bohari bin Taib & Ors v Pengarah Tanah Galian Selangor [1991] 1 CLJ 647 and Shaheen Abu Bakar v Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor [1999] 1 CLJ 74. Refer to Lee Loy & Ors (supra). [25] The Defendants additionally contended that this matter ought not to be dealt with summarily under Order 89 RoC as the Association was formed and registered with the Registry of Societies (RoS). The Association which was only established recently on 1.6.2022, after DBKL had carried out the census on the land. The RoS was not in any position to grant licence or permission for the Defendants to occupy the land. It was not the scope or jurisdiction of the RoS powers to grant such licences. This Court found the Defendants’ arguments defeated – this was not a triable issue. S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [26] Further, it was the Defendants’ grouse that the Plaintiff had failed to disclose the documents or minutes of meeting between the Plaintiff and DBKL. The document(s) in question was not referred to at all in the Plaintiff’s OS or its affidavit in support. The Plaintiff was not required to produce it (Order 24 Rule 10 RoC 2012). This Court found that the Plaintiff had produced all necessary documents to support its claim. There was also no evidence of any suppression of evidence by the Plaintiff. The complaint itself did not birth a triable issue. [27] Premised on the above findings, there were no issues to be tried that warranted a full trial instead of disposing this OS summarily at this juncture under Order 89 RoC. In the interests of expediency and justice, this Court could decide on this matter vide this OS. [28] Undoubtedly triable issues are not exhaustive – the term is wide and what constitutes triable issues in each case varies. This Court did not find any here. This Court was of the considered view that the Plaintiff’s prayers can be ordered vide this OS summarily under Order 89 RoC. This Court’s Order [29] The Plaintiff’s OS is allowed. This Court orders that: (a) The Plaintiff is granted possession of the land; (b) The Defendants are to vacate the land dan deliver the vacant possession of the land to the Plaintiff within three months from the date of this judgment. The Plaintiff’s prayers stipulated a time period of two months but this Court was minded that it S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 was fairer and more reasonable to grant time of three months instead; (c) Failure of the Defendants to comply with the order to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the land – (i) The Plaintiff can enter the land and enter the land and vacate the land by any means including using reasonable force and the Plaintiff is not responsible for any damage to property that does not belong to the Plaintiff on the land or any loss on the part of the Defendants and all others occupying the land; (ii) The Plaintiff is given the assistance of the court bailiffs and/or the Royal Malaysian Police if necessary, to obtain vacant possession of the land; (iii) The local authority namely DBKL, upon payment of a reasonable service cost charges by the Plaintiff, is ordered to demolish, demolish, remove and move all buildings, structures, fittings and equipment that have been erected or built by the Defendants and/or all others occupying the land without the Plaintiff’s permission, for the Plaintiff to obtain vacant possession of the land; and (iv) The utility companies/regulators are to cut off the supply/provision of the amenities to the land; (d) The Defendants and or other occupying the land or other claimants are prohibited from lodging private caveats onto the title of the land from the date of this OS; S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 (e) The Defendants pay the Plaintiff damages in the event of non- compliance with this Court’s Order, to be assessed by this court; (f) Costs of RM2,000 to be paid by each Defendant to the Plaintiff, which this Court opined as fair and reasonable taking into the trouble and much expenses incurred by the Plaintiff. DATED 5 DECEMBER 2023 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Plaintiff: Ho Ai Ting together with Preveena Ravindra Kumar and Man Weng Keat T/n Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill For the Defendants: Navin Punj, Manajoth Singh together with Reenajit Kaur Golen and Chow Jia Jie T/n Gabriel Susayan & Partners S/N Ie9LvRTRUKFfw4qKkr93w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-11BNCvC-42-06/2022

PERAYU LEE YIN LING RESPONDEN RATAH A/P SIVASUBRAMANIAM

The Magistrate’s order as to the interest on the special damages is affirmed – 2.5% per annum on the figure of RM5,228.45 from 3.2.2019 to 10.6.2022. This Court upholds the award of the 5% interest per annum on the judgment sum from 10.6.2022 until full and final settlement. The cost of litigation awarded by the Magistrate to the Appellant - RM587 is also affirmed.[24] Nominal costs of RM1,000 is awarded to the Plaintiff.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0427eede-6b1e-441c-9179-e3bb85e71e38&Inline=true

11/12/2023 10:29:21 WA-11BNCvC-42-06/2022 Kand. 16 S/N 3u4nBB5rHESReeO7heceOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3u4nBB5rHESReeO7heceOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3u4nBB5rHESReeO7heceOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3u4nBB5rHESReeO7heceOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3u4nBB5rHESReeO7heceOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3u4nBB5rHESReeO7heceOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 3u4nBB5rHESReeO7heceOA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—11mIcvc—a2—o6/2022 Kand. 16 11/12/2023 10:29-21 IN TNE men coun IN MALAVA A1 KUALA LUMPUR IN ms rzuznm rsnnrronv, MALAYSIA CIVIL APPEAL N0;WA-1II!NCvC42-D6I2n12 BEVWEEN LEE V»: min (NRIC no: a5oa11-4295225) . . AFFELLAN1 nunm up swuuannunuuam (NRIC No: 691105055376) RESFONDENY GROUNDS or JUDGMENY m Resulting lmm the mad lramc aeaaenz, me Maglsllme decided mm the pamarn are equally Name The costs aqmmcea by Ina Magistrate warn 12:) Cost: oi car rupaiv In me nommal zrnounl a1 RM200 by me Runonaem la the Aoneuanc, sw Juanaasmasfieuavnsman -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm (:2) Costs :1! km at usage uflha car of RM24o by one Raeponaenl m the Aopellanl: aw (c) Costs 04‘ aaluslars mpofl cl‘ mass 56. [2] The Respondent was oraenaa in pay 50% o1 me naval costs above wnmn ammm|ed In RM55l.7a lnvaleal ml 2.5% per annum to be palu by lne lzaspmaenl on me uld sum, la be calwlalld lrum IM dale cl me accident on 3 2 mm In Illa dab cl me luagmenl on 10.5 2022 A lunhnr 5-1. per annum lnlemsl lo becalculahod llom ma aalaonne Judamurli unml lull and final slalllamenl Tha lusponuanl was also omerud Io pay ml: 01 RM:.na6 In me Appallanl YM II [3] The Appallam gmuss ls lhal although the Magmzala had found me pames lo be equally llama, she naa only awamsa a nomlnal damage ol RMZUD in! ma lx1s| of rqmlr on me basis out she has placed a high hurdan <71 procl when he livll case had nnly roqulrad ma alarldzrd nl bnlame o1 prubebllilles [4] ll was Ihu xubmlulanx ol me App-ellanl «ml even lllha Maalscme was right in her concluslon ml me pamoa ware equally ll: be blame, me was of renail should have been nu! ollhe lull umourlk dallrled and M1 just a nominal RMZDO m Jmnaafimasfieauvnemun “Nair s.n.l nuvlhnrwlll .. LAIQ4 m yaw he nflnlnallly Mlhln mm. VII aFluNG ml T coun mg [51 ms calm finds ml Ihere I5 ememe |a snowman on a balance of pmha Les, bath me panizs are equally \Iab4e. [5] However, the cam. should aha be bums equally. Tm; com '5 sallsm on a balance al pmlaamlllus lnal Ihe eosl ol repalr is RM9,554.5s. rn As such me appeal 1: allow: us wlhaaxlulioilhe quanlum which Is now RM1l),45a as: alwnlu. man ma games are oqullly llabla lur. Thus, ma Delsndanl musl pay me laalnlm nall ol me said fiuuru whlch .. RMSJZB 45 Llal: m [5] svloam-,a show lhat an zcnldenl occurred on a 2.2019 amund 12 Oflvm at Jslan soon 1: one-way -lml mm Darklng spacea on both slaenwnicn lnvalved lm Apuell-nrx cerbearlng licence ph|aWTR one dnvan by one Onfi Chun How(PW1)and me Respondlntvmowaa drlvlrvn her own car won ml [91 The collision ncwned when we nespunasnrs car revusea from rm pa space on lr»ele1l—>-and we at Jalan Scam -nu: me Appellanfs csrwmch wasdrivlrvg along Jalan Soon we lenlmm Ilghls am lender of me Appalinfs oar wars damaged whilst ms Resporldenfs car was am Juanasfimasweuavneman “Nair Sum! ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm danled on at me back on me Hghl-hand side. me bumper and unaemeam me brake lights [to] The Planners case was than me Devanpanrs reverse «rem me parkmg space was sudden‘ wlmoul unmcaapr ngma on The Decanaanu mnlended me: me Appellanfs cam--on was driven an we pamng space In zvmd another car on me ngnmam we oualan Soon wn-an was mm gamng em aims carpark Im nu ma Magulrnlu had found am (here was nnsmllchnt evidence Io mannina ma naumy at cm amldsnl n was mm lha| span «mm ma damiuas obtained lry mm. cars. mare was nmrnng else In assm her up wnclude mm» of me version was more pmuama. ma Magiauaca fuund that me pen.» repon rendered no swsunee and me fact met me mvesbgahng omcsr was not called meant man man there was no version mum was more probable man me other. She mus hem mat mm 0! ma pamas were equally name [12] ms com ma Inrough ma Anon! Rama: and found ma| male was sumuam wvaonoa to oammma on a ballnce o1 probnoililm me huhulny. ‘nu cam vaum lhal SP1 who drew me Appeuanrs cur pommg (rum behind shank! have been mom cmml and an-gum. As mu line of item was ms‘ he oould have been more aware‘ even unmg :1 In: space oibatwsen mm per ham and so km per hour, to avowd bangmg inlo Ihe Deranpamwno had reversed pm nllhe parking lot [131 The Decenaam could have psen mare nunmul by usng her indicator lnghlx up gws wammg and notice mm she mnemea la poms am at me parking 1m Ammugn ha! y may have baen suahnnaly at the me Mme m Juanasfimasfieuavneman «ma saw nmhnrwm .. med w my n. nVW‘nlWY mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-NM aasn as she damned, hassd an me damages susvamud Dry pom curs, lhrs Cowl fmmd Ihal mos! pmbsmy her carwas out dune parking space when are epllrsm winr Ihe Appeuanrs car happened. [u] ms Conn finds man a detetmmalwon can be made wnhool me |esmrK>ny Mme mvesugatmg oificsr as mm mnsernvpwed m meaccldsnt had |as\ifi9d, and mama on me damage M bmn ears were suduped. Yhe noHce Iepcfls lodged by both pames served In mrraemara lhev mpecriue vsrsmn: [151 Yhi: Cuun mnduda: mm new wave mspunsima fix me apmdam equauy. As such, liability rs -quany Ippuniurvsd. ll merslnra inflows that may pom mus! rsspecriwely be ncnwnlable tor me ports wmrred rp rsparr |he cars equally grranmm [161 The Magistrate canzzludad Inst ms Avpellann had um msmarged rm human olproolmll she had pard me costs avrepav M rm vahlda in ma sum M RM955433 She had crarmed lhalsha had psrd Ihaamounl in Iwo inslalmnnls — In mmal RMSDOD and me ballnce upon wmplafion 01 reparrworts. sm was not Iron: me finance depmmam pm: wpmhap but had 1 fed man u war mar pracape normally rp awepl a one-ofl payment ol which a reoewpt was rssuad. An rnvuica was rendered but no rwelm was. [171 F'W2 rrsd porrmrnsd In cnssexammaupn mat the cost nvreparrwas ma same as me esnmanan cl me adjusters — RMe,554 :43. m ms «ow exarmnanen rod. he confirmed that me Plalnlm had pa\d allhough Inue 5 m Juanaasfiruasfieauvnepaun «we. saw nmhnrwm e. LAIQ4 w my r... nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl VII nF\uNG em was no rsoevm pmauoed The Plalnnfl ma relurrad to ma names as recewvi. PW4 had a|so confirmed the Flam: [18] On a baranou av pmbabnmea ems Courl finds that me Pfainllfi ad seme ma lull payment [or me repairs 0! ha! car. He! cav would no| be naeasau lrom me wamsnov olhervnse Evevw maugn mere was ewaanoe man me novmal practice waa to acoep| a one-ofl paymam, «ma coun «ms 1: mos! probabka max me on was smiled rum ware run more ar runner demand: Many ounaumnng mm slalsd m ma Invoice. A racaIp| was not pmdooed mu ma Invmcl wax and ma posmun at all ma Pnaumnra wnnassos was lha| she had paid me sad east ampair [191 Thetelore. this Coun alluws me appeax no me sxlunl mat ma mmmax 0051 M RMZDO adjudicated by me Magmrsn ' sel aside and subsmuled with me actual msmrrepaws wmch vs:-RM9554 33. The sum ism be habte by Dom pames equaHy [20] This Cowl agrees Inn! me we! ov loss of usage at me car is calculated an RMJO par aay as per me Bank Negarn Malaya]: gumanne The oacmon by ma Magislnla man It Imoumnd |n mzw — mo Pnamuvra car was in ma wofluhop luv mghl says, a afirmed Bom pamsa man be name In this equalry [21] We costs urme adjustnfi reporl at RM5€3.§6 u also affirmed -of which is also no be borne equauy by mm names Then is no evidence or any mhercosls Inmrred lullawmg ma amidznl m 3-mnasfiruasfiaaavnaman «ma am ...m.mm a. LAIQ4 a may he mm-y am. dnuumnl VII arwum v-max [22] Therelnre, me tmal amnum Is now RMIOA56.8D n1 winch the Dolendant must pay the Plaxnflf nan at the sad liqure wfuch Is RM5,225.45 [231 we Magis1ra|e‘s am as |c me Intzerasl on me special damages us amrmed - 2.5% perannum an the figure at RM5‘228.45 (mm 3.2 2019 km 10.6.2022. ms com upholds ma awam mm 5%. lmerssl perannum on ma lwgmenl mm lrom 10.0.2022 unlll mu and Anal sa||\en\em the cost av migauon awama by the Mlywslrata In lha Awcllznl - amsav .5 aVso mum. [zq Mammal costs or RM1 ‘coo is awarded In um Plammv. nnsn 12 MAV 202: R02 MAWAR ROZNN .lUD\C\AL COMMISSNONER HIGH COURT IN MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR Fa! me Pfainlm Gumul Smgh 5/1 Swarm Slngn T/n pm .4 Go For the Dafandanls Jagmn Jayn rm Vtknos Rama A Ca. m Jmnasfimasfieuavneman mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-22NCvC-166-03/2022

PLAINTIF Affida Binti Ahmad (Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Dan Estet Si Mati Che Mariah Binti Mohd Tahir) DEFENDAN 1. ) SAADIAH BINTI ALI 2. ) SUKUR BIN ALI 3. ) YUSUF BIN ALI 4. ) MANA-MANA ORANG YANG MENGHUNI SECARA HARAM TANAH YANG DIPEGANG BAWAH HAKMILIK HSM 5339 PT 8540 MUKIM BATU DAERAH KUALA LUMPUR WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR

Nominal damages of RM5,000. Interest of 5% per annum on the sum from the date of this judgment until full and final settlement. Costs of RM70,000 to be paid forthwith by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=dcd452ae-f1da-411b-9b7a-b4610211d53b&Inline=true

19/12/2023 10:35:04 WA-22NCvC-166-03/2022 Kand. 107 S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N rlLU3NrxG0GberRhAhHVOw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—22m:vc—15s—o3/2022 Kand. 107 19/12/2023 10:35-04 IN YHE man BOURY IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMFUR IN mE FEDERAL TERRIYORV MALAYSIA CIVIL cAsE NO: wA-zzucvc-1oe—a3I2n22 BETWEEN AFFIDA awn AHMAD (NRIC Nu:H3I1B10-01-5232) ....F|.AlNTIFF (PENTADBIR HARYA PUSAKA DAN ESTET SI MAYI CHE MARIAN sum moan main) 1. SAADIAH awn MDHD Au 2. suKuR am MOHD Au 3. Mario vusor am MOND Au 4. MANAMANA orums VANG NIENGHIJNI uum YANG DIPEGANG BAWAH HAKMILIK HS}! 5339 VT 3540 MUKIM BATH, DAERAH KUALA LUMPUR, WILAYAH FERSEKUTUAN KUAJA LUMPUR DEFENDANYS GROUNDS or JUDGIIENI lnwodu [11 Adwdmiling cases mvmvmg daemon: on whether md\vmua\s gm «a stay on ‘and (hey conmer mew homes I5 always chaHangvng due m vanuus rezsuns The smononar vmvact, Ihe semen and economic cams, and the mmmunmy tmpucahons m name same Nevenhevess. this Cnun must snsuru lha| me raw serves to prolsfl pmpsny nghls m nmmens..»:mwow mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [21 The Flsxnlifl. me yuunges1 sibling In her lanuly‘ ws me Admmisnalor at he: Vale mnmefs une deceased) es1a|e mmugn Gram Leflers or Admlnusfranon granted by me Hugh Conn 01 Malaya a| Kuala Lumpur aalefl 24.5.2ou7. ma benemanes Iexea wave hev smersnlalnngs-Mfsndl mn Ahmad (NR\C No 741on—u.aam, Amza bin Ahmad (NR4C No 77o3m—w5am), Aznne rm Ahmad @ Mahd (mane No 790717-10- sow). Asnawl bun Ahmad mmc No. E01014-1D-S023)and halsall In ma emuuan :71 Mr duly, n was dubovamd max ma Defendants ware eecuoenu av me land ham undor um aeeeeeaaz nume pursuant In me we and Surllln Hakmlllk HSM am. PT 5540 Mum am naenn Kuala Lumpun Wwayah Farsakmuan Kualz Lumpur The Dchndanls mu hum Mmoul permrssvon or comm wna deceased or me P\amlW, u new unit: ovnuuees on me vane [31 nasme demands (or me delivery 01 vacanl possvsswon or me said law‘ we Devenuams had refused to commy [the demand Vida ma Flalnmfs scllcrxars was on 19.3.2n1sp Instead‘ through mar senators lefler dated 12 9 24713‘ me Deflendams eomenaaa that me Fvst tn me mm Deienuanls‘ lals tamer Mam NI mn salen had enmea we a sale and nurchase agreement wan one Nair Mchd Now on 2101957 for me eam Iana has me wane: had lanled xc regmer me hansfe! :7! me and to Menu Au bun seren. [43 runnamme, Ihe uevenuunce ccnuenaau mat after me aannee ol my Mom Nam, me Wand was uamrenea m one Muslamam hm Tamr whom may dalmad had aglasd Io gwe oen av me wenu m Mona Ah hm sewer. The nevennanna had produced a SuraIAkum dI(ed 2:: 2.1972 and one amen <9 2.21705 Rehanl on me aeanammn mun. me Dehndanls claimed that me lo a charge on me land‘ Musuamam mn Tnmr had 1 m nLu3NrxGnGh-ntnnmvow «we. em ...n.mm be .7... a may 7... mn.u-y -mm: dnunmnl VI mum v-max Interest wfwatsoever |o me successors u1AlI bun Saflsh. enherm Lor 3143 or La: 43505, and mns||mpanznv.1yw(heIsnd rn quesuon m ems case. [251 me Defendants produced ancnrrer aeclersnon Iauer ueneu re 2 zoos purponaouy by Musmnern hm Tamr |ha| ccnnnnec me valldlly M mat earner dtdavaluon lmtar A Iunheramlndmsrn was made — no| Lol cases om La! 35454 Tnax La! 35464 was eueo not me ‘and m quesucn. sranea m Ihe seocnc d9c\ava|\on uener was me: Muararnarn hm Tmlr nac chlngad ma narne omre regisnereo pmpnalm cue! 35454 k) rns ymmgar sisrer me aeceam without me parrmssmn M N: bin semen or his successors. The Plalrmfl are not nave any knawiudgu of me dedavanon Iellsrs unm may sne nesrmea that (M dloeuad nac nor vnlonned ner of any such arrangamonls. sne neo pm me Dehndamslu slnci prooflwhnch they hea ranec In uscnarae [271 Even rt me oecuarancn letters were we wen urns Courl rngnry ccuoreo, :1 only granted perrnrsson for Ah bin Salleh now me successors, In stay an a pan M Lo! we much was not even me land were was mining in Ihe oecuaramon Veltens max baund me Plamlm or me deceased or even me Devenaanrs The oeclereucn lather: are not appmnl Ihe deceased or me Flamnfl as Imslee to An mn seller. or any :11 ms successors or any onne Delandams [231 ms ccun Iuund mesa caclarauon Ieners unrahable The pulponed makers had aH since paassd away‘ mere wen no rscurds adduced cune dadaralmn Ianers ever emrrneo bainm mu cornrnrenonar at call: me Fil:lDelam1zn|s eucnnce man she was acusea by ner sohcnora manner wmmusmnurmnalhs was no longer In xarvma -no eould nor be nccaxed, was unecoepxeble. u an rm rnexe (he decllramn tellers emorrmvcauy srn rtuzwrxensn rfinmwow “None s.n.r lunhnrwm s. met! a my r... mmruflly mm. flnuamnl vn mum v-max aamissmle ur even renevann In nne facts In ssue W1 W5 case wmcn was we ran m qnnasnicn and not any amer land Thae were no efions demL7ns1ra|ed to procure the makerlwllness Much ransed quesnnans In his courts mind as |o me aunnsnuony on mam [291 TM: com nulsd man me aaann senmcale ov Ali Km sannen camenx ma an-naress 5' Lol 3143 much quasnmnann ma lnlagnly or me second dacrarannn lamur. The Inconsnslancy coma nnsa be seen when we awn nxmficzta M (ha socona Defendanfa wu compared In men camld me address La 10234 Eu! wha| was clllrwas man ma mmscn mnnsv arnma aucnanmm Isnurs was nan ma nana m quesnmn. [so] he Defcndanns mrmev unudwsa a fypewnllen Iumer «am 16.10 new allegedly «mm Ihe dacuissd no me Jaha|zn Pemlanan man supposedly soughn (or ssparale assessmenn M taxes man mused the wooden kampung house MAN om saw. The Pnairmff who was lamnhar wnnn nne snqnalure of her nane monrnec, ms aeeessea, had tesfifned that M was nu|he1sngnslure The Defendant: had Valled no show otherwnse The nevsnaams had lunhet Yanled |o can Ensnk Zainal Anmm Osman lmm Jabanan Pemlanan or anynne «mm man depaflmenn In Show nmx mere nndeed exnsled such a letter — «ms Cnurl concluded man the evndennal burden had na| been mscnargea On . balanoe at pmnamnnnnes, mns typewnlnen nellev may not be aulhermc an all [31] The Flu! Derandam lsslmsd |hal ma Dalanflanln had met me deceased an a few accsxncns Io dnscuss nna naymsnl oi ums The Flavnlm nbpadod ca nhns as il was non pmnm. n was also nan snansa In men n tors’ nennsns the Incl ha! «ha natenuumx hid mm ma docazna and aiscussnona warn hand la shnw xnomaga on me pan cum dacaaiad sm rtuzwrxcnsn rfinnnwow «mm. smun ...m.mm .. U... w my n... mnnuuly mm. flnuamnl VI mum v-man ollhe uceupanon oflhaland by me Delendanls. ms alleged (ad was also 1101 pm or suggested on me Plilnhfl wnsn she gave leshmnny. Pames must be bound by lhelr pleadings. ms Cour! merefure rerecnea such onn|enlIon by me Delendanls {:21 ms Conn nancluaed that me documens pmduoed by me Duenaanu are not ounnzmane men assemon mat Ina lale fame! or Ins nan lo ma Third Dalandams nan Dough! a pamon oflha deceased‘: lurid It am no: supporl nrnm argumam mu me Marnnm was a (mslaa lo szieguam lhe Defendants‘ benaficml mmuu In me land [331 ll 1: Ihls Coun's mung um one nalanannts were no| honest but underhanfled m Dmducmg all (he susprcrous ducumams. The Defendants‘ vesponse |c me Plarruiws demand fur vacarfl Dossession book wer nan a year. ma nmescape «ms coun s nnna Ihal me Defendants nae planer av urne Au enurn and produce me suspmous aocurnerns The First Defendant had even lodged a prwane caveat on me land mle on 20 7 2013 befuve responarnq to me Wainhffs demand for me dehvay onauann possessran of me land The documams were quescmname as n am not mncem me and but omar wms — am: even men, they were nnl uonsstenn wwn eam omer. The P/am:/rrs purpmed acknowledgment er the Dslfirrdsms‘ mlsrlsts [341 Thu Delendanis claimed max mu wnarnmrs pmvmus salucllars Massrs Wan Ham" 5: rxumram had aexnawseagea me Defendants‘ nenanerau nmemsl Yhe muener: Inner mm was addreued to an. First nerenaanmas proaucae wmch xls(ad|I1alIha menus mu miormad by n srn rtuzwrxeneh rfinnnwow «wn. Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>e U... n my r... nrW\n|H|Y mum: flnuamnl VI mum WM one Mohfl zin bin aedar (Nmc No 5412D3—U4«5391)malIhe deceased had Il1ein|en|>an odappoini me whcllursm sail the land. rrie Ietieriurmer slated me: irre sclicnals had man ednducied a search and Iound that a prrvaie caveer was iedged by me First Defendan| err me land l| slaled that once me saie dime iand was iransaeied the deceased rred edreed la oumpansa|e Ihe Firs! Deierrdani nMa5o.nou an me oondmun marine First Deierrderri remave are prime caveei arid execma an agreement wim me deceased errd an emer penres who were errniied [35] men rr rrorrrrriq In Ihul wHI:ilavI' ieiier men Icourdad nghis or rnieresrs is me Defendznluvarlhe ierrd uaise did nmmakelha deceased a |rusIaa eisuerr rims and imarusli ln irre neierrdanie. II was ndr even a iener lvum me daoeasad Trier third party Muhd Zln hm E5637 was nol called by me ueierrderrrs Trre soirciiors were rim called re iiriy er rriei eimer The unly vac: sierrrrg oul of ore seireimre iener was me: me deceased was me regisrered prdprrewranrre iand, ard irrai me deceased riad irre rrgrri ie cancel me prware eaveai lodged bylhs Fire: Delsndanl at any irrrie The language oi me iener suggesied mar me Firsl ueieridani were arrrorrgsi mode eeuarung on me land. The solici|oIs' ierrer did rrei imply that me neierrdanrs were me successors 0! All bin Salleh and mar he end/or mey had regsiered irrrereei in me iarrd [351 he Firs! Derendani did nn| acknuwledge er agree In any ierms ei rrre solicitors‘ iener in rnereiore could no| be said max in bound IM rirei Deierrdani ms ceunidund meurre 3oIic\\uls' ierrer did rraiaesisx in ma Defendsnis‘ deienee me nerenderue hid furlhar ieried in srrew haw ii bound me vieiniivi :4 sm rtuzwrxcnsn rfinnnwow “Nana s.r.i luvihnrwm .. med e my r... nflmnuflly MIMI flnuamnl vn nF\|.INfl Wm! [311 Anyway. me vnannnm had «mm me very outset oonnesnea nms nanner The De1sndanIs were put In snncn pmol, The non-cawng afmat inammnan Mona Znn om Badar or any an ma sulncnnms who mum perhaps ma hghl In ma cmnmswnees of ma nssuanoe an such nenar was nanan no me nananaanna as |c me nmnn 01 us oonnema ms Conn nemsao Io make a Vindmfl man menu was a nnuan cleaned oaaea on man solncnlurs‘ letter as nlanmod by me uenanaanna [sen ma alecui Iy bill Vrurn Tanaga Nnsnornal sum nu ma nume on All bnn Salish was add nafly pmduosd byiha Delarndanls lnsmw man may no right: arm Interests in me nana Yhis Cunnn was not mnmaa na agna The enecnrscnny mu dnd non resuln nrn mu Pnmnnma lrustse |o Iha Delandants nn Ina land. Nonennanasa, the anecnmany own was non nor Ihe nana oun another amass — sun Kg an Larnlann so Fenclnala eanua Kuana Lumpur [:91 The monographs shown by me Fnrs| Defendant no nms com wire dnflsfenl lmm me one descnbefl m the nypawnnnnen leiler annagaany from Ihe deceased no Jabalan Psnilanan In man leller nl had dsscnbsd man Ah hm Salish had a wooden kampung house on No as The phamgraphs showad concrene eemsnl muses of permanent namre emcnaa on me land Anolherdnscmpancy man made me nypawnnnon naner meounnananzna no me quusuun oflhe nana nn we [An] ma Finn uenanaann admmsfl man we houses In ms Dhmographs wet: me mecca of ma Delenflanls van, me ucnanaamz. had nannaa no show than mly has: me conaann and panmnssnon on ma dlceued on me pnannnwn Tha Pnannun namnv lesnnfisd |ha| she had ml mnmnea no me houses bum and [Mrs was no pvoaf man the deceased ma almnwue qnven pemnnsinurn lcr such oornswchon on herland. ns am rtuzwrxensn rfinnnwow “None sanun luvnhnrwm .. n..a a may he mnnu-y mum: flnuavnnnl VI mum v-man [41] one document wnrcn was a ptan tnat tnduded the rand, amongst others rem d an ID. As sum ttve court wlll not lake rt Inln donetdereudn. nre reasons tt rernarned so untrt the case was erased was because ttwes not dated and dtd rral eany any stgnalure trdrn tne orrectm cl Town Planning. nor dtd rt reter |o tne netendants. the P\.Itn|tW or me dsoezsed Two dtnarddcdrnenu wnrcn to lhts codn-srntnd dtd nateaeord any aaetetande tn we 5356 me e pnnmut or me Metayata Bu Legal Dtvactory I| dtd ndt shaw Mm i| was met was tne subtacl urtna snatch [421 me caveat Ihll me First Detendent todged on me tend trtte wax an 20 7 20!6.a1|ersM had received nalma «tern tne Plllnllfllo dettverveunt pdesesetdn nllhs land on a balance etdrotzahitttres (ms Cotm round met the nut netendant nad todged tne prtvate caveat pumtant to me Platnmfs demand tor the detrvery .11 vacant possessron, and to orcnestrate and set up tne atteged sceneno tnat Ins Defendams nad me ngnts and Inletasts vide Ali hm satten In remain on the deceased: tand [43] Our Natmnat Land code (NLC) governs tne pnvate caveats todged were rt prdvtded tnat n axptrea atter SIX years tsazat wtrere a caveat ts wrdngty entered or vntnout raasunable basts, er tatted Io be removed, oornpeneattdn u Mable to be pltd tsazem) Thu cdttn agrees with me suhmtsslnns at me Ptarnttwtnat the second caveat entered tn 20!!‘ After the exutry In 2016 at tne umsr caveatr dught not to nave hsen mccmad -eee eazatzt NLC tn (ms case, tt wax appI1an||hil|he FtrIIDa1andant had enty lodged ner mount! on 20 72018 aner reeerpt at me Pterntnra demand In! tno detrvery at vacant pdaaaestdn me FiIs| Dofendanl md to am rluiwrxensh rfimwtvow “Nair smut navthnrwm be .t.... a my r... artnn.r-y mum: flnuavtml VI arturta v-mat aanea lo sahsfy nus Court that n was rorany mar Dumose There was no other basis annwn a| may that ma Firs| Defendant had conecuy hanged ma private caveal the second ume araund. [441 In his instant ma deceased’: mlelo l1ueland' ' oeleasime (5341 me) ayan In muse who alarmed m be In adverse possessmn onhe land Thus. a mailers nm that mm mm Delendanl cnaunaa she had resided on ma lend kx over my ylars Advaru possessmn m lms country .5 noun accepled conoepn/daclnna Thu Dafendanls are not gwen a «gm lo occupy ma rand ragamraaa av (run lenglh of ma wmngly Irmabflad Moreover‘ men ma nmhmg on the dlfinwm mcam: ax me Land Raglsky that snnwea ma deceased or ma Plamllfl wns a mum to An bin sauan vlmch was required to wnmm and fiive il swam — sau NLC [451 There was no reg-axranon or any represenlalwes swan Moms New or Musumam bm Tannwim grants M pmoaxa urlellers nladmwmslrahcn. There was conversely me regislranan chine Plammv Pursuant to ma Leller o1 Admwnislratian at me Hmh count of Malaya at Kua\a Lumpur daled 24 5 ma [46] ms couna aocepxea me legs! pasmmn ma« whatever ngms the Devanaams contended may had long had sme lapsed as ma Lnmnznon AcI1953 pmvmed mac me uma usrmd upon wnxcn me nmenaanra mum have brouqm an acuon was lwerve years 1510(2) am 523), An hm sauan pusad away on 14 51991, The um pnvala caveat waagea by ma Fim nevemanx was wn zmu van no acnon was taken by any olma Delandams (0 cement mew pwpanaa nnms and interest in ma Ianu. rna We al Ihe land .n (ht na-na at me aacaasaa wman is new ma whim: mzllar oi admwuslrzlzon by me Plavmff rumamad .naavaaau:ua unless il ran ha :7 am auawaaaaa rfinmwow “Nana am ...m.mm a. U... a may he mm-y mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! shown mam was omameu by [rand mm m mus caselhe Defendants had not meaded nor shown «a Ims coun See samn bin Hussein y Punca Klzslk Sun and 5 Anal [1997] MLJU 159 Puncak Klasrk Sdn Sh:-I v Fun many A San: Sdn Bhd 5 Or: [1996] MLJU A11 and PI/nuk Klnlk Sdn Bhd i/Abdul Am Abdul Nlmld 5 Or: 119941 x mm 135 [m Pursuant |o me svamnury Dadaralmns AM was, a aeclaraucn must be affirmsd panenauyanu signed personally by Ike person we made ma dadarahnn (:2; The declaration mm dated 20 2 1972 was nol m wmwlznoawflh the raquiramema and was mvahd The other masans why «ma Cuurl had ra;ar.1sd ma declarahon man wave flaralad atxzva [48] The Wand lam are guvemed by our NLC awe may do no: allow any (emparmg by eqmfy See Vorlmn umuugam I Anar[1§B2]1 MLJ107 and Punca mm Sdn EM 1/ All Purson: in Occuplfion of me Wander: House uuclod on a porliun ullaml hald mum Gran! Ma 25977 for Lot 4211 in me township ol Johor Blhru, labor and Another Action (No. 2) [1996] 5 MLJ 92 Payments ol ebcbimty bills m an address man ma nc| seem to be me land m queslmn, am not dnsloflge me deceased‘; maeteasmna right «:2 her wane my ms Conn um um me any mm created m favour olme uevenaanxa. Yheve wen nu documerus Iha| were executed in snow ma cvearmn ol Imsl There was no rsglskahun rscmds penammg xoma wand Ia mndanca a nus! 15344 NLC) The blls and pwacas av evidence were moss am nu! cogenl bu Incansmenl «or «ma Own \a canclude um eslablvshmanl cl mm wane Dng Kong Bong s Ann! v Ong Kong L-any I Dr: [2022] 3 MLJ sacs am «manque. rfiwmwow «mm. saw nmhnrwm a. U... a may he mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! [501 This Conn found all those quasuoname documents produced wncansulenl and unrename. wnan n was me quesuan av ownership 0! land, ' coun muld not Me based an them — see Tan Srl WI/(lam Chung Hang Jam A Anal (suing :5 mo Pnsmn: mu oepmy Pmsldlm of ma Assoc:-mt Chinese cn-mous of cammom Inc! Industry of M -ys/1, and for end on Its n-mm It ran SII Ngnn Chlng won L Dr: [2013] 5 ML! An and S)InmnIAn.lnd 5 sum it smnaran J. on v susmn new 5 Vnllpurlm [20:01 4 MLJ 54 [51] we caun cannol and wm nn| orver waemc perfnxmanca zgamsl me Plamhfl when she has run entered me any conuacx wun any ov me D24:-:ndan|s Tharedld nax exm acmscee/benemary Ivemwmshwp zmween me P\amlM and me Decenaanu. never to Bornlo Housing Monglqu Finance som-4 v Time Engin-«rug sun-d new 2 MLJ 12 and Lu Ph-Ir Chou I/Any Guan Yiu L Anor[1975] 2 MLJ146 [52] ms coun had also wuumzed me cases men by me Delendanls‘ comma! and «mm the cams a-snngmshame and ram decldendl |he<eIn mappucame to supporllhelrdefence Tm: Can a (531 on a biflanoa ol pmbabmuas. (M5 cmm vounu (he netenaance |a have bean megally occupymg me rana, wnhum parm\ss\anIcoMenl AH bm seven and not buy or was (he regulated prunnamr ullha land Theve was no xnm auabllshad Vn lavnur or mm 01 his successors — nuns la: Ihe Deflendanls‘ imarasls. ms com muna mu Delendanll Mzuzluvs who nm no cl m |u me an any rsqwskahle miereu m me Inna, As such. me nevenaanns new no nah! euner wn law ur In sqmly pertaminn me land never .9 sm muzwrxensn rfimnwow «mm. smm ...m.mn e. H... e may he nnmnmy -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! In Sidek bin Majluunamur L 451 ors v me Govommonrollhe sure o!Puak 5. Or: [1932] 1 MLJ 313.) [541 As Io me damages claimed Dy the P1am|rfl, «ms Cami considered me lam: am surmunumg circumstances cums case. and me acuons by Ina rm Dslendant m navmg lodged caveats an me land ms Coun awards my nonunal damzgas ol rwsrooa Nevarmelass, ms Conn noted me mums undertaken by me P\avnlNl to employ legal nmmsel «:1 advice and to Lake cm matter |o cmm Sn, ms Conn wnl award oesxs xo ma Plalnlm [551 The Flamm had prayed for a (ma frame 04 Iwn monms (or me Defendanls la dehver vacant possessor» o1me\and.Lockmg a| (ha axmos: permanent slmclune um me Defendants have «a remova, (N5 Cuurl was mmuea that a Dennd ulmree months I: more ruzsrmabie and raansuc to ensure me delivery ofvacanl passesswan onne um rs dune deznly and needy with all the perrnanenllserm-permanent slrucmres removed by the Defendants [551 ms Cnurt rn ammng me Plavntnlfs cram orders mac 1a) The Devenaanu vacala me warm and dshvev vanl passessrcn av me wanna to me P\am\|N mum wee munlm «mm me am: ullms fledslorlr my rm Determams ramava all moveable and Ammovaabla assets arm slructums mm by the Dalandanls on ma wand wmun |hras mmms lram ma dale ohms dsmsmn. In sm rtuzwrxensn rfinnnwow “Nana Snr1I\nanhnrwH\I>e U... w my r... mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum v-max aavanaa me Iegwstrauon onransver perlainmg m the pan atme ma unm one selllsmem of ms lnan The Defendants alleged man Mustamam hm Tamr naa vegasoerea lbs and m the name no the deceased wmwoul the knowledge or pemuss\on M Mend Am mu saw. [5] ma Conn nmad man at max, me Plainlnll m he: ev|¢em>e,in1avmed mus own that she has an uncle/ma deceased‘: brolher named Muslamam um ram. am neumavlha uaoaasea mu M: uncle me has too, maa. passed away rm invanma hut ur any :2! man vamny mamher: of what ma mam-nu mnlendad u M: also nalad mm than was no pmar urougm furlh by Ina name-ms Iha| Mummam bm Tzmv was Ins Pmnmvs Ina undalme aaouasmrs lall mm-r. me Plimhfl mu pm ma wanaams (0 mm prom gum. fact [51 The Deflndanls weadad mm wcea Vellerfvum Mews. Wan Hamn s Msnclales, me Pnammv had afisrsd back 471 2012 m the Defendants 50% compsnsanen {mm the sa\e ol the land and mus was eslwped «mm commencing wan an: anion The Plalnfifl had demed (msas she ms only appmmed as me Aunumsuaxor [or me dsoeased's 251313 in 2017 She a\su cnauengea ms (am and pm me Delendanis In sum pmalmereol, [11 Mar Inal, Ihe Defendants‘ coumaraam was amended tar a aecnarauon man me portion at me land (a quarter) ma| bebngad um. um Salish (note the dmeranca nu ma name — Mona All bun Sa\eh and An bin sanan mm ma wanuama had usm mlarchangaablyln relsvsmaeto me ma lalhar av cm Fm no me mm Delandanls) was held m Itusl by me »=\amumnm.s bennilcunu. and lhs|1heIransfaro1|ha sand paman anus and be mqlstamd may no clanmnd lav genera» damages and basis am nmamxcnsn rfinnnwow «mm. sm-1 ...m.mm a. U... a may he mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum v-max Ac) Nominal damages or RM5,ooo \nleres| L715"/u per annum on me sum lmm me date ov mus wdgmenl unul mu and final sememenl: (a) Cosls of nmmuoo Io be pm muwm by the nerenaanvs no ma Plamufl mran 25 NOVEMBER 2:12: AWJC R02 MAWAR RDZNN JUDVCVAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT 0: MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Far (Ive Plamm Murxd Al: Abdu//an Wu K Mura .5 Go For mu Dslend-mt A Loam: Aasmeg-m logainor w/M Normadruh Mohammad T/n Zahir ./eya 5 lama! 2| m nLu:&NrxGnGh-ninnnwow «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! ma Evlduucu [5] M19: a mu trial were me P\am(iN and ma Fnsl Defendant lesmiad. «ms Own lound. (2) amuax records confirm lhal ma ‘arm was me deceased: u was mgmamd n my name since 251 1990 omaal veoords max would (he malory 0! me prbpnelarshlp anne rand am no! state any names av Han Mend Now or Mus|amam am Tahxrar Alv hm Salllh/Mona AH ma salun ma Plaintiffs name was reurusnd I: ma Aomlnslrller vdr nu wand was Form M Be‘ gap the waumn and her slbhnws wm ma bemificmnes or me deceased‘: estate mac mcludrng |.119\and wman was vamed at RM3‘l54,0UU as M245 2011‘ (a) mere are wee unns uf huuses — smgra slnry linked houses Iogelher wan flxmles and mugs anamed |L7 me said nousas bum an me land man were cocupusd by me netendams, my me P\amIW nan demanded was her su|Icnors' teller dated 19.3.2015 lav he delivery olviclnl pasasssmu ollhe lam, (ej rna Secand and Third Defendams had passed away -n 2021 and mu mspoclwely. The death oemfitam of me Second Daiandanl slalld No no Lot mzaa, Batu m V. Kg Bukil Luman, Jz\an Damanslra aocoo Kua\a Lumnur as Ms lasl known address The Fusl Dellndam M nay lnnmnny‘ nad cdnfinmd my address as Lm 10254‘ D5 Jalan Bukil Lanian 4. ¢ sm rtuamxensn rfinmwow «mu. s.nn lunhnrwm .. met! a my a. nrW\n|U|y mum: dnuamnl VI mum v-max Kampung Bukfl Lamar». ow Jalan Damansam 50000 Kuila Lumpur which she sawd was me yous! address nf me land. The Thwd Delendanfs \as| known address merely xlsmd Sam 10 ‘/4 Kampung auku Laman, Ja\zn Damansata sumo Kuala Lumpur, (9 W19 other Defendants am Mr moss um asugnms 0! ma Hrs! n-renuanra deceased hmlmns) — sunaua mm. Mona vusav, 5 Month hmu Mam Vusaf and Sin Falmuh mm Sukar They haa aumonzad ma rum oamaann lu unmy on thawrbahallal max [9] On n wane. of mubaxann-as «ms Court found that me Wsral addvass used by we Derenaanxs ov me wanna was Lol 10234, D5 Ja\in Eukll Lanjan 4. Bean 10 V. Kampung sum Laruan‘ otualan Damansara suuon Kuala Lumpur. ms :5 because that was me address used by me Fusx to the mm Detemams am ms fins! Defendant had cunfirmed the Muses as phmugrsphed bmll on me deueasw's land [1 a] The svmanoe shawed |ha| |he Pwaunm am hers Kings had no pnur kncw\edge onne Daiendams‘ oacupaum mime deceased‘: and u ws me unamg L71 nus Cour! mallhe oocupauan was Illegal as me Plamlm and her slbimgs had no! ocnssnled In Ihelr presence and acoupanun an»: land. Thurs was no es/Vdnnoe mat me dsaaased had pelmmsd or auowaa ma Dalandanb la mm on ma land miner [11] Tna Dufendanls raised twa delancu —ma was mac m u Valevalher had amend mm a saw and purwasa ignamem ollha land In! ssso wum the Val: Han Muhd Nuov whn was man an Milnuvad nwnar cc ma land x sm rtuzwrxensn mmwoa «ma. san-1 nmhnrwm a. met! a my a. nflmnlflly mum: dnuamnl VI mum am The me( was met me Praimm had acknuwledged me Defendants‘ bensfiaal inlerestwilhe landand had mierea sass compersanorr from the proposed sare o1 me warm In 2012. mus me Prarmrn was sslapped vrom challenging me Defendants‘ berrmrax mares: or me ram: and merr oocupauur. nnereoru. Purponbd save and purchase agrurrrern omrn land bammen Mahd Air‘ bin sarerr arm N] Mahd N00! [121 The Final nerenueru (aihfiad an harm! or all me netermerus. Through her, lha Dermaerue adduced ma damn oemflcate or nmrr rena tamer wmh me name An hm seller: Uh: suamng as aev nu death Demfrcalslwha had passaaawayorr 14.5.1991 ax Lot:(141 Kg an Laruan. Dzmansam Kuala Lumpur Thai address was arse slated as hrs last Known address ms caun observed me: we address was nm was same as mal or me Frrsx Derermanrs The Delendants had nor shown that me sxaled address on me dear» eemficaie or Ari hm sauerr was me same as merarru.Tnere1are. were rs nommg were we Cowl Ihal shawed me Iaxe ramarat me Fusl |a me mm neramams was uvrng on me ram [13] ms coun turned |a me srnau brown meoe at naperure Delendanls alarmed was me sara sale arm puvchase agreement at me land much was purchased by Ina Flrsl to me mm oerenaams Tnac Ms me poeicron taken as firsl mflactad m we uersnaenw soucims‘ lettavol r2 9 2015 In repry to me P\a|n|m‘s damnnd nor me delrvery ovvacam possasararr at me wane. The handwnnan wmams M me mun brown niece at Danar aarnea a dam of 2 10 1959 However. mare was no ewdence no show me: me sale and purchase eureemanc was m raen nxaoulafl rn «:53 em N wit sixty-Iuur years old Mos! paramounl in nine was Iha| rlwns no! var me s sru rtuzwrxeneh rfinnrwow “Nana sun-r narrmrwm a. met! a my r... mmnuflly am. flnuamnl VI arrurm v-mar land ml (or ‘gersrl /014402‘ Clearly. even lune dooumem was genulne (which Khls Cmlrl addressed lls cancsms bell1w)l me alegea sale and purcnsse aqreemem my 3850 In 1959 was nm for lna land (ml rna evidence shawed lnal me land was ms: legls1ered an 26 1 1990 ex No HS(M) 5339 Lo! No, PTBSAO wlncn ls anlnely dlflereul l-om mat staled in me bmwrl place elpapel. ln me land plan lolna mla fur lna land, a nal on showed me lna land PTBSAO was a pan at an ald lal 35434 Muk m Bslu yan Plrsakuman The Inn was undoubtedly lm| Lot 4402 as slaled WI ma bmwrl place av paper [151 M lhe rlaarlrlg olsuz:-nisslons aim: and ollha ma. counsel for ma nulenaanls nad swgnl permlsslorl la conducl a land search la show ma! FTB54n was before knvwn as La! No 4402 um ll was slnady no lag In lne day. The ma: naa concluded. submlssions compleled. and (ms coun was lo deliver rts declslon. In any evens, all me nificlal aoeumanla lrum the Land Ofice nad ducumenlea me msmy at me land and n most certainly never earned me we urkrlwlrl as l_ol 4402. [15] Furlhemlme, Iflelewas noslgnalure on ma brawn piece 01 papec 0! Mana All om Salsh (spelllng dlflered lnnn me one slaled In me uealn onnmcale) wnal ms apparent on ma lace nl we own Blane M paper was a mumbpllnt under -rancla lnrlgarl saya yang msngambll w:mg'whi::h nau ralenm lo ‘lw Noor’ Anolnav lnunmpnnl seemed la he Irlal ol me wllnsu in ma sale and pumhase agmamanlby me name :21 Euynng, men me v. we Head (21 Kampung Bukll Lanian There was alsa lna name ‘Ha//man‘ noxl to on sseurld Dlumbpnnl um dlspnled was (ha lam lnal all lhoss named mu brvwrl mm M Dana! nm slnce piued Iway am rtuzwrxensn rfinnnwow «wn. Smnl luvlhnrwm a. U... n my n. annnnn mum: dnuavlml VI .nuna vtmxl [:71 The comenls dune urdwn pxeoe al paper stated as (allows -sanawa saya Hap Mohd Nocr msngakul la/ah mengambll wang ssbanyak sssa/— dan pada Mend An pm swan ks:-sna aaya nsndak memm lannh gsrsn Li)! 4402 Muklm Batu dmam Pslrln/ran aaya w sama Mohd Air hm Savah, tanah yang say. Deli rm darl 2 1:7 59 sampul 2 11 59 rm saya akan mssukkan llama Mahd Ah am sure». dun senlasa xaya amml w-ng seblnyak 5550» IN dan Maud Ah rs lah 44 saksr kan d/an Datok auydng Kilul Karrwong Bl Lanjan adlrvya ' [18] Transmld ncamd a Harem maanmg from what we Dehndanls admandad — mm» was Mdhd Ah bin Sa\eh had uumhasad (ha land m 1959 The sand cdmams mksrpreted meant mac Han Mend Now zdmmad havmg taken $4150 mm Mnhd Alv bin Saleh because Hap Mohd Nuor had warned ca buy me land [DI M02 Mukvm Batu we exchange msssu was wnnessed by me vulage head Hap Mnhd Moor had agreed wvlh Mohd Ah Saleh mat me land pumhassd «mm 110195910 211 1959 the «mar will enter me name at me Iafler — «ms was ramer Undsar as (0 men meaning [19] The Defendants‘ arguments seemed to sway towards comendmg man u mean| Mchd Ah hm Sa\sh‘s name snumd have been regxsiared as the Dronnemrofme land. ms lell for vanous Ieasnns The most obvious was max u was nc|Mofv.1 Al» bun Saleh who punzhased Lm A402 and me man palm ms ma1 n was La! 4402 was not the land In qussnon m ms case am nmamxcnsh rfinnnwow «mm. sm-1 ...m.mm .. d... a may he mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum v-max [201 The brawn ptece nl paperdtd not shew whetner Mohd Ali tnn saten was me tegtsteted propnelor of me land or tnat rte was emttted to be registered tdr any pofllon dune land It also dtd not shuw tnat Hatl Mahd Noor was me mgIs1ered pmpnetar at me tend. Thaw was no pnxai mat Han Marta Noov was a relaban In me Plalnhll and me deceased 0! what tna cnnrteclzort purpunedty was. Fmm the Land omee omdat documsrtlst Nan Mend Mae: and Marta Att tatn saten Ware um and had not been the regtuamd pmpnslan 97 me tend There were ne caveats tadged tsy Haj! Mend Now or Mend AH htrt satten lathe land. 1211 Nettmrtnu Ptatntirt ndnna Ftrsl Datenoantwmpnvytc tnn Illaged agreement Tho Flltrtw tastmad mat sna had no Krtawieaqe of tn: ducumen| me First Datandant had not catted any other evtdonoe lo nutp etatadrate on tn: document Based an the evidence, Ihti ccunduesttoned tne authenhctty at me ddcuntent It atsd concluded mat on a names 01 protaawtties tne brawn D1606 of paper and the alleged agreemem tneretn stated nave nolhtng [0 do with me Vznd HI questton or the tssue disputed — whtdl is mat tne tend tzetongsd ta tna deceased and the Ptatntttt ts entmed to the dshvery of vacanl possesston meraof. [221 me count oonstdered the t>etsndants- omt|elt|>ort tnat upon Ina passtnd o1HaJ4 Mahd Nam, one Musvantam bin Tahir was his beneficiary dune wstee. There was no atndenae |a support such oattlenltons by tna natandants me Delandsnts produced a dectatallan leller dated 20 2 tan that was stgnad by In untdantmed rapresentaltve at the sand Muslamam ntn rantr on it, Musunum btn Tantra address was tnatanna Thtrd oetendanrs as slalsd tn the tattere death oantftcala wntcn was slated saw 10 ‘A Kantpung Euktt Lanjan, Jalan Damannrat Kuata Lumpur em rtuzwrxensh mtnwow «ma s.n.t ...n.mn be tn... a my t... mn.u-y mum: dnuavtml VI mum vtmxt [231 That eeclamron leuer dated 20 2 1972 pt-named us arrexner piece auana emire\y~ Lm ans (para1 slated Lol3143 bullhe sketch showed eeueuon at La! 3143 and a nanmwnuen amendment to mi 45505)‘ nonne wane in quesnon rne declavalmn Iener stand mat Musumam znn Tamr had gramad pennrsssen term! bm saueme slaym ms landthal musuved «o n quennr oven eere u smee max Ah bun seuens narne were no! he snanea m me we dcnumanu as Ihe warm wax sac |u have been nhargad la Syankm Flvumahan Angkalan Tlnlava. u was lxaomed ey a mplesanlal n 01 Mumnmn urn ranrr rne idennly 01 me representative was unknnwn To acctpl all lhal was naked In (hlldudarllxon lelterdalad 20 2.1972 were be dangerous [24] On «ne lace 01|ha| eecnaranon wener dated 202.1972, n was not Mustamam bin Tenn «nu had svgnsd n hm by an urudenfified reprsenxanve. ltlharefinve was not a dedarslvan by Mustamam hm Tzrur An advocate and same: byms name ofTImku zunn (no run nerne slated) was seen an nave wnnessed me aecleranon Nu eflnrls wece made to locate her The netermerns explanahon was slmvly that nney were advissd by men soucnors that Tunku Zuhri was no longer rn prawce and could not be Vacahad Thai declarahnn Lens: daled 2o 2 1972 was highly snspmeus. [251 In eny avenLIha(flec1arilian\eItevd\d nmacenre Au hm sauen any ngme to cuarrn ovev ma! Lo! :14: or La! Aesna, wnal more the land m quuhun whxch vs nnumy nnmner land allogalher. « ma no| eenmnn any ownership 0! Lot :14: nr Lo| 48506 (no! lhu land in queslxon) by allner Mustaman bin Yamr or Al: bin sauan n n .nnuIy um um accnni any m srn rtmwrxensn rfimnwow «mm. s.n.r lunhnrwm be me e my r... MWHIVVIY mum: flnunmnl VI mum WM

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-45-15-05/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) JEFFERY WONG CHOW CHUEN 2. ) HONG DE XIAN 3. ) CHEAH WEI SHENG 4. ) AARON FREDRICK D'ALMIEDA 5. ) NGUYEN THI THU THAO

Perbicaraan jenayah - pertuduhan kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya dan 2 pertuduhan kesalahan memiliki dadah berbahaya;Terdapat kelompangan dalam rantaian keterangan berkenaan dengan barang kes dadah tersebut yang menimbulkan keraguan di mana barang kes terdedah kepada kacau ganggu serta tanpa jagaan dan kawalan rapi oleh pegawai penyiasat selama beberapa hari;Sekadar keberadaan semua tertuduh dalam sebuah rumah yang sama tidak memadai bagi membuktikan kawalan dan jagaan ke atas dadah berbahaya serta terdapat akses oleh orang lain dalam rumah tersebut;Kelemahan siasatan oleh pegawai penyiasat dalam pendaftaran dan penyimpanan barang kes dan juga kegagalan menyiasat individu lain yang mempunyai akses ke atas rumah serbuan;Pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie dan Tertuduh-Tertuduh telah dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri daripada semua pertuduhan.

11/12/2023

YA Tuan Hasbullah bin Adam

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2be0e424-5d80-4aa1-8fbe-1cecf90e5cb0&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO. BA-45A-72-05/2021 & BA-45-15-05/2021 PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN 1. JEFFERY WONG CHOW CHUEN [750818-07-5029] 2. HONG DE XIAN [970309-01-5743] 3. CHEAH WEI SHENG [830510-10-5535] 4. AARON FREDRICK D’ALMEIDA [Passport: K1779011E] 5. NGUYEN THI THU THAO [Passport: C8847623] ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Jeffery Wong Chow Chuen (“Tertuduh 1”), Hong De Xian (“Tertuduh 2”), Cheah Wei Sheng (”Tertuduh 3”), Aaron Fredrick D’Almeida (“Tertuduh 4”) dan Nguyen Thi Thu Thao (“Tertuduh 5”) (secara kolektif dirujuk sebagai “Tertuduh-Tertuduh”) telah dituduh bersama-sama dalam 2 kes dengan jumlah tiga (3) pertuduhan iaitu pertuduhan yang pertama bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) 11/12/2023 09:44:47 BA-45-15-05/2021 Kand. 77 S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [Akta 234] (“ADB”) serta pertuduhan yang kedua dan pertuduhan yang ketiga bagi kesalahan-kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) ADB, yang mana kesemua pertuduhan kesalahan tersebut dibaca bersama dengan seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan. [2] Ketiga-tiga pertuduhan terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh adalah seperti berikut: Pertuduhan Pertama [ekshibit P4] “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 10 Julai 2020 jam lebih kurang 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bagi mencapai niat bersama telah memperedarkan dadah berbahaya iaitu 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) seberat 90.29 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.” Pertuduhan Kedua [ekshibit P5] “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 10 Julai 2020 jam lebih kurang 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bagi mencapai niat bersama telah memiliki dadah berbahaya iaitu Nimetazepam seberat 0.39 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.” Pertuduhan Ketiga [ekshibit P6] “Bahawa kamu bersama-sama pada 10 Julai 2020 jam lebih kurang 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan bagi mencapai niat bersama telah memiliki dadah berbahaya iaitu Ketamine seberat 26.73 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 12(3) Akta yang sama dan dibaca bersama seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan.” [3] Pada 23.6.2023, Mahkamah ini memutuskan di akhir kes pendakwaan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh atas ketiga-tiga pertuduhan S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 kesalahan tersebut. Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini telah memerintahkan supaya Tertuduh-Tertuduh dilepas dan dibebaskan tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri. [4] Pihak pendakwaan telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini dalam kedua-dua kes tersebut melalui notis-notis rayuan ke Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia yang mana kedua-duanya bertarikh 4.7.2023. Ringkasan Kes Pendakwaan [5] Perbicaraan kes pendakwaan telah bermula pada 9.8.2022 dan pihak pendakwaan telah menutup kes pendakwaan pada 21.3.2023 setelah memanggil seramai 13 orang saksi pendakwaan seperti berikut: SP1: Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap (Ahli Kimia Narkotik) SP2: Sjn. Shahrom bin Md Saad (Jurustor) SP3: Insp. Darwis bin Aripin (rakam gambar / sampel darah) SP4: Robert Ong Thien Cheng (Pemilik rumah) SP5: Wong Heong Leng (Isteri dan pemilik bersama rumah) SP6: ASP Shaiful Hezreen bin Shariman (Pegawai serbuan) SP7: Sjn. Nik Abdullah bin Zakaria (Jurufoto) SP8: Izrin John a/l Jebasingam Issace (Penyewa bilik) SP9: Insp. Prabu a/l Avadiappan (Peg dan anggota serbuan) SP10: Hong Joon Wei (Kawan Tertuduh 1) SP11: Siti Hajar binti Hussin (Ahli Kimia Forensik) S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 SP12: Insp. Mohamad Amir Asrah bin Mohamed Ariffin (Peg Forensik PDRM) SP13: ASP Sukri bin Ahmad (Pegawai Penyiasat). [6] Kronologi kes ini bermula daripada maklumat yang diterima oleh ASP Shaiful Hezreen bin Shahriman (SP6) tentang sebuah rumah yang dijadikan tempat pengedaran dan memproses dadah serta kemudiannya telah membuat taklimat penugasan pada 10.7.2020 jam lebih kurang 12.00 tengahari dan seterusnya membentuk 4 pasukan serbuan. Serbuan telah dijalankan pada jam 2.45 petang di sebuah rumah yang beralamat di No. 48, The Rafflesia Jalan PJU 8/12B, Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (“Rumah Serbuan”). [7] Rumah Serbuan tersebut merupakan sebuah rumah teres 3 tingkat dan tidak berpagar. Secara lebih jelas, susun atur Rumah Serbuan tersebut adalah seperti mana lakaran tempat kejadian [ekshibit P104] oleh Pegawai Penyiasat, ASP Sukri bin Ahmad (SP13). Malahan lakaran tempat kejadian tersebut disahkan oleh Robert Ong Thien Cheng (SP4), pemilik rumah tersebut. Susun atur Rumah Serbuan tersebut adalah seperti berikut: (a) Tingkat bawah Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Tingkat Satu’ terdapat pintu masuk (tanpa grill), ruang tamu, stor dan tandas di hadapannya, sebuah meja kayu di ruang tamu, ruang dapur, rak almari besi, bilik di bahagian belakang menerusi ruang dapur dengan tandas serta sebuah meja di dalam bilik tersebut; S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (b) Tingkat atas Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Tingkat Dua’ terdapat 3 buah bilik iaitu bilik yang bertanda ‘C’ mengandungi bilik mandi dan tandas, bilik yang bertanda ‘D’ yang mengandungi tandas dan bilik yang bertanda ‘E yang mengandungi tandas; dan (c) Tingkat paling atas Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Tingkat Tiga’ terdapat 2 buah bilik iaitu bilik yang bertanda ‘A’ dan bilik yang bertanda ‘B’ yang mengandungi tandas dan bilik mandi. [8] Menurut SP6, semasa menyerbu masuk ke Rumah Serbuan tersebut, pintu depan rumah tersebut adalah bertutup tetapi tidak berkunci. SP6 telah membuat tangkapan ke atas Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 yang sedang berbaring di ruang tamu di Tingkat Satu. Manakala Tertuduh 4 ditangkap di kawasan tangga untuk naik ke tingkat atas dan Tertuduh 5 ditangkap semasa didapati sedang berbaring atas katil dalam bilik yang ditanda sebagai ‘E’ di Tingkat Dua. Pemeriksaan tubuh badan ke atas Tertuduh-Tertuduh tidak menjumpai apa-apa barang salah. [9] SP6 telah membuat rampasan di Rumah Serbuan tersebut seperti yang disenaraikan dalam Borang Senarai Geledah [ekshibit P123] yang meliputi barang kes dadah dan barang kes bukan dadah. Rampasan barang kes dan semua tangkapan telah dibawa balik ke pejabat Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Narkotik (BSJN) IPD Petaling Jaya. SP6 telah S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 membuat 2 laporan polis iaitu Damansara Report No. 8123/20 [ekshibit P105] dan Damansara Report No. 8138-8141/20 [ekshibit P106]. [10] Menurut SP6 lagi, semasa di BSJN IPD Petaling Jaya, semua tangkapan telah dibuat ujian saringan awal urin dan hasil ujian mendapati bahawa Tertuduh 1, 2 dan 3 adalah positif dadah jenis Ketamine. Manakala hasil ujian saringan urin ke atas Tertuduh 4 dan 5 adalah negatif dadah. [11] SP13 selaku Pegawai Penyiasat telah dimaklumkan tentang rampasan serta tangkapan tersebut pada hari yang sama iaitu 10.7.2020 jam lebih kurang 5.30 petang. SP13 telah pergi dan sampai di Rumah Serbuan pada jam lebih kurang 6.45 petang. [12] Insp. Mohamad Amir Asrah bin Mohamed Ariffin, Pegawai Forensik PDRM (SP12) telah sampai ke Rumah Serbuan atas permintaan SP13 pada jam lebih kurang 8.45 malam hari yang sama, bagi membantu siasatan dan menjalankan pengambilan sampel DNA dan juga dusting cap jari. SP12 akhirnya telah menyerahkan barang-barang kes yang dipungut di tempat kejadian kepada SP13 pada jam lebih kurang 1.00 pagi 11.7.2020 seperti mana dinyatakan dalam Akuan Serah/Terima Barang Kes [ekshibit P166] dan menyediakan Laporan Pemeriksaan Tempat Kejadian [ekshibit P167]. [13] SP13 telah menerima semua rampasan barang kes, tangkapan- tangkapan dan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan pada 11.7.2020 jam lebih kurang 10.00 pagi seperti mana dalam Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [ekshibit P124]. SP13 juga telah membuat tandaan beliau sendiri ke atas barang-barang kes tersebut. [14] Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap, Ahli Kimia Narkotik (SP1) telah menjalankan pemeriksaan ke atas rampasan barang-barang kes atas permintaan SP13 pada 14.7.2020 di pejabat narkotik IPD Petaling Jaya dan akhirnya telah meminta SP13 menghantar item-item yang telah dikenalpasti (sebanyak 19 item iaitu item No. 1, 4-13, 18, 19, 47-50, 55 dan 58 dalam Laporan) supaya dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk tujuan analisis. Laporan pemeriksaan oleh SP1 tersebut adalah seperti mana dilaporkan dalam Laporan No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-12987 [ekshibit P8]. [15] Lanjutan daripada itu, pada 15.7.2020 SP13 telah menyerahkan 1 kotak bertanda ‘SA’ yang mengandungi item-item yang telah dikenalpasti untuk analisis oleh Ahli Kimia menurut borang Polis 31 [ekshibit P10] dan disahkan penerimaannya oleh SP1 serta dikeluarkan Resit Rasmi Jabatan Kimia Malaysia [ekshibit P9]. [16] SP1 telah menjalankan analisis dan hasil analisis beliau adalah seperti mana dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-12988 [ekshibit P11]. Antara lain, hasil analisis SP1 mendapati tablet-tablet dan serbuk berwarna putih daripada item yang dijalankan analisis tersebut adalah mengandungi 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), Ketamine dan Nimetazepam yang merupakan dadah berbahaya seperti mana yang disenaraikan dalam Jadual Pertama ADB. S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Hujahan Pihak-Pihak Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan Pihak Pendakwaan [17] Pihak pendakwaan telah menghujahkan berkenaan elemen- elemen pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan iaitu: (a) Dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti yang tersenarai dalam ADB dengan berat bersih seperti mana dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan; (b) Dadah tersebut berada dalam milikan (possession) Tertuduh- Tertuduh; (c) Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah yang dirampas; dan (d) Tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatan mengedar (trafficking) dadah tersebut. [18] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa elemen pertama berkenaan identiti dadah berbahaya tersebut telah berjaya dibuktikan melalui keterangan Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap, Ahli Kimia (SP1) yang melakukan analisis terhadap barang kes dadah tersebut. SP1 mengesahkan bahawa barang kes dadah tersebut merupakan dadah berbahaya jenis Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), Nimetazepam dan Ketamine. S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [19] SP1 juga turut mengesahkan bahawa jenis dadah yang dianalisis adalah sebagai mana yang ditakrifkan di bawah seksyen 2 dan tersenarai dalam Jadual Pertama ADB. Lanjutan daripada analisis yang telah dijalankan, SP1 telah menyediakan Laporan Kimia No. 20-FR-B-12987 bertarikh 24.2.2021 [ekshibit P8] dengan sedikit pindaan. [20] Selanjutnya pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan (control and custody) terhadap barang kes dadah tersebut berdasarkan yang berikut: (a) Kedudukan barang kes dadah yang ditemui di aras bawah Rumah Serbuan tersebut iaitu: (i) di atas meja di ruang tamu; (ii) di atas meja di bilik stor; (iii) di atas meja aluminium di sebelah kanan belakang ruang dapur; (b) Dadah dalam keadaan terbuka, tidak disorok serta boleh dilihat; (c) Gambar-gambar tempat kejadian [ekshibit P93] adalah merujuk kepada kedudukan asal barang-barang kes yang ditemui di atas meja kayu di ruang tamu dan di atas meja aluminium di ruang dapur; (d) Kedudukan meja kayu dalam gambar [ekshibit P93 (6) dan (7)] jelas menunjukkan kedudukan meja kayu di ruang tamu S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 itu yang berhadapan dengan pintu masuk utama dan tangga Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang mana Tertuduh-Tertuduh boleh melihat dengan jelas meja kayu itu dan barang-barang di atasnya, apabila mereka membuka pintu untuk masuk ke dalam Rumah Serbuan tersebut atau ketika turun/naik menggunakan tangga rumah tersebut; (e) Pintu bilik di bahagian belakang dapur di mana dadah yang dijumpai daripada atas meja aluminium juga tidak bertutup dan tidak berkunci ketika serbuan dijalankan di mana Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai akses ke dalam bilik tersebut dan satu-satunya laluan ke tandas di aras bawah tersebut hendaklah melalui meja aluminium yang terdapat dalam bilik tersebut; (f) Mana-mana individu yang tinggal bersama ataupun hadir sebagai tetamu dalam Rumah Serbuan tersebut pasti mempunyai kebebasan bergerak ke seluruh bahagian rumah tersebut walaupun perjanjian sewa Rumah Serbuan tersebut adalah antara Tertuduh 1 dan Robert Ong Thien Cheng, pemilik rumah (SP4). [21] Mengenai elemen pengetahuan pula, pihak pendakwaan telah menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah-dadah yang ditemui tersebut melalui inferens yang berikut: S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (a) Reaksi Tertuduh-Tertuduh ketika serbuan (i) Reaksi Tertuduh 1 yang gelisah dan berulang kali mengulangi percakapannya “Kita cerita luar boleh, tuan”; (ii) Reaksi Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 yang kelihatan shaking atau menggeletar; (iii) Reaksi Tertuduh 4 dan Tertuduh 5 yang kelihatan gelisah pada wajah mereka. (b) Kedudukan Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 ketika serbuan (i) Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 berada di ruang tamu tidak jauh atau berdekatan dengan meja kayu di ruang tamu yang dibuat inferens mereka mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah atas meja kayu tersebut; (ii) Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 5 adalah pasangan kekasih dan merupakan tetamu dalam Rumah Serbuan itu. Namun ketika serbuan, Tertuduh 2 tidak berada bersama Tertuduh 5 di dalam bilik tetapi berada di ruang tamu; S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (iii) Tertuduh 3 dikatakan tinggal sementara di Rumah Serbuan tersebut dan hanya menumpang tinggal di ruang tamu di aras bawah; (iv) Keputusan saringan urin Tertuduh 1, Tertuduh 2 dan Tertuduh 3 didapati positif dadah jenis Ketamine. (c) Kedudukan dadah Kedudukan dadah dalam keadaan terdedah, terbuka dan boleh dilihat atau tidak disorokkan. Gambar-gambar tempat kejadian [ekshibit P93] dihujahkan sebagai gambar kedudukan asal dadah ditemui semasa serbuan. Maka dihujahkan suatu inferens bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan dadah tersebut yang tidak perlu disorokkan pun. (d) Keberadaan Tertuduh 2, Tertuduh 3, Tertuduh 4 dan Tertuduh 5 di Rumah Serbuan Ketika serbuan tersebut dijalankan, ia masih dalam tempoh Perintah Kawalan Pergerakan Pemulihan (PKPP) oleh sebab pandemik di Negeri Selangor yang mana aktiviti rentas negeri telah dibenarkan. Pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa alasan Tertuduh 2, Tertuduh 3, Tertuduh 4 dan Tertuduh 5 menumpang Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang disewa oleh Tertuduh 1 adalah tidak masuk akal dan keberadaan mereka S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 bersama dalam Rumah Serbuan ketika serbuan itu bukanlah suatu kebetulan tetapi adalah untuk satu tujuan yang sama (aktiviti dadah). [22] Mengenai elemen pengedaran (trafficking) pula, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa terdapat keterangan langsung yang menunjukkan Tertuduh-Tertuduh melakukan perbuatan ‘pengedaran’ (trafficking) menurut takrifan di bawah seksyen 2 ADB berdasarkan perbuatan-perbuatan ‘menyimpan’ (keeping) dadah tersebut di atas meja kayu di ruang tamu dan atas meja aluminium di ruang dapur. Selain itu, pihak pendakwaan juga menghujahkan wujud elemen pengedaran dadah itu berdasarkan inferens kepada kuantiti dadah yang besar iaitu 90.29 gram bagi dadah 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) yang dikatakan merupakan jumlah yang besar dan Tertuduh-Tertuduh menyimpannya bagi tujuan pengedaran. Dalam masa yang sama, pihak pendakwaan juga mengguna pakai anggapan statutori di bawah seksyen 37(d) ADB bagi elemen mengedar dadah tersebut. [23] Pihak pendakwaan juga menghujahkan bahawa rantaian keterangan barang kes dadah tersebut adalah tidak terputus daripada mula pemeriksaan dan penemuan oleh pegawai serbuan SP6 yang telah menyediakan Borang Senarai Geledah [ekshibit P23] bertarikh 11.7.2020 dan seterusnya menyerahkan kepada ASP Sukri bin Ahmad selaku Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13). [24] SP13 juga telah menerima semua rampasan barang kes, tangkapan-tangkapan dan dokumen-dokumen berkaitan pada 11.7.2020 S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 jam lebih kurang 10.00 pagi seperti mana dalam Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes [ekshibit P124]. SP13 juga telah membuat tandaan beliau sendiri ke atas barang-barang kes tersebut. [25] Hairul Nizwan bin Ab Manap, Ahli Kimia Narkotik (SP1) telah menjalankan pemeriksaan ke atas rampasan barang-barang kes atas permintaan SP13 pada 14.7.2020 dan akhirnya telah meminta SP13 menghantar item-item yang telah dikenalpasti (sebanyak 19 item iaitu item bernombor 1, 4 hingga 13, 18, 19, 47 hingga 50, 55 dan 58) supaya dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk tujuan analisis. Laporan pemeriksaan oleh SP1 tersebut adalah seperti mana dilaporkan dalam Laporan Kimia No. Makmal: 20-FR-B-12987 [ekshibit P8]. [26] SP13 pula telah menghantar barang kes dadah yang dimasukkan ke dalam satu kotak bertanda ‘SA’ kepada Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk tujuan analisis yang mana telah diserahkan oleh beliau pada 15.7.2020 kepada Ahli Kimia bernama Abd Rahim bin Ismail (SP1) berserta Borang Pol 31 [ekshibit P10] dan dikeluarkan resit rasmi Jabatan Kimia Malaysia bertarikh 15.7.2020 sebagai bukti penerimaan [ekshibit P9]. [27] Selepas analisis oleh Ahli Kimia (SP1) disempurnakan, SP13 telah mengambil dan menerima semula barang kes dadah tersebut sebelum disimpan di setor barang kes dan didaftarkan dalam Buku Daftar Barang Kes [ekshibit P12]. [28] Oleh yang demikian, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan berdasarkan keterangan di atas rantaian keterangan barang kes adalah S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 tidak terputus dan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan adalah kredibel, konsisten dan saling menyokong antara satu sama lain. [29] Kesimpulannya, pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan dengan membuat penilaian dan mempertimbangkan keterangan-keterangan yang ada secara keseluruhan, suatu kes prima facie bagi pertuduhan berkenaan telah berjaya dibuktikan terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh dan memohon Tertuduh-Tertuduh dipanggil membela diri. Pihak Pembelaan [30] Secara ringkasnya, pihak pembelaan menghujahkan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh-Tertuduh ke atas ketiga-tiga pertuduhan kesalahan tersebut. [31] Peguambela Tertuduh 1 dalam penghujahannya telah membangkitkan antara lain, isu-isu berikut: (a) Percanggahan keterangan pegawai serbuan (SP6) dengan keterangan saksi pendakwaan yang lain; (b) Rangkaian keterangan yang terputus (break in the chain of evidence) terutamanya apabila Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13) mengesahkan dalam keterangannya bahawa SP6 ada meninggalkan Rumah Serbuan antara jam 6 hingga 8 malam pada 10.7.2020 untuk membuat laporan polis. Oleh yang S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 demikian menimbulkan lompang ke atas pemerhatian dan pemantauan barang kes yang belum dibuat penandaan; (c) Bahawa Tertuduh 1 tidak mempunyai milikan (possession) ke atas dadah yang ditemui di atas meja di ruang tamu yang merupakan ruang terbuka dan di bilik stor yang tidak berkunci yang mana individu lain juga mempunyai akses; (d) Bahawa semua peralatan dan bahan-bahan yang ditemui adalah untuk tujuan pembuatan ‘bath bomb’; (e) Kewujudan individu lain yang dipanggil sebagai ‘Moon’ yang ditimbulkan nama itu oleh saksi pendakwaan, Izrin John a/l Jebasingam Issace (SP8) iaitu seorang penyewa bilik di Rumah Serbuan tersebut; (f) Inferens pihak pendakwaan bahawa perbuatan Tertuduh 2, 3, 4 dan 5 pindah masuk dan tinggal dalam rumah sewa bersama dengan Tertuduh 1 sebagai bukti ‘pre-planning’ adalah merupakan suatu spekulatif dan tidak berasas; (g) Penyiasatan yang tidak memuaskan seperti pengambilan sampel DNA dan pengesanan cap jari di tingkat bawah di mana dadah tersebut ditemui dalam Rumah Serbuan yang dihuni oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh; (h) Tiada niat bersama (common intention). S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [32] Peguambela Tertuduh 2 pula telah membangkitkan dalam hujahannya yang berikut: (a) Terputus rantaian keterangan; (b) Ketiadaan jagaan, kawalan dan pengetahuan Tertuduh- Tertuduh ke atas dadah yang ditemui; (c) Adanya akses ke atas Rumah Serbuan tersebut oleh orang lain; (d) Ketiadaan keterangan Tertuduh yang sedang melakukan ‘overt act’ memproses dan/atau mengedar dadah tersebut; (e) Tiada niat bersama; (f) Siasatan yang tidak lengkap; dan (g) Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil saksi (Moon) menimbulkan ‘adverse inference’. [33] Manakala peguambela Tertuduh 3 pula menghujahkan isu Tertuduh 3 yang tiada kaitan dengan dadah yang dirampas dan hanyalah hadir sebagai pelawat Rumah Serbuan. [34] Seterusnya peguambela Tertuduh 4 pula menghujahkan kegagalan pihak pendakwaan membuktikan suatu kes prima facie berdasarkan alasan-alasan berikut: S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 (a) Kegagalan membuktikan intipati-intipati pertuduhan; (b) Siasatan yang tidak sempurna; (c) Percanggahan keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan; (d) Pergerakan barang-barang kes yang meragukan; dan (e) Tertuduh 4 tidak mempunyai pengetahuan tentang dadah yang dijumpai. [35] Akhirnya peguambela Tertuduh 5 pula menghujahkan isu-isu yang berikut: (a) Tertuduh 5 yang tidak mempunyai milikan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai; (b) Kegagalan memanggil atau menawarkan saksi yang bernama “Moon”; (c) Borang Senarai Geledah yang cacat dan defektif; (d) Buku Daftar Barang Kes yang cacat dan defektif; (e) Kegagalan membuktikan niat bersama Tertuduh 5; (f) Siasatan yang tidak lengkap dan menyeluruh. S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Tugas Mahkamah Di Akhir Kes Pendakwaan [36] Tugas Mahkamah di akhir kes pendakwaan adalah bagi memutuskan samada pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan suatu kes prima facie seperti mana yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 180(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. “When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.” [37] Suatu kes prima facie dikatakan berjaya dibuktikan hanyalah apabila pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya mengemukakan keterangan- keterangan yang kukuh bagi membuktikan setiap dan tiap-tiap intipati/elemen kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan yang mana sekiranya gagal dipatahkan akan membawa kepada sabitan, seperti mana diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 180(4) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah: “For the purpose of this section, a prima facie is made out against the accused where the prosecution had adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction.” (Penekanan ditambah) [38] Prinsip-prinsip tugas mahkamah di akhir kes pendakwaan ini telah dijelaskan dalam beberapa kes tersohor termasuklah PP v Mohd Radzi S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 yang mana Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan: “[15] For the guidance of the court below, we summarise as follows the steps that should be taken by trial court at the close of the prosecution’s case: (i) the close of the prosecution’s case, subject the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinise the credibility of each of the prosecution’s witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. If the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused; (ii) ask yourself the question: if I call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that question is “Yes”, then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is “No” then, a prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted;” (Penekanan ditambah) S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [39] Elemen-elemen (ingredients) pertuduhan yang perlu dibuktikan adalah: (a) Perkara atau ‘subject matter’ yang terlibat bagi pertuduhan kesalahan-kesalahan tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya menurut jenis dan kuantiti seperti berikut: (i) 90.29 gram 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); (ii) 0.39 gram Nimetazepam; dan (iii) 26.73 gram Ketamine. (b) Tertuduh mempunyai pemilikan (jagaan atau kawalan dan pengetahuan) ke atas kesemua dadah berbahaya tersebut pada tempat, masa dan tarikh yang dipertuduhkan; (c) Tertuduh telah melakukan perbuatan mengedar dadah atau ‘trafficking’ (bagi pertuduhan kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA); dan (d) Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai niat bersama dalam perbuatan mengedar dadah berbahaya dan memiliki dadah berbahaya seperti mana dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan tersebut. S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Analisa dan Dapatan Mahkamah Identiti Dadah Berbahaya [40] Adalah dapatan (finding) Mahkamah ini di akhir kes pendakwaan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan elemen pertama bahawa perkara sabjek kepada pertuduhan ke atas Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti mana dipertuduhkan seperti mana keterangan lisan dan keterangan dokumentar Laporan Kimia (ekshibit P11) oleh Ahli Kimia (SP1) yang gagal dicabar atau dipatahkan oleh pihak pembelaan. [41] Tiada sebarang cabaran yang serius oleh peguambela terhadap identiti dadah berbahaya yang telah diterima dan dianalisis oleh SP1. Peguambela Tertuduh-Tertuduh lebih banyak mencadangkan kepada SP1 tentang kewujudan bahan-bahan lain yang bukan dadah (seperti palmitic acid, octadecanol/stearyl alcohol, oleic acid dll) dan mencadangkan kegunaannya dalam industri pembuatan kosmetik dan sabun. Begitu juga dengan kegunaan mesin ‘Pinch Points’ yang dicadangkan kegunaannya untuk membuat ‘bath bomb’. [42] Walaupun ada cubaan mencabar keterangan SP1 berkenaan proses analisis yang dijalankan, Mahkamah ini masih berpuas hati dan menerima keterangan lisan oleh SP1 dan keterangan dokumentar melalui ekshibit P11 tersebut. S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [43] Di dalam kes Munusamy Vengadasalam v PP [1987] CLJ (Rep) 221, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “…the Court is entitled to accept the opinion of the expert of its face value, unless it is inherently incredible of the defence calls evidence in rebuttal by another expert to contradict the opinion. So long as some credible evidence is given by the Chemist to support his opinion, there is no necessity for him to go into details of what he did in the laboratory, step by step.” (Penekanan ditambah) [44] Malahan peguambela Tertuduh 3 dalam hujahan bertulisnya di perenggan 8 telah menyatakan bahawa tiada isu berkenaan elemen pertama di mana Ahli Kimia (SP1) telah memberi keterangan bahawa dadah yang dianalisa adalah merupakan dadah berbahaya seperti mana yang disenaraikan di bawah Jadual Pertama, ADB. [45] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya mengemukakan keterangan yang kukuh bagi membuktikan barang kes yang menjadi subject matter dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan ke atas Tertuduh-Tertuduh adalah merupakan dadah berbahaya (3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), Nimetazepam dan Ketamine) seperti mana ditakrifkan dan tersenarai dalam Jadual Pertama ADB. S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 Rantaian keterangan [46] Adalah menjadi hujahan pihak pembelaan khususnya oleh Tertuduh 1 dan Tertuduh 2 bahawa terdapat kelompangan dalam rantaian keterangan (break in the chain of evidence) berkenaan dengan barang kes dadah yang dirampas sehinggalah ia dikemukakan ke dalam Mahkamah ini semasa perbicaraan. [47] Merujuk kepada ringkasan kes pendakwaan dalam perenggan 9 hingga 16 di atas, rampasan barang kes telah dibuat hasil serbuan pada 10.7.2020 yang meliputi barang kes dadah dan barang kes bukan dadah oleh SP6 dan disenaraikan dalam Borang Senarai Geledah [ekshibit P123]. Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13) telah menerima rampasan barang- barang kes tersebut daripada SP6 pada keesokan harinya iaitu 11.7.2020 seperti mana dalam Borang Serah Terima Barang Kes [ekshibit P124]. [48] Selanjutnya SP13 hanya memanggil SP1 bagi membuat pemeriksaan barang kes pada 14.7.2020 di pejabat narkotik IPD Petaling Jaya, iaitu selepas beberapa hari SP13 menerima semua barang kes tersebut. Setelah SP1 membuat pemeriksaan dan mengenalpasti beberapa barang kes dadah, SP13 telah menyerahkan 1 kotak bertanda ‘SA’ yang mengandungi barang-barang kes yang telah dikenalpasti kepada SP1 di Jabatan Kimia Malaysia bagi tujuan analisa pada 15.7.2020. [49] Peguambela Tertuduh 1 dan Tertuduh 2 telah membangkitkan isu kelompangan dalam rantaian keterangan berkenaan barang-barang kes S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 dadah tersebut dengan menghujahkan tiada rekod pergerakan barang kes dan tempat di mana barang kes disimpan dalam tempoh antara 11.7.2020 hingga 14.7.2020. Dalam kes Mohd Osman bin Pawan v. PP [1989] 2 MLJ 110, antara lain penghakiman Supreme Court menyatakan: “In a serious case such as this it is pertinent to emphasize again that investigation officers should not treat the custody of exhibits lightly so as to leave a gap in the chain of evidence relating to the exhibits before their production in court.” (Penekanan ditambah) [50] Mahkamah ini telah meneliti keterangan SP13 yang menjelaskan bahawa dalam tempoh 11.1.2020 hingga 14.7.2020, barang-barang kes tersebut tidak pun disimpan atau didaftarkan dalam stor barang kes atas alasan ruang stor yang telah penuh/padat dan sebaliknya meletakkan barang-barang kes tersebut di atas lantai dalam biliknya. [51] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa SP13 telah menyebabkan barang-barang kes/ekshibit tersebut terdedah kepada risiko tercemar dan kebarangkalian dikacau ganggu. Adalah amat meragukan bagi Mahkamah ini untuk mempercayai tiada sesiapa orang lain pun yang akan keluar dan masuk ke dalam bilik SP13 atau untuk mempercayai bahawa SP13 tidak akan meninggalkan biliknya dalam tempoh tersebut atau beberapa hari. S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [52] Adalah lebih mengecewakan lagi apabila dirujuk kepada buku Pendaftaran Barang-Barang Kes [ekshibit P96] ada mencatatkan bahawa barang-barang kes tersebut didaftar simpan dalam stor pada 11.7.2020 yang mana amat bercanggah dengan keterangan SP13 bahawa ia disimpan dalam bilik pejabat beliau. Semasa pemeriksaan balas, SP13 menjawab bahawa tarikh yang sepatutnya dicatat dalam ruang (2) buku Pendaftaran Barang-Barang Kes tersebut ialah 15.7.2020. Walau bagaimanapun, apabila dicadangkan oleh peguambela Tertuduh 1 bahawa tarikh 15.7.2020 adalah merupakan tarikh barang kes dadah dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, SP13 telah bersetuju dan akhirnya menyatakan tidak pasti bilakah masa atau tarikh sebenar barang-barang kes disimpan dan didaftarkan dalam stor barang kes seperti dalam ekshibit P96. [53] Malahan juga, SP13 semasa pemeriksaan balas telah bersetuju bahawa item-item yang didaftarkan dalam ruang (5) ekshibit P96 wujud kesilapan kerana ia merujuk kepada keseluruhan barang kes yang dirampas sedangkan terdapat sebahagian barang kes yang sebenarnya telah dihantar kepada Ahli Kimia (SP1) untuk dijalankan analisis. [54] Dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. SIM, ODITA, Muhammad Architects Sdn. Bhd. [2008] 3 CLJ 623 telah diputuskan seperti berikut: “[10] It was also the contention of the defence that there is break in chain of evidence, as during the testimonies of the prosecution and the defence witnesses, evidence tends to show that there is opportunity for tampering to S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 exist, if the opportunity of tampering existed, there would be a break in the chain of evidence, irrespective of whether the opportunity was taken or not.” (Penekanan ditambah) [55] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini mendapati wujud kelompangan ke atas rantai keterangan berkenaan dengan barang kes khususnya barang kes dadah yang menjadi perkara sabjek dalam kes ini yang menimbulkan keraguan ke atas kes pendakwaan. Milikan (possession) ke atas dadah berbahaya [56] Bagi membuktikan elemen milikan, dua unsur utama yang perlu dibuktikan ialah elemen fizikal iaitu milikan yang merujuk kepada jagaan dan kawalan fizikal (control and custody) ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut serta elemen mental iaitu pengetahuan (knowledge). [57] Di dalam kes Chan Pean Leon v PP [1956] 22 MLJ 237, Hakim Thomson telah menjelaskan tentang kedua-dua unsur tersebut pada muka surat 239 seperti berikut: “A movable thing is said to be in possession of a person when he is situated with respect to it that he has the power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other persons and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need. To put it otherwise, there is a physical element and S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 mental element which must both be present before possession is made out.” (Penekanan ditambah) [58] Berpandukan kepada nas yang dinyatakan di atas, adalah menjadi suatu prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa bagi membuktikan seseorang itu mempunyai “milikan”, perlulah dibuktikan melalui keterangan bahawa seseorang itu mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan ke atas sesuatu barang tersebut dan bebas berurusan atau mengendalikan barang tersebut sepenuhnya tanpa penglibatan orang lain (power of disposal to the exclusion of others) dan mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas sesuatu barang tersebut. [59] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh telah mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan ke atas dadah-dadah berbahaya tersebut dan seterusnya mempunyai pengetahuan melalui inferens yang dibuat berdasarkan faktor reaksi, kedudukan dadah, kelakuan (conduct) dan keberadaan Tertuduh-Tertuduh seperti mana dinyatakan dalam perenggan 21 di atas. [60] Walau bagaimanapun, berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan, Mahkamah ini mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai milikan atau kawalan dan jagaan serta pengetahuan ke atas dadah-dadah berbahaya tersebut. S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 [61] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan serta pengetahuan ke atas dadah-dadah berbahaya tersebut atas alasan- alasan yang berikut: (a) Tempat rampasan barang kes dijumpai adalah berkisar di meja kayu, rak almari besi dan meja dalam bilik belakang yang mana semuanya berada di tingkat bawah atau ‘Tingkat Satu’ dalam Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang boleh diakses oleh sesiapa jua yang memasuki Rumah Serbuan tersebut; (b) Keadaan Rumah Serbuan tersebut yang sememangnya tidak berpagar dan tiada pintu grill. Malahan pintu rumah tersebut adalah tidak berkunci semasa serbuan dijalankan; (c) Tiada apa-apa penemuan cap jari yang boleh mengkaitkan akses Tertuduh-Tertuduh kepada barang kes dadah tersebut atau mana-mana barang lain yang bukan dadah; (d) SP13 sendiri semasa dicadangkan oleh peguambela Tertuduh 3 bersetuju bahawa Tertuduh 3 tidak mendiami mana-mana bilik dalam rumah tersebut dan hanya menumpang tidur di rumah tersebut. Malahan saksi pendakwaan iaitu Izrin John a/l Jebasingam Issace (SP8) yang merupakan salah seorang penyewa di rumah tersebut juga mengesahkan perkara ini; S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 (e) Malahan seorang lagi saksi pendakwaan iaitu Hong Joon Wei (SP10) juga mengatakan pernah dan biasa pergi ke rumah tersebut untuk minum-minum; (f) Laporan DNA hanya menyatakan tentang penemuan profil DNA ke atas sampel yang dipungut yang mana bukanlah daripada mana-mana item rampasan yang mengandungi dadah; (g) Tiada sebarang rampasan atau penemuan apa-apa kunci Rumah Serbuan tersebut dan berpadanan dengan keterangan SP8 yang merupakan salah seorang penyewa dalam rumah tersebut bahawa beliau tidak pernah diberikan dengan kunci bagi rumah tersebut; (h) Terdapat keraguan tentang kegunaan barang-barang rampasan lain atau bahan kimia untuk membuat ‘bath bomb’ atau sabun. Malahan Ahli Kimia (SP1) juga bersetuju dan tidak menafikan cadangan oleh pihak pembelaan tersebut. Niat Bersama oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh [62] Mahkamah ini juga mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan niat bersama (common intention) antara Tertuduh- Tertuduh bagi perbuatan kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya ‘3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)’ dan/atau kesalahan memiliki dadah berbahaya ‘Nimetazepam’ serta ‘Ketamine’ seperti mana S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 maksud peruntukan seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan, ‘in furtherance of the common intention which presupposes permutation or pre-concept of mind’ bersama-sama oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut. [63] Mahkamah ini merumuskan bahawa dengan hanya setakat keberadaan Tertuduh-Tertuduh di suatu tempat dan masa yang sama sahaja adalah tidak mencukupi bagi membuktikan ‘premeditation or prearranged plan’ oleh Tertuduh-Tertuduh (Re case Ram Nath Madhoprasad & Ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh Air [1953] SC 420 atau pun bagi membuktikan bahawa wujud suatu perancangan (plan) atau ‘meeting of mind’ antara Tertuduh-Tertuduh (Re case Krishna Rao Gurumurthi v PP & Another Appeal [2009] 2 CLJ 603). [64] Mahkamah ini tidak mendapati apa-apa keterangan yang boleh menunjukkan atau membuktikan wujudnya suatu perancangan (plan) atau ‘meeting of mind’ antara Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut. Pihak pendakwaan sekadar membuktikan keberadaan Tertuduh-Tertuduh tersebut dalam Rumah Serbuan itu pada masa yang material sahaja. Pengedaran (trafficking) dadah berbahaya [65] Pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh-Tertuduh bersama-sama terlibat dalam kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) berdasarkan tafsiran ‘trafficking’ di bawah seksyen 2 ADB 1952 dengan bergantung kepada unsur atau elemen ‘menyimpan’ (keeping) ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut (rujuk perenggan 66 dan 67 penghujahan bertulis pihak S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 pendakwaan). Malahan lagi pihak pendakwaan menghujahkan bahawa tindakan Tertuduh-Tertuduh ‘menyimpan’ dadah tersebut di atas meja kayu di ruang tamu serta di atas meja aluminium di dapur Rumah Serbuan tersebut dan memandangkan jumlah berat dadah 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) iaitu 90.29 gram yang dianggap sebagai suatu jumlah yang besar, maka dihujahkan bahawa ia terjumlah kepada perbuatan pengedaran secara langsung menurut definisi pengedaran di bawah seksyen 2 ADB. [66] Namun Mahkamah ini tidak mendapati apa-apa keterangan lain yang dapat menunjukkan aktiviti Tertuduh-Tertuduh dengan pengedaran dadah atau melakukan apa-apa ‘overt act’ selain daripada sekadar perbuatan ‘menyimpan’ yang boleh dikaitkan sebagai pengedaran dadah. [67] Selain itu, pihak pendakwaan juga dalam perenggan 65 penghujahan bertulisnya mengguna pakai anggapan statutori di bawah seksyen 37(d) ADB bagi elemen mengedar dadah. Walau bagaimanapun, berdasarkan dapatan terdahulu Mahkamah ini bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan elemen milikan (possession) Tertuduh-Tertuduh ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut, maka anggapan statutori mengedar di bawah seksyen 37(d) ADB adalah tidak terpakai. Anggapan statutori tersebut hanyalah terpakai apabila elemen jagaan, kawalan dan pengetahuan ke atas dadah berbahaya tersebut telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan. S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 Kelemahan siasatan [68] Mahkamah ini juga mendapati kelemahan siasatan yang dijalankan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat (SP13) seperti berikut: (a) Gagal mengarahkan pihak forensik supaya menjalankan ‘dusting’ ke atas semua barang kes yang mana boleh membantu mengenal pasti individu sebenar yang mempunyai akses kepada dadah tersebut; (b) Gagal menyimpan semua barang rampasan di dalam stor atau tempat yang sesuai bagi mengelakkan timbul keraguan tentang barang kes tersebut daripada tercemar atau dikacau ganggu; (c) Gagal memastikan pendaftaran kemasukan barang kes secara tepat dan betul; (d) Gagal memastikan pergerakan keluar/masuk barang kes dengan tepat dalam Buku Daftar Barang Kes [ekshibit P96]; (e) Gagal membuat siasatan lebih mendalam terhadap individu bernama ‘Moon’ seperti mana yang dibangkitkan dalam keterangan saksi pendakwaan sendiri atau merakam percakapannya; S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 (f) Gagal menyiasat sama ada Tertuduh-Tertuduh mempunyai kunci Rumah Serbuan tersebut atau tidak; (g) Gagal menyiasat sama ada pintu belakang Rumah Serbuan itu berkunci atau tidak pada hari kejadian; dan (h) Gagal untuk meneliti hasil laporan kimia DNA [ekshibit P165] yang telah diterima oleh beliau sendiri. Keputusan [69] Setelah meneliti dan membuat penilaian maksimum ke atas keterangan-keterangan yang telah dikemukakan, Mahkamah ini telah merumuskan pada akhir kes pendakwaan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan sepenuhnya elemen-elemen kesalahan seperti mana dalam pertuduhan-pertuduhan tersebut. [70] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini memutuskan berdasarkan alasan-alasan dan dapatan Mahkamah ini seperti mana dinyatakan di atas serta dengan mengguna pakai test/ujian untuk membuktikan kes prima facie seperti mana dijelaskan dalam kes PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar (supra), Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh- Tertuduh bagi pertuduhan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 tersebut. S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N JOTgK4BdoUqPvhzsQ5csA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-12BNCvC-132-09/2022

PERAYU CITYPOINT STRATEGIES SDN BHD RESPONDEN TRITON EQUITY SDN BHD (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN)

This appeal is struck out. The Session Court’s decision remains undisturbed. Costs of RM10,000 is awarded to the Respondent.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b5631cfe-8e7e-4203-8636-4561b51c9f4b&Inline=true

11/12/2023 14:47:31 WA-12BNCvC-132-09/2022 Kand. 75 S/N /hxjtX6OA0KGNkVhtRyfSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /hxjtX6OA0KGNkVhtRyfSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /hxjtX6OA0KGNkVhtRyfSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /hxjtX6OA0KGNkVhtRyfSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /hxjtX6OA0KGNkVhtRyfSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /hxjtX6OA0KGNkVhtRyfSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N /hxjtX6OA0KGNkVhtRyfSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—12sm:vc—132—u9/2022 Kand. 75 11/12/2023 mu-2; IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN ms FEDERAL TERRIYORV, MALAYSIA cm APFEALN WA zaucv :24:/znzz BETWEEN curvramr STRAYEGIES so» am: (In Rocolvmmp Ind Llquldlllon) APPELLANY (cnmviny No : 935311.11) AND mmu Euulrv sou am: RESPONDENT (cumnany No: B53701-A) GROUNDS or JUDGMENT Em: 54: Appnuuou to Itrlke out me Aupellanrs appeal Intvoducflnn [1] The Responoem sougm leave (ram ms cam In me me appucauon |a smke on: me Appellanrs apnea‘ (Em: 541 The ms: 5 prermsed an me last man ma Raspandenl ‘s wound-up company and me Appellant had . IN mx4¢xwAnxGNkvMRyvSw mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm lallea In procure leave pursuant lo am Companies Am 2016 M7 me this appeal agalnstlhs Respundenl rnesepona reason rssled on me lanllnal the Appellanl naa lallea lo provide lurlne secumy (or was plaenea by lnis calm — although slnee Ihs lapse ol hme belween me filing of me Re¢.ponl1enl's zpphcallun and ms neanng. me Appellant had made me paymenl when ml; coun had reminded mac its appeal would be almck pm ll paylnenl were nol made. [21 This Court hum ma submlsslons of ma Dames ln addrasslng me am lame rne appellunl mpnmnea Ihnl mere was no namsnylp obtaln leave undar ln. Act as me appul wa. dolsnslve pmpminga. ma Awellanl wls me Delarldam zl Ina Sssslon Calm me Rospondsm ma clalmsd ppm an Oh and assasimem paymsnls lnal wen advanold by the Raipondanl an behallollm Appeilird The dsienoe puuonn pylne Appellanlapalnsl me clalm <11 RMI01.433,35 was man we aarlemunl had nol exlsted and ms lnvolees were no| ganulrle The Appellanrs posrllon was ml me llwnloas luvme electrlclfy charges were unlawful musuan| |a me eleclnclzy Supply Ala 1995 The Appellant had ppnlemea that in any SVEI1I,SIVD|JId ma agreemenl loans to be VI axls1enue and mnalng, me Appellanl was enllllad lo a -sel-olr agalnsllhe amount of RM§3fl‘Onfl mm the Appellant Md men as Pmofof Dem la me lzesponaenra llqmaalms agreement, lmllle Daymarlls alslanlnlaly mam: [31 The sesslon Conn had ruled Ill lne Respondents lavpur and plasma me Appellant in pay the salasunl due and nwlng noses were also awamsd up me Respandenl ln me sum cl lwlmou. The Appellam was unaalunea wllh Iha sand floclslon, hence VH5 appeal. has Appellanrs counsel submllled lha| mp appeal was no: an acllon DI procaedlng sm mxnxu0Anl<5NwmRy?Sw “Nair s.n.l luvlhnrwm p. p... a may he nflmruflly -mm: mmn w. nFluNa Wm! aqamsl the Respondent. an m snught Ims Calm co dnsrmss me Responuenra anmicaam. to strike out mus awesl [41 The AppeHan|s munsel submnlled Iha| me case laws relerrai m by me Respondent was mauavam as may addressed leave apphcalmns (see Mosblri Bud (In uqumuon) v Still: Lvcmz uses] 2 MLJ 446, R0 Culhbin Lua smumng Co us. wma a-«was /ndustrlca Sdn End :1 Unhfllt mnurmumug Sdn am (Cnaw sm Nan 5 Dr: nmmnm) mm] win my; me Mcsmmnrg Pmpufy Sdn and v Kimlin Huurlnv aw-rupm-m Sdn anu[2o1414 MLJ use) However‘ lhu Appelllnl had failed «a produce any suppamng aumurmes mal Rs appeal ws 3 aemum pvoceeamg against me wound-up Raaponuam that am nut require any Weave L. ndIrsA7 n : Acl 2015 [5] The Respondenl was wound up an 13 12 2013 and Won] Cham Mew was appmmed as as llqmdalor pursuam to ma cowl urderoflhe even dale The prnvusxon of 5471 0f the Act IS reproduced -n MI here for easy ve1elenz:e' -41) When a wmdmg up me: has been made or an mlanm uqmdalor has bean appomled, no sum or pmceadmg shall be pmcaaded mm or mmmencsa agamsl the company sxaupt by new aims Court and m ammanca wmn such terms as the com tmposis sm mx4IxaoAnK5NwmRyvSw «mm. saw nmhnrwm .. U... w my me mm-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! (2) The appucarm Io: msva under subsecban (1) shall be made m ma Caurtgranlmg Ihe wmamg up unis: andshall be ssrvad on me Ivcurdaroz 43) Ms olfim copy or me order by leave under subssclmn (1) shafi be lodged by me appucanz Ielsnad to In subseclm mm) with ma Rsgrslrurand wun me omc/a/ Recervev w/mm Iounun days II-am ma making a! ma mar. “ [:1 There u no exmpuan pmyma For m mu 01 ma Ad Thu Respondent‘: cram had naan aacmea and ndjudicemed bya coun av luw. The Soasuan court had Mad lha| mere Mas am to be any sel-cfiand mm the AypeHanIwas |o pay me Rexpondenllorme aam amuunllhal n owed Therefore. W5 appaax is a new proceeding mmaxaa by mu AppeHarIL undoubtedly Invokmg as mm to appeal under the law agalnsl the sand Judgment ma cam undeusnooe s4‘/1 mm M! as a aarsquam m pmtecl a company‘: assets. In this new pmceedmg wmcn Is ms appeal, me \n|enImn oflhe Appellam was «a reverse ma saaam Calm‘: mdgmenl which would mean mama R2sponden|M1u\dbe funherbs aflsclsd when me Appenanrsargumem on me issue avsenm succeed The amounlIha| ma Raspumam was saw I» have owed the Appellant was much more man ma amcum auocessmnny cram-ea by me Raspamsnx (ma Appeflznl had Meadeo aurien nu ma saaamn Ouurl malme amoum was RMQSIIDOUD — hence any rervetsal at man aacamn mos1 cenalnly anecra me Rnspmdanrs assets nenaa, leave undev am 0! ma Am Is raqmrsd .n nus mslanne. Ralsrle Rama Ammnlv Tun cnawsoo [1971] 1 Mm 277. Boardroom Advisory Sun and v Bylrd Splrll mu Sdn and [20:91 MLJU me am Inxnxuoanxamvnlfiyvsw «mm. saw ...m.mm a. U... a may a. mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum v-max m ms Com ls el ma onnsideled View lnal me Appellanrs pomenllen mal mls appeal was In ssmps llaplllly an me glouna ll-an me RespL7ndem‘s dam! was ul1Iounded.wss mleplapaa. Tllal argumem could pemaps be applleaula for ma Inal al me sesslon Court. em ml hala In lms aweal ls} me Rssponderll‘: allemauve zrgumam was Iha| m me even: ma! even V1 mls Conn was mmdad mal leave was requuea, me absence melee: was rlo| lalal le canllrluu wllh ma appeal, Bruno Pnllllpl Fennnoaen v P-awal Punamnn umyala mm] 2 MLRH wax cilea ms calm doe: npl accepl ma blase and namlulanl allllupe cl me Appallanl ln lgnorlng me slamlory leaulremanla and dlsmgamlng me manaalerycpnalllens soc-um (or posts [91 There was also me issue an ma seclmly fbr cns|s wnlm me Aapellanl pemonsllaleu Ihal ll look (on lightly. The Appellanl llaa filed lls rlanoe cl appeal on 20.9.2022 Then nfiled an appllcauon lorall exterlslan ol Ilme la file ma Appeal Records wlllall mls Coufl had allwwed an 5.: 2023. nlelaamel, «ms Court had olpeceu on 10.4 2023 101 aecuncy la: wsls lo porlllnue wI|h this appeal VI me amount M RM5,00u lo pa pal: lo ma Respondent. That amounnogelherwllh RM7,fl0D wmal was me ccsls ordered by me sesslon calm. and alaa RM3,0flD being me aasls Ims com had undated m allowing me appllcauon lo. exlerlslon al llme In file me Appeal Reounis, all ameunlaa la RM15,u0u. ma: amoum was le pa mmeaialely by me Appellanl or this appeal would be damned struck sm lrlxnxu0Anl<5NwmRy7Sw «we. Sam! luvlhnrwlll be 0.... a may l... nlwlrullly ml. dnuavlml VI nFluNfl vtmxl nu] Hnwever, an ma: even date‘ me Appellant had amylssued a cheque umM1o,uuo on 18 4 2m which me Respondent had returned based on us omecnon man it was um ms «nu ammml mat was oraaed There was no aclmn by me Aooeflinl mm six mcmns wane: an 4 1o znzz when Ihe Respondent had hruugm up mis mailer before nus Cnurl [11] Upon mqmryny |m5 Co1m,IheAppeHan|hId5(l a Ihullheylnmally pa-a ovfly RM\0.000 because mam were some mm paymenu Chit nugh| Io bu lakun mxo Iccounl rms com ma amend Ina! me secunty for oasis and ma Mher paymlnls omslandmg musl be pm Immednmaly arms AnpaHanI's nape-w would he sumck out Slri<:| uempuianos mm mus court‘: order dated we 4 2:123 was mandated [121 The paymem was nol made vmmedvatzely Even Ihough al ms urns Mme hsarmg mm; Em 54 ms Appellanl had finauyussuea the payment. UIISCDUH|0DklnI0c07IS\deI'IUDlVI718 Rsspenasnrs demandsformesame an 2o.4.2u2a, 5 7 zuza and 7 7 2023 mu: can on aeav em cf me Appellant. The seemmgxy mmflerenl msmay |c me Mes, procedures and ma raw by me Appeuam am not escape me ansemanon ohms coun this con 5 aoclslon my ms Conn consmered me cnnducl or «his appear um mcl-ma ms abuenoe Many leave undav 5471 nllhe Act and In; nun-eomphance wvlh um order for me socunly Im costs ms Caun snows ma Responaenrs nppuuuon unaor EM: 5410 Mnka om ms appea\ sm Inxnxuoanxamvnlflyvsw «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! m] This appeav Is struck oul The Sessxun cams necusmn remains undisturbed. Cos|s M RMm.oou >5 awamed to mu Respondent. DATED 23 NOVEMBER 2023 R02 MAWAR ROZAKN JUDVCIAL coMMIss\oNER HIGH COURT w MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For me Apps!/ant. Jam Rabmdranalh all M xmnnan T/n Jacob Rabmdranam & so. For the Respondent Khuw Eng Khoon 7/n cum — Jan 5 Aswclalus m Inxnxuoanxamvnlflyvsw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-11BNCvC-52-09/2022

PERAYU PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD RESPONDEN AMELIA BINTI AMIRUDDIN

The appeal was dismissed. The Magistrate’s judgment was affirmed. The Appellant must pay the Respondent damages. Costs of this appeal in the sum of RM10,000 was awarded to the Respondent.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=dcd83ff1-3d72-4810-aa09-73c378bbeb65&Inline=true

11/12/2023 12:17:27 WA-11BNCvC-52-09/2022 Kand. 31 S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 8T/Y3HI9EEiqCXPDeLvrZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—11mlcvc—52—o9/2022 Kand. 31 11/12/2013 12:11-27 IN ms HIGH coum IN MALAVA Ar KUALA LUMFUR III THE FEDERAL Tsnklronv, MALAYSIA CIVIL APPEAL N WA-11BNcvC«§2-09I2D22 BEMEEN PACIFIC I ORIENT msuluucs co BERNAD ....AFPELLANT AND AMELIA sum AMIRUDDIN ....RESPONDENY me No: 9sn12s.u.ssu) onouuns or JUDGMEN1 Thla Appul [I] The clalm apainsnhe Aopeilanl aI ma Magmlrame‘: calm wan under 596(1) Road Transact! Ad 1937 (RTA) In sun wA-A72Ncvc-2s2w5- 2018 lsun 2929) This appeal I5 aaalnsl me Maglsnaws aaclslon on so a 2922 lI.aI huh me Aupellam was legally msporlslhle to pay me Rasuenaem me damages awarded to her agains1 nne Klrubahgaran a/I Rayeskaran wmss mmorcycie lmmlhe regisvallon WVR3411 was lrsured bylhe Appellanl The msurea malorwcra was Involved In an aeclasm wnh IN at/vJMlIEEu1cxPuaLwzn -ma s.n.l Iuvlhnrwm be flied m mm a. nflmnnllly MIN: flan-mm Va arlum ma me Respondent, The man where me mver awarding the said dernegds ed IN! Respundemwas cm: sun No WA~A73KJ«9c5-05/2016(Sun 5308) [2] In sun 903. me Magistrate vdund Iuammy via a judqmanl In devaun on 16.10 2017 and assessed me damages on 2.11.2017 Upon suacesslufly oblaxmng me wdgmem, me Respandinl man sued me Appeuanu Sum 2629 la reddverme sum Th: Msawstrate nad audmea me Respondenfs follomng claim In sun 2529 and ordered me Aupellanl to pay as per prayars (a), (:2) and (up do me Respondent’; smemenz at Claim man are (1) Damages \n ma Imounl ol RMX8,759, my Interests ar 5% par Innum on me am erneunc [rum so 5 2022 up me dune alllnl ulilamsnl, and (In) our: dvmdazs. [31 The Appounnx was also ordered W pay In the Respondent me cosh onne sun 262v Dfuuuadmw m one sum o1RM1,1fi4. [4] The Appenern contended man one Mamalmn nad ened -n qrinfirlfi me said older vlemxsed on me odllornng (3) before me order In sun ens awarding me sad damages to me Pwaunmv, the Appeuanx nad on 19.4.2015‘ omamed a ddcnaranory order lrum me High court man dsdarad the Insurance «or me mmorcycle wvnam was null and vote medamaon) In suilWA—2ANCv@2$-03/2015 (sun 425). the men Cowl declared the insurama pe|i..y null and void as K-mnnngmn hid breached me poflcy cnmiullm by havmg nm 2 ‘ srn at/vJMmEE;dcxPD-Lvrzu «we. smnw nnnhnrwm .. LAIQ4 M my r... nrwhrnflly mm: dun-mm vu mum v-mm raised unnecessary convusmn In any event‘ the remedy In ma: wauld have been to sel aside me judgmem m aeleun nbtalned in Sult FOE [25] However. me Apoellanl had omed ca no longer r-praenms inleresl WI Sull gas by aleenarglng ns legal representative when il had omalneu lne nsclalanon Thelelcue. nus Ccurlcamot aceepllne argumenlmallhe Respenaenl had ml pmven me llamllry no Klmbahgalan when a ludgrnenl, alben a ludgmeru In ealaull was omalnea wnh regard In llabtllly ln sell 905 [an] we argumenl meme Aaluslars and me Appellenl s replessnlalivss were nel called lo lesufy was rapclsd by lnn calm as me Appellanl had apnea in wmmraw lls lagal reorexenullpn In sun we [27] There was no challenge as |u me valld-ly 01 (MI lmgmenl ln sull ma I| ramalnad ammeeable even at lhls Ippeal was heard by mi: 0011!! no oeelan n [25] In ms calm’: assessment es lo whether lne Ma ' when she rulea lnal lne Appellanl was legally fiable In pay me Responderll me said damages In sull 2629 whluh ls me subjefi manel oflhis appeal, lnle coun msl looked alme Dedarafion. The Appellants dmevgmund for appeal ls mal nhaa omamed the Dsdarahan wfudl gave mnununny lmm paylng me Respmmenmamages Tns ovder ls reproduced pelaw. . ADALAN DIPERINTAHKAN ballawa. (a) L/Illuk salu aeularasl banana pollsl Insman No unma- Kkwmzw men s4]lI lnslmn No D17lJ1.’!KR70D0240 em 11 ‘ am at/vJMlBEEu1CxPD.Lwzu «ma Smnl n-vlhnrwm be LAIQ4 m mm l... nflglnnllly sun. dun-mm vu arlum pans! Iempah lsazzola nlngga 14 07 2014 Ierlgah ma/am 12 oo paql yang dikelllarkarl kepada ‘ivlsumf KIRIIBANGARAN M. RLIASEKARAN berksneall motorsvkal No. WYR am mlsyelnarkan Dali! dun hdak berkuarkuasa, (D) Kos dnelapkan sebaIWikRM1,5017darl faealakalur samnfik RMBI7 no lam! 1% aanpaaa [um/ah kos " [221 Tne pansoular way me Dedaralinn was worded, male was no amnasa oeclalallon that me Appellant was nol Mable lo any lnlra Darly. nus coun takes oognlsanea man lne dedualury omers Elven under 596(3) RTA are eaueluny worded la nmlusl pmnaunclng lnal ma pamcular lnsumnce IS null and yam am my u would be unawfmcuahla against me Iturd Darly psnalnlng In ma aoclaanl case an nanu [an] In tact‘ IN: oaun nmnd mm In uml umful pmctloe by lna Hlgh Calm was In ensure nohoe unaar 595(3) RTA was servad below uallnn me a-clamury urdsrs The dedavatury ordar: were all carelully wwdnd as non only to prermnea «nu lnsuranoe policy and cerwcals null and vow between me lrsured and ma sums bu|aslmpan2Irl1Iy, man u would ml be enlmealzle agalnsl any min: party in ma aouuanmlalms [:1] ln ml: Dnclara1lon.m:re was nu rllerance la any ihlrd parly or me nesponaan al all. me Appellanl had colnmeucai ms Sm 425 after me mung: of the lnvesllgallou by me Adjusters luuna lssuas with ma insulance poln.y between Ihe Appellant and Klruhahgalan. Thus was only due lo me nance under $512) RTA served by me Respunoerll «or me aoadsnl no 3D10.2D13lhallnvoh/ed nmlonnyclz WYR 3411 owned and Insured undef lna name cl Klmbahgaran. Thus. me wnrdlngs M me Declzralinn showed lnls Court emer M the lollnwlng: u ‘ any at/v:IMliEEu1cxPl:.Lwzn “Nair Smnl n-vlhnrwlll .. LAIQ4 m yaw he nflmnnllly mm. flan-mm y.. .nunc Wml (at The uacnmuan was nc| maanno be uncomeame against me Resvundant ar an The raqum name under 595(2) RTA was not served whim would Iesuh m the Dedaralion Dem deteawe and unenforceable m pamcular agamsx me Respondem gm 3 many: RTA null" [32] The scmliny 01 me Appeal Recoms resulled in mm Court‘: anamg that me mandalmy nohce undev 59613) RTA was not served by we Aapellinl on me Rtspoodenl The Responr1an| hm lesllfwd man ans ma non recewau any name 0! ma Appeflanrs moannen in seek the Doc\arzI\nn ms fan was nol cmuengea by me Appallam In mosa- ararrflnauun. [33] So, In: Maglslraha wax conecl «hm 5M laund Ina! me Declination nmainad did not Mm mm RTA and mus he Dacluraliun mm not be mlvad on by me Aopauam lo escape ms paymam 01 aam.-gas The Mnglsmne naked on me Cuurl at Annual‘: aecman In Ahmad Nadxfin Abd Halim 5 Ann! v Allianz cum-r msum-ca Conwany (M; BM [2015] 9 cu 321 max axpounaoa me purpose of me 596(3) mandalary nnnee — men gave the High Cowl me amm |u reruaa me gmmlng oi dedaralory ordevillhewnervenevs|m1emnglalI1eIl1ud-psItyvIvrims)can demnmane prejudice. ' meanlmallhe nmetomam-m—pany vicma hke the Respnndeln would have me npuon Io Intervene in sun 425 should she benorifled and made aware ollhe Appellanfs imanuun mm ma came panel! at sun 425 ‘ am at/vJMmEEu1cxPr:.Lwzu “Nair Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! [34] Allhouprr me law glvss rm lnsuraltr here the Appellarrr, a s1awlmy rerneey (or insurance paliclis mal ouprrl (a be nullmaa. me reqrrrrerrrerrls in nmalninu sum adeclarallorl |ha| llwolvsd aolidevlldalms are stm1.T|1e declaratory erdcr must he omairred before the prormuncemenl or llahility As lrequerrlly held by our l;mms,Il1e date pl Ilablllly wuuld be me date or m: judgmeul in the al:uderl|suh- rnlms case 16 la 2m 7 in srrrwue, not we dale rmhe aladsnl so M12013 Thale also mus1 be service ol ma mace llluslraling ns lnlanllon rrna me cause papenr The marldalory service ls clearly seen rrr me wording oflhe lam 1:; No sum shall hs payable by an rnsrrm urlder subssct/all (U 7 before the dale [Ira llamllly was rrrcurmr, me rrmrrur ma oblsmed a daclualmn from . mun mar Ins lrrsuram was word or urrrrrr/mum Pmwdod that an lrrsurrrr who hu not-lmd man . declalallan uururumrrr-r .rr ncflbn rrrullrrpcmorru anlllladln mu Denali! av rm: subselflbn n: nspccts any /udwomim umrr-er: m Ffvcoedirlgs corr-rrranm mm was mmmencemsnt oflhat nclron rmlm, Marvarwrrnrrr seven days aksvlili comrrroncerrremomral acrrorr, he has glverl nan'l>I la ms pelson vma ls me lzlarrrlllrrrr me said pmcealilngs spacifymg the giwnds on wmch he 9700059: to rely, and any person In wfiom Ilalzoe ovsucrr an senor: ls so given malloe erlmledllhe lhlrlks mu bemade s ptmy thereto‘ [35] Yo mar Ihe calm o1Anpsal lrr Ahmad Madzrin Abd Nnllm (supta) held that me rnsurers like me Appellsrrl must servelhe nofioe under 595(3) RTA. As such. ml: court lound no lzoarrel wilh me Maglslralys declslon mama Anpellarrl coula no| benefit lmrrr me Dedatalian as me pmvsoaf servrrrg rrolroe under 596(3) RTA was run lullllloa. ms Oaurl oplnad Iha| ll mean! ms Appellant was rlu| lo hm mu ueoerrl arms aavamzge cl me rr ‘ SIN at/v:MliEEu1cxPu.Lvrzu “Nair s.n.l luvlhnrwm .. med m mm r... mrmrrry mm: dun-mm VII nrlum pnnxl sniam at me Dedaranon to mom paymg ma Resuurvdenl damages Iwamad as a Iesurl aune Inability m Sui| 903 malawonm ah mum lnlunu [351 Furthermore. me Federa\ Court’: decsion Vn Amsonam Insurance Bemad v S: 'AnIran a/IAhn 5. other Appclls is Instmcllvs wherehy me Insurer such as me Appanam cannot exlmgmsh nabuny against mum pames hke the Respomism In para 29 me Federal com nam as vnurms ‘Being the rsgrslemd owner a! the car at ma tune of ma acddanl, ma menu raxpondsnt was msomed by 5109(2) ollhe an to be nama rar me so! of nrnrasron ol ma mm mpomnr (dnvar of ma car) rn clusmg we seem»: sno coma only mom namu ol babmty rr she could sans/y ma noun ma: xhe bad man an maaonaua slaps and pracamrons lo plivrnl sucn net or onmmn by me dhvqr rnara rs no sucn mmnoa Deiole ma com! Thsvskxs me rmrcrpany ma //v:uran<>s po/Icy, wmch was issuud In mdemniiy man the svunt clan accideminvowinq the car, was In Mr forces! the lime DI ma [an In u1a1cass,me cums son: Io anmner anhnugh me insurance was sun under me name M me Imual owner Even it mare was a use 4:! msnonesry penalmng no me vsurance pnlcy, i| was aacraea wnn no uncenzlmy mat |a| para 12) -rn any case, ma duct!/no av ubovr//nae me: rs a common law oocnnno ms: 1: only appltmble Dalwssn ma Insured and ma Insurer is ‘ am at/vJMmEEu1cxPuaLwzn mm. s.nn n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 m mm .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum am and does not arm (ho rights allmvd games under me pmvisms al 5594 and 95 11/ ms RTA wmm pmlscl mud pames saamsl nsks ansmg our arms use nlmalul yams: ' [38] II was ralleralzed me Iegax rewvemems ofs96(3) RTA at para 95 and me efiecls m para 97: ‘What 596(3) mandates Is ma: whats me msurer Intends to repudiate ltabmly under me pa/rcy, n max! eompty may the rouawmg pmuedura/Iaqunumsnls. (u)Ivot/cs must be gym to me plamm m the mums c/am salon to om/n a snowman, 1b)(M Mllce must save me glaunds rolled on by ma insurer to obtain . mmrlon; 1:; me man must bu mm: on ma plnmhfl nu ma zomau; claw witnm sewn day: Mel me mmmanmmnz of mu claim: Ind (gym Home mual he served on ma pwlfes who Ivan mlorasl In one pmmdrnqa. rn me pmem case, was fim apps!/ant knew ol ms pendmv Bands! sam aangr Maglslvales Caun‘ pmcesdrngs agamsi the rider and rsgistsred awnsr of Um motnrq/ole (second appeusnz), ye: It chase not In aompry wan the statutory reqmrelmms lam down by me promo lo wars) The cause papeis whvch ml to have been sema on the respondent who was me plammfi in me Bands! saw Bang! Magtskales Counproceedtngs wan: not served on m. ms was In uumgm eonmnndon oi sup). Iunduvng on doclmuon oidurluuod by um um Conn Inugullr. d-Imm xi ‘ sm at/vJMmEEu1cxPr:.Lwzu mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! Ind un-nroumlm, ms ml lppsllarlf mu no dlscmnorl rml‘ #0 namely with me puma in ma; Nor does ma calm haw me dlscvitroll Io a//ow ally such app/rcattall which sufiors irum sucll lumumonlal d-rm - (emphasis added) [39] The Federal Cour! lound lhal me Insurev was dlssrllilled tu me benefit at me pmvslon ll there was nomcolrlpllanue |o ms procedural requiramems rne Appellanl mm was Donna M) serve me cause papers o1 sun 426 an the FlasDonden| which ll had lalleu we do so Cnnnll-|un [40] The appeal was aammea The Maglx(vaIn‘x judgmarll was alfirmod The Appeillnl mus! paylhu Ralpondem aamagas. cam nfthls appeal m the min of RM\a,0nu was awamep lo Ins Ruswndnnl DATED 7 MARCH 2023 mwlb ROZ MAWAR ROZNN JUDICIAL coMMlssloNER HIGH COURT or MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR n ‘ sm at/v:MlIEEu1cxl=l:.Lwzu “Nair Smnl ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 M mm .. nflglnnllly mm: dnuuvlnnl VII mum puns! For rm Appallanr Dsruk xamlanau-an, I/mud Kamllamthalv logollusr with Ants Amvn mu Vmod Kamnlnnsmun 5 Auoaarss For (M Rlsparvdallt. Molumnd Ah‘fAfl:v bin Mohamed Maw nn 5 Data! 5 co ‘ sm at/v:MmEEu1cxPu.Lwzu mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm dlsdasad all lacls lnny and nonesxly He was rlal ma aclual owner onne mowcyue. II was purchased under ms name my ms lnend Wyenlhlran all Nagavaiah. me.-stare. me Anpellanl submllled il cannol be legally llama la pay me damages awarded to me Rsspandenl ln sun 905: 1b) ma Appellanl clalmed man In: rsqulred slalulury nmtcs under gem) RTA lor Sull B08 was nal served upon ll The Appellam aubmmlad man cm statutory noflco ramlvad Ill ms was (01 . dl’flevan| eamer me before lhl Sasslnn Cnun Whlch may havu om wilhdnwn by me Respondent. It was won «nan sud naliee s-rved ln 2015, mm ms Appellam had nm Pmgrlssive Adjustment Sdn and (Adjuslevs) lo lnveslmce and cunsequenliy ublainsd the Declarallovl (mm me Hlgh cum Aeeamlng lo me Appellanl. lne Respnndem had not exnlalnea nornlanfied abontlhe mnfusian as lo me pnweedlngs [5] rue Respondent xubmmed mat the slalulury nuhoa ma lnueea bean served on ma Appulam as Ina lnlllal sun in me Sesslon Conn A5Z!K.l~496~fl7I20I5 [Sun 499) was lramfernd to me Mlglsu-ms‘: Conn Much became sun was [51 Anna opwsila, the Rlsponflenlllmnersubvrlltladlhallha Awellanl ma lallsd lo scrve any name undu 596(3) RTA of its inlennon lo sack ma Dsclilallovl lo lnvalmale me lnsuranw men by Klrubahgaran In sun 026. The Respondent had also submhlsd that m neclanauon ms m| bummed belove lne dale men Ihe ny Incurred. wnmn awarding to me Responded was on me dam olme aoclaenc— 30,10 2013 Tn-ls, me Rasporldarvt urgsd [N5 Conn lo ruln that me Magisfia|e's dac on mat 2 ‘ sm at/vJMliEEu:cxPu.Lwzn “Nair Smnl n-vlhnrwlll .. LAIQ4 M mm .. mn.u.y mm: dun-mm VII mum pnnxl cream me Appauam In pay to ma Rasoanaam me Judumen| sum. was wrmcl mu Conn‘: mug; [7] ms appeal was dxsmnsssd an me loHnwing grounds‘ up ma Declarahon was worded at nm In cxdude Ihe «mmmny awldenl »/‘cum’: clam as me Raspcndanrs u had only daclarsd ma! Iha msuramx WI5 mm and m-nvareaama It um na| declare man I! win uneniomeable sfimnsl any mmpany claims. in panacular, ma Rasponamu elm nu ma matter. my me mos urmur 596(3) RTA ms rum sewed nnlhe naspmaau which was mandalnry Otherwise, as in Imscase, the Appellant was not enlmsd lo benefit rrom sum Decwamum Thai benefit Included not paying damagesldaxms m mind naniss like me aesponaam. mi) me Feaarax Oaun m Amtioncrnllnsuv-ncc v s.’ Amrin all Mn: 5 arm! -ppm: [2u22; 5 ML! 2125 held ma: faflurs In wmnly mm ma mandatory miles mmramam um: nan) mndemd danlaralury order: such as me Dm:larI|iLm daferrtwl and unanvomaama against me wdgmsvlt for damagn [or In aaapcndam m Sun sou mummmmnnmn [5] There are several suns max led uplolhe Magisuacea data which me Appellant Is appealing agamst ms Cowl had m smut mrough amour ‘ am at/vJMmEEu1cxPr:.Lwzu mm. Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum am vommu or (ho appeal moms and all xubmisslons In set Ihe mcovds d1mnaIog>caHy ms counva-ma cm (ouwmg s we [9] me Responuen| had filad he: clam it me Session Cnun in 2015 agaIns1 Ktrubangaran. The Raspcndlnl had served me slalmoly nolice m the Appellanl u was pmsuanl la W5 nnmunan mm the AppeHanl rm um um Adjusters m Irwasflglle ima Ina manor Yha Appehanl hm ippnmlafl a Vuwyav m mnruxenl Kmmammn mu would like can of in Inlerssl [10] Suit 496 was lransianed lo the Magisaram Conn via a cow! omsr dated 31.3 2016 and subsumedlbma Suil 908. This was informed by me warm for me Rsspondenl aunng me sublmssions at nus appeal. was court had also luund ma: ms was evidenca In sun 90» Ihrough the (esnrnony 0! the Respondent Her wrmen smemem wsp at quesuon 4 (pam Appeal Raomds Vnmms 3 EM 6] aflemonftmlng Iha| my mama had sawed the noises under sax-x27 an m July zms‘ mm. ‘Say: Ialeh memlallkan Iunlulan m Mallklmuh ssmn Kuala Lumpur Sumsn Na Asax./4ma7r2u1s mama Kuubuhguran |/V Rajusekaran dan muan Kanaga, swan 5 Co man at/amik can Defelvdarv untuk mewakf/1K/rubahvslsn all Rajassjavan. rmmmn saya ksmudiarlnys rlrplndahkan ke Mahkamall Majistrut Kuala Lumpur meralm Penman Mahkamall bedankn :1/wow aan cnuansman sebaagar Saman No WA-Aux./-9aa415I2a16 Pavia 15/10/2a17, Mahkamah Mapsmat Kuala Lumpur le/an memasukkan ‘ sm at/vJMmEEu1cxPr:.Lwzu mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! Perlghaklman I/ulnar lorhodap Kwubahgalarl afl Ra/esllararl darl Pengflakiman selepas takslran ls/ah dlborfkln pads 2/11/2017 ' [11] Her cross-mminaaon at 940-60 finned Records Jllld 1 sun had nol crlalleflfled man lam sun as [121 The Appallnm racolvod lawns lrom ms Adjunnr: dalsd 42 zone and 2s 2 mm Thu reports lpazzus Appeal Records Vnlume 3 EM: 6) revealed mal al ma |lma :2! ma accident‘ Iha malorcycle had been undnr Ihe cus1m1y ol me dc-Haztlu mar vijsnlman. not me rlamcd lnsurud Klmbahqalan unlll ms lumemlainea lo nan losl n m 2014 The Adj-lslers lound lnal one Muhammad Flrdaus Muslala and also lrmwlll as Mnhamad Fairuz or Vlrmd, v.,enmiran's hand, was me pelscn who had drlverl me molorcycle all me Klme ollhe aeaaenl. [1 3} The Appallam «mm that me Adluslafs llnamgs smwm Ihal Klrulaangaran was ml lmmrul and an ml dsscloae ma malenal Incl nu! ma lrlsuranca at me molalcycle though suuod undal hls name, was for Vlnnlhiran A: sum. me Aapellanl lllea Sun 425 sl ma mgr. Caurl lrl Much ms to omam - ueclarawry owner mm ma Insurance pulley Issuad tn Klmhahgamn was mm and unenforceable The Hm calm warned me said oeslaralion on 19 4 2016. EIMLHK [141 Aswamg lo me submlsslons. naek al sun gas at Ihe Maglsllalas cam, me Appellant had amended lls aalsme |u deny Iiahlllly allsl H s ‘ sm at/v:MlIEEu1cxPu.Lwzu “Nair s.n.l ...ls.mm .. LAIQ4 M may he mm-y mm: flan-mm VII nFluNG ma omalned me Declmuon from me Hlqh Conn The Appillnnt had uppllld la amend lls aelanae In dany Hablllly. and though rejecled by ma Maglslvalea own and me Hugh cpun, II was allrmed by on own of Appeal Aflev ameudmg us delenae, me Appellanl men wmalew «5 reoresennanun -n sum 908 [151 on 1d.10.2u17lhe Maglallala snleved a luogmerll in default agairsl Klmnangalan who was me named wna M a molnrcyde wlth a reglalrsmon plale of wvrcam. On zllzon plamlaaa on ma Respouau-l's lzswnony, the Magistrale nldered ma Appellant la pay no In: R1sponden|RMfi8,759 wlm ln(aras| mgamamlm cost: o(RM\I,B29. my the Respondenl sawed ms xeslnd arae« on In: Appauam an 4 1.2DIE,Theal:kl\vMed»;emenlsaMoeo1lhs sama was dalnd s.l 2013. Upon lrle miusalllnllum at any paymanl by ma Awellnnl, ma Respondent ma man Sui! 2529 §.ll.|.LZ§H my As a rssuh Mme Appsllanrs vallms lo pay me sala judgmem sum, the Respondsnl Md lnlllalea lms sun 2629 lnnially, on all male ma Magis1mle had gm-lea a summary judgment agalnsl ma Appellanl. The Appalamrllea an appaal againn ms alder (WA-|1ANCvC~1UI—D9/2018 (Appeal 101)) and ma High Colman 4.7 zalll had allweu me appeal and mmlflsd the me lo ma Maglslmte's coun tor a MI anal [16] The nesponuenl had filed her nppilcallon luv Ieava la appeal against me mgr: Com‘: denlsmn at me Ooufl cl Appeal (Appeal w-ua—25l- 07/2019) mian was relused on 9 1 2020 2 ‘ sm at/vJMliEEu1cxPl:aLwzu “Nair s.n.l ...la.mm a. med m mm .. nflglnnllly ml. dun-mm VII .mm am [19] sank at In: Mzgislra|a’s oaun afler a mu mall ma Magmls ruled that me Respondent was legally bound to pay me Rssponflenl The Maglstmle hid nee-den manna Dedaranon ob ed by l.heAupel|anldId no| fulfil s96(3) an and could rm be rel-ea uponm ml pay the pmgmem sums The Maglsnace had lound Ihal Ihe Anpellam um um grve the Respondent nalloa man it had lrvtendsd to me an anginaunq summons for a dedareucn la nmmy Ihe insurance. The case at Anmsa Nadmn And mum A Anorv Aulanz Gunorlllnsunnco company (lw) BM [2015] 9 cu azl was lellsa on. me Maghlrsle nsa addmonally relied on Malaysia uauonal I:-sum-cu sun BM v Llm Ylot [1997] 2 on 35: Hanna‘ ms Appeal IMA [201 The Awellam cornplalnad man ms Ra-Ipmdem had not explalnsa nor prom ma svaluwry none: unaarswzl RTA xema an Illn 2015 was lov sun we The Aooellinl wnlended mm me Said smuuuy nmioe served hylhe Resaumsem was a::lua||y1arSult 495 R1] The Awellinl contended lhal the Respunaem had not explalnea vmether sun ass was wllhdrawrl The Appellam then concluded Ihat me Respondenl had separately filed Suil aoa ofwhidl the Appellant aaimsa ms soamlary nonoe under sssm RM was um served on me Appellanl me Anpsilanl suhmmsd ml the Respondent did nol lead any evldsnoa |c alsnrova [ms fact [22] rue Appellum suhmmed mm ma Maglsvale am: when it and not Donsldar mat Ina judgment m asvaun ublalnad by ma aaspomsom m Sull ‘ sw at/vJMliEEu1cxPr:sLwzu “Nuns Smnl In-vlhnrwlll be used M mm s. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm 90s was my ngaanu Kuubnhalran and mantle Appsuanrs Adiustuls no not Iesnfy m me proceedings. u was also mnxsmxea me Magulrite was amneaus in famng in conxider ma foHowmg evsaenoe adduwd by Ihe wnnassss cause by the Apneuanx la) me mvesngauon 0! me Amuscars revealed man mmnangauan did run knaw who we mar was at me Imus al me aocldsm became ma mmnrwde man was purchased am unsunea under his nama was ac1uaHy purchased by ms mam, one wemmran a/\ Nagaraiah. mmnangaran's name was slated on me msurancn and wnthsse In new out Vusnlhlran whu had no sxaue Income nor Heenne lnr melomyda at that malaflal am (:2) Kwbahgaran averted before a Cumm|naionaru10llhsV.hal he was nn| ws|>0nI4b\a fwlhu mulorcyde «am July we when an wu purchaud by \/iilnmwan Em lhnugh the msurlamzawas under hs nuns, he had navel ussd n mm 50 was not involved \n ma aocidanh (c) Vuanthlran Dunfivmad K'mbahflIran‘s story Vusnmimn an 3o.1o.zma had len| me monmzyde In his friend Muhammad Fvdzuswmdl was when ma Vallarwas invoivsd in on some (d) Muhammad Fvdaus avsnsd mac n was hlm me was irwohled m ma aeaasncwnn me Raswndem He did nul lodge a pohmé repun regamma me acudem \/Ifinlhiran had repam ms rnomrcycle: (2) Awarding to Wjemhwran, somenme in early 2014 me rnonun.yc|a was s1u!en (mm we place wnena be new parked n In me basement av Fmjek Ferumahun Rskym nl Kampung An Panes‘ Selspak Kuals Lun-pur Hedldnollodt-1: a police napm onms men nor «.1 Vapor! In: same lo Insurers, ma Anveflam, s ‘ sm awmasz-ncxpumzu «ma s.nn n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he nrW\nnU|:I mm: flan-mm VII mum pm (0 0|: Respurraerrl knew me ndsr or lrre motorcycle was an Muhammad Flrdaus hln Muswfa at Mulch Krmrrarrgaran had no krrorrledge, (g) mere was nu svldenoe lo snow llral Muhammad Flrdaus was me servanl or agerrl or me: (01 me aerrem cl me lrsured Klrubanqararr am mus me Anwellanl could no: made la be llaue: all) me Awellam mus had sued Klruballgavan vlde wA-2mo4c— 4250312016 and alararrrea an 19 4 me me Declarellorr ma| are pohny Issued on me lnololwcle was null and urrenlaruaue and thus lermlnalsd me muranee bemerm rm Appellant and xlnrnangaran lor breach our pulley cmulllorr [231 ll was (he Aapallanrs lrmrrer submlsslon mar me Raspundanl hid lallad In prove rrer can err in lha llabflily aw rm Apolllnnl. eenlnry In 5101 Evident): Ac! msu Asswssmonl an any R4] wilrr regard no me Appellarrrs argumerrl rm: me salutary rroaee undel 595(2) RTA was nol sewed (or sun ma, lrris Courl bum llral untenable. Evidanns showed crral the Amallzm rra sea reeelved ll rrr 2015 M was lrral mllficsflon ural Irwcked us rrrlerrral prvtacols 01 rravrnsl emhlayed me Adluslas lo lmx unto the rrrrrller. Evldence rrrrremrnea shamed |ha| sull 496 was Iransfwed lrorrr (he Session Conn to me Magis1raIe's Conn In March 2m and became Suit gas. The Appellant msraaflar upon pmcumlg me neclarallrrrr VI April 201!‘ had amended me «elem |u deny llahllily Thu eurrrplalrrl M purporhd mrr-servlee had omy In ‘ sm at/vJMlIEEu1cxPD.Lvrzu “Nair s.w.l n-vlhnrwm r. HIGH w my r... nflmnnllly mm: dun-mm vu nFluNG mm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-24NCvC-4176-12/2022

PEMOHON 1. ) Btjh 2. ) Csc 3. ) Chk 4. ) Etwt RESPONDEN ROCKWILLS TRUSTEE BERHAD

Based on these facts and circumstances, this Court concludes that the principle of Saunders v Vautier (supra) cannot be stretched to apply to this case for a termination of the Trusts. The will expressly stated the intention of the deceased which was to only grant the Son the Trust Properties absolutely upon him attaining the age of 35 which is in under eight months’ time. This application is hereby dismissed with costs of RM15,000.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1bf217d3-e18a-41ec-849d-1959b458d07b&Inline=true

11/12/2023 10:21:42 WA-24NCvC-4176-12/2022 Kand. 34 S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0xfyG4rh7EGEnRlZtFjQew **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HA—2dNCvC—l176—12/2022 Kand. 34 11/12/2023 10:21-uz IN THE HIGH coun IN MALAVA AT KUALA LUMFUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRIIORV, MALAvsIA clvn. APPEAL N A-ZZNCVC-355-0712014 BETWEEN 1. conE BRILLIANT snu sun rwunrrs (coma. NO: usm-un 2. JAMBULINGAM SETHURAMAN RAKI (no No: 510219-In-5561) Ann 1. ROCKWILLS TRUSYEE BEFIHAD (cow. No: vnasaz-11 2. NENG .u KENG (NEG. NO- wsazsv) 3. ERAMARA JAVA son am: nEEENuAms (REG, N0: wsozsvp GRQ guns or JUDGIAENY sw nxvycamvzsznmzlfiusw -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm flu Plnlulilfi Claim [1] Thu case cancemed one tussle bewveon mcsivers and managun with uqumauors on the roagsmenn cf cavems and me kisses incurrw pursuam memo. II cenamuy mumsyed a long and winding mad. The mmmlogy ov me murl proceedings In raalum la this sum and me events mat lrarsptred seemed ounfuslng at muss mu wave not eunrely mmcmnn wmpvehend. [21 In essence, me Delendanvs was sued For damages suflered by me namon um rusullad Flam me Fivsl am: swam Dnlemiarvfs wmngml mmes wow pvlvzle caveau an (out parcels cl wand.- 1.) Gun 49452 Lu|1Q35E, (ii) can 49544 Lol19J70. (In) GRN «wen Lnl 19475, and (iv) GRN 49555 Lot 19436 [3] Tn. Fm and Second Davannznvs ma anocm Ihu at-avesaid m lhelrrzpaaryasme |iqu\daInrsfoHheThin1 Delendanl The caveats were entered under the lullowmv presenzauon numbers — m 115/zoua dated 412008. (ul 491 mom; dated 4 4.2008, 1 czu/zaos dated 41.200E;and (iv) 11912003 aaum 41 zone sm mvycamvzsznkwzlfiusw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm nu] wnan as 457 was allmnssaa, me oelandanls malmalnoa llul they had lvnlwed Iha cavsats thus, more was nu avidanoa mal me years were wmnglulry loagea by ma Deleudim: ln pamculany so when have ms also no awllcallon by me Plalrmfls to remave lne caveats lnder 5327 NLC The uelendanls submlllsd lnal lnua action luv uomperlsallan ougnl to be dlsluissed as me Firs! Plalnml nau um sullerad any loss Assessmlnl by mi: cuun Whether me renew and mags: ray low: slandl lo commence ma M [II] Upon mlemlng lne background lac: and ms anmnulogy or me mun pnmealngs. lnn coun luunu mm min ISMIQ had been addrassnd maul Umss. Al me manng luv ma luvs uppllcallon la oemmam |hls sun, llle Hlqh Cnurl had alsmlsm me wanaanla abpocrmn on me saml issue M locus «lanai allna mcnlver Ind manugarluvlne Flru Plnlmm [421 The High Court had eonsldarad manna ahlecllon me: was couched as pmlrmmary ahiecllou three pnamus llmes which had been repented every lime by me ouuns (Cowl M Appeal and ma Hlgh Conn) Those declsians have lemalnea valld. [431 In addition Io muse. lne Hlgn Cowl had again dealt wlln ma same maner In me leave appllcallorl made by a pmpnsed replacement lur use Plalnllfis lecensr and manage! aflzer lna delmse L7! me lnlnal named samna Plalnlln. rnal was Suit WAa25PW—434-IO/2018. There, lna Hlgh coun had held man II was nol an Issue slnoe lne Flrsl Plalnllll had been 11 an rmyGlm7EGEnRl2lFlDsw mu. smul luvlhnrwm .. u... M may he uflmnnflly mm: mmn n. mulls mm grznlad leave to eommnee Ieaal anion wheruby Iha damages sauum in bi rsuwered were wmn the an-on 01 mo debenture. [44] The Defendants raised it agam at me arguments nflhe appeal to mac decision and me Court omupeal dlsrmmed me nhjscnon The Court :11 Appeal ordereu for me F'Ia\n1M no continue mm mie eun against me Delandans. [451 ms cam opmea man me aowm at to: jadfclla was appucem. Them cannm be menu uuganon m an um ahuidy ad|udu:I|5d upon beiween me same Mn perm eonculnlnu IM “me eumea matter [46] The supssme Conn‘; session in Asia Commercial Hnanca (M) BM 1/ Kauai mm Sdn BM[19F5)J MLJ m at p197 Is of gmdanoe ‘What u res /udicala? /1 s4'mpQ/ means a matter admdged, and as s4gmficsnce hes m 1!: area ol cmalmg an esmppe; ram judmalum When a maflelbelween mo pm/as has bean ucljurllcaled by - cowl ol compote»! mmtcuon, the parties and the»! pawn: are nol punmrea Io Illrgale one. main me Isa /udtcata, bpcauso IM mgment becomes me rmm bslweon such pamu, at m ulnar words, we puma: should accept it as me mm. m judfcnra pm venrare mipvur The public pormy /aw rs um, it is m the pause wemsrxnaz mere shau/d be finamy/n M-galvon — mlsvesl reipucrices uf xi! ms Imum n is enzyme: may no one ought to he vexed rwme nu ma same cause 01 swan — nemo uecer D45 vexarr pmauom cause. an mm maxtms are me rationales lo: the oocrrme or ras wdtcava, but me earner maxim has me /unhsr slsvatsd scams ola question alpub/rc poncy. ' :1 sm nxvyG4m7EsEnR\2lF:usw «me smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm rm» slamrvg perm own: In on the summed passage by wmm vc in the case M Hendarssn v Hondorssn (1343) 3 Here 100 at M 15 which n‘ The plea ones mmcsta applies, excepl m spade! cases, not my m paints upon which the war! vms acmvy required by the psmssla form an oomlon amt pronounce amgmenz, am to every pom! wmcn pmpavy belonged to me subnct or /mganon and wlvcn me parlras, oxavcisilig reasonable dmgsneo mtgm mm bmught Iomam It ma me. “ [:7] ma mum mual be pm In resx. Themlore‘ ma defence oHocu1 scam: wn unacoepmma [48] This court aha name mm mm was evidnmze mm m lnwlvamy Dapanmem ma mnnnad on we 5 201: Iha| nu rmxlvnr and mlnagav 01 (he Firs: Flmrmfl could mmvnue ms sun vnmom the sanction «mm mo omw Receiver. The exeerm is belaw lnleasy rularance '2 ./abalan mr berpandsnyan baluawa Peneiinla dim Pengums com. menemsksn Imdakan gunman No 22NCVC{!5507/2014 11/ Mahkarnall mw mam Lumpur rs/we mime!/ukan kebenaran danpada Pegawat Penenma Lian Peltkmdsl ' [491 Yhene is also the uruer by the mm of Appeal on 1u.3.2o22 In procaad wnn «ms sud aflanl had uansmma um avgumenlon rows sxamn and me cormmuuan «mm the Dapaflmenl av Inaomnny. .a sm mvyGAm7EsEnmzIF:usw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! [501 Thli coun aocevlad me (am mm «ms acfinn was clxrlmenud pursuam to In: Dene-nun dated 1 7 2006 and me Pawar or Attorney dated 25.11 zoos A debenture was created over Ins Furs! Plammrs fixed and noamg assets m lavour of PESB under clause 10: ov me moneymndxng agreement. The prwlers lo nommenoe and Waste legal pmceeamg: were prrwiusa by sermon 5.0312; and (u) mme Debenluve am also based on me Power ounomay. [51] has Iullmce ml s¢€6l1)OumpanissAc\2fll6 and ma cau ollamm Marka1lng[:uptijhry|M wandama wlru mvxplaoed as me fads m that area and um nnl canvas: 3 srlulhcn what: a rauaivuv and manager were appomcsu am: mm a hquidalnr Ealed on the cans aflhis case‘ ma Cami was bound by an deuslun 07 me Fedeml court In K suuumm-niam (Liquiaaworxosmopoliun On-fit 5 Loasing Sdn and) um; financu am1[2uo51 1 cm 79: at p815. 2 Thurs 1: no qummn of any suponorrankmg They ens! Me by am with each exelcrsmg ms sopamra powsls and dullss conlanad on them by ma Ac! m me use ollhe Hqmn1a1aI and by m debontml m (M clu ullho Rsmlvor and Mnnagol A wfrldmg-up uldnrdoes not cancel a may oiallomey not does s4 read toaelhu mm man and :05 and ma other pnwismns of the A0! Thus my anxwers Io Queslmns 2 la 3 would nol be dlllorsntif ms debenture which provmes for the appo/nlmerrl on Receive! and mansgsrtncarpovatss a poweralatromey as we(/.' 1: sm nxvyG4m7EsEnR\2IF:usw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: flan-mm VII mum pm.‘ ether me ca ull enumsa n the .1 n [52] To start snswennq mas wssue. mis Cowl vouna lhal an anniicaaon under ss27 NLC was not necasary nov a preoendmon lo a claim hr damages under 5329 NLC, nus Cowl |umed to me wurdmgs ov me pmwmn cor oumpensauon 1ar wmngml caveats, and nmnauan an repemea snpucanons nude! 5329' ‘to Any person or body was, wrongfully or wmnou: raasanabie came‘ secures ms Entry at, or fads Io wtlhdrnw, any pr/vale caveat sham as name (1: pay compensauon 10 any person or body was thereby suflans any dsmaga arms ' [53] his requnrernanl is me luugemsnl o! a caves: or a Failure In wilndmw. Evldemzl, In ms case. showod man more was s Vadgamenl av canal: ovur me {our name oi ma ms Cuurl smsa ms swaem before Ilwmch includsd. amongst am: (a) There was s polnce rspun lodged an 15 21993 on an alleged umawvun transfer 0! land: by the Third Defendant In me Pkalnlifit Thae was nu anion taken pursuanl mereua by ms Defendants Nnclvsalwas lodged Io saleguam me warm unnr aflume mvesngaflon nnaings, Eight years mu, me Defendams‘ filed 05 457 m zone seeking a oourl declarauon lhlllha nansfer was vuid and that the mm Defendantwas me nghkml wnev. (M to! sm mvyGAm7EsEnR\2IF:usw “Nana am nmhnrwm s. LAIQ4 w mm s. mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 14! 13) U) In) on (N The uavanaams did not Imps ma cauaansm ilIus1r-ma mm IM s|alus qua of me Ianu nseded to be wruerved unul me mspasar olos 457. The Firsl Plamlvli and Grand Dynasty nan ermeted mm a sale and purchase agvesmzm Ihal Included me but panels at land on 31 .1 .znu7. Thus‘ ma Firsl P\aIn|i1l was nc\ungev|I1e awner no me land. cm a yes: Ina January and April me, the wanaama ax-cum Vodaemam 01 cavsam: Two years later an 1:: 5.2010, as 457 was struck out by Ina man coun, ammea by me coun av Appeal an 20.5 zon. Menu‘ me deuxion man we caveat! we xoaqaa without yaasuname cause was sun um and bmdlna‘ There was no finding memuence manne land was unlawvuuy u'ans1e«ed «:2 me P\a\nlm nyma mm Deianuann ama nulsel: ma Defendants had not taken any acmn «a challenge ma vamy of ma SPA between me Phlnnll and Guam uynasay: am Thu nmenaams did not Iltempt to mdude emu nynaany in as 457 |n mm the mm owner at me Inna when amumg that we nanslev at land to me Fm Plainnfl was purponaary -mlamux [541 ms coun was rm aqresahle mm ma Defendants’ inlerprelanun 0! me aeasmn m Eric L-u Mln Ning (supra) Tllare was rm finding mat the lands were unlawtuuy nanscanaa co me First Plainuu. The eomiaarauan exercised by me mun, in that case, was wnema« there we just raasms to order no me rsspondenls In buy am we pemaner s snareholdwnas In me 15 am nxvyG4m7EsEnR\zlF:uaw mu. sum n-nhnrwm .. u... w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm Third Defendant TM tssue serum ma own was nattn make a finding on Mlethar the lands were transferred un\awfuHY. [56] This Court cortduded man an a balance of pnmatatmes. tna hudgemem 0! one caveats by me oatanaatns were wttnatn reasonable cause. Tn tneceama statnt tnat VI was to presawa "ta svalus mm -11 me tana was an aflemmugm am to ma aaasaga oflima tnat nad passaa and ma sysnts mat preceded um um sros «:57 wg her tnsra was Qroofl val Platmm nag guflered any loss [561 ms cnnsenl ordar phased mo Ftrst Plmnfifiundarlhe leall nbllnaltun to pay RM1.4ou,ooa In Grand Dynnsty ms was not to the mIb1l\i~/ to transfer me land mat mtuaaa me {our names In Grand Dynasty as a result oflhs caveats lodged by me Detemanu 151] me mnsertlordu rsmamsd yam zgamstthe Fltsl Delettd:-1n| wntsn translated as a toss tnculved by the Flrsl oatanuant as a tasmt at tna wmng1u||udgemen|t71 ms caveats by tna Detenaanta mt tsaue mat ma wamansa nae rm antansd We the osnssnt order was nnntatsnat as n onrtltrtued to he enforcuhla agatnat tns Ftrnl Ptatnttn [58] on a natanoe oi pvvbahllifin. urns csun was salvsfied mat tne Voss mnras bythe Fitsl Plalrmfl was RM|,4lXl,0l‘Kl. [59] ma Courl upined mattne sum was iuWH:\avIl eompenaauon larlhe Platntm as me caveats had slnoe been removed on 9.10.2010 17 any rmyGlnt7EGEnR\2lFtDaw ms. Sam n-nhnrwm s. s... M my s. nrwhtaflly mm: dun-mm y.. .nuna Wm! wnsmer me rsl and Second Defendants were Ersanimy I girls [50] VI was undxsmnsd that me Firstand Semnd Dahndanls were sued in Ihe<r capauly as hqmdalms M on mm Defem.1anl.Tne heaumg and mutants at «ms sun was dear that may wee not wed m may pecsonal capamy. [am] Leave al awn was obwned by me mums an 141 2012 lo commence Inns suflagmnsllhe Finland Second wmams isms noun- ipuo1nIadlIquida|olslaHhe mm Defendant rm cause oiaclmn far was suil ms pursuant m 5329 me am we as 457 mu Cowl Order dated 10 5.2010. [62] ms lodgemenl otme caveats was mm: veasonaue cause‘ no! m aecomanoe mm me resohmans by me Commmae or lnspeclmn and way aflev me wanes were sold la Grand Dynasty. was com 15 gulded by me declsnn at me mgr. Cum m granting leave In eommunoe «ms sum — ma ma rum and Second Dalandanls had me duly In ad mlganfly and In exercise masonabb cure u nu| up Vnpra any pany. Thu lodgarnanu wars nnl exnculzed mm somanpauimmy upun mu filing mos 457 They did nnl carry out mar anus: pmnenv» The hfiuidatan war! not immum mam legs‘ aclions wnn regard In Ihelr mans or mmous. [93] #5 ms specmc issue was not pleaded mama dunnglnal, «he must and Sacond Defend:-Jntswete barred from rasing wt In subnussmns at the em oi the case. Ammugh ms com had auowsd rurwnmn submissions to be mes me: he conclusion cum hearing afsubrmssmns a| ms and or me case below deaamg on mrs casa. u sm rmyGAm7EsEnR\zIF:usw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [64] Than‘ at ms season as he Defarvdlnls had filed in addilmnal submssion: Ihs mam balms on the Dem! um Va»: med no| be pluadsd ms oaun lound mac 1: was un]us| In allow me aluumlm on me issue <1 was not smirery on a paml of law. It would have enoompusssa points of facts Ina! mum aflecl me nature aims P¥aimifl‘s clawm [65] ms was because :1 me rssue was nlaaded and raised durmg man. the Plammv wsum have had me oppodululy to present n.s case and new we argummls. (See Court L71 Appeafs as Axon m Jossgn Pluin Kmngsn [2007] 7 NILI 259 and ms High courts dedslon m snumas unu Allnq Snukol v Khnlml Anlnr bln Shanaruddllv [2021] a Mm 315;. [541 ms Federal cum in Sumac! Nnlk sung Ting vPublIc Bank and [2015] 6 MLJ 1 upheld that -1: IE 5 c-umsr ms in cm Impavovl that pmros are bound by mm; pleadings anaars not i//amdm addum Isa: and rsms which they have not pleaded (sue Slate Government 1:! Pensk V Munramy [1996] 1 ML] «an; and Anus: pm Mal Amm V Abdullah um Mohd Zam (199913 MLJ313) In Slay vPo(/am 4 Moms (19301 1 KB 529. Scnmon Ll ma mar. 'Cas9s must be deemed on ma /ssues on the mom, and 4 u »s deslmd In like me: Issues (here must he pleaded M merecomny amendment The Supreme Court in Lee An cm: v Soulhom bank Bnd(1991]1 MLJ 425, had alsu amphas/sod me /mpodanca M ploadlngs and rulsdlhal when s wllllssue was mxruvssdtn mu plcadmgs )1 com 1: sm nxvyG4m7EsEnR\zIF:usw “Nana sm.‘ n-nhnrwm s. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm not be ollowod to be argued and lo succeed on appeal (sue also AMBank (M) and (fovmsfly kmzwn as Arab-Mslflysun Bank Bhd) v Luqman Karml om Mona Don (201213 MLJ1 (FC)) on me same issue, HRH Raja Allan snarl FJ (ax HRH man was) an The Chaflevad Bank v Yong Chan (19741 1 MLJ 151 had also oolmed out mar ‘as ma mal judge had oeoloea on -In rssua much was nor raised /I! ma oloamngs, Ihejuflgmenl must be sol aside and new lllal amereo (see also Hay Mnhamed Don v SBKlman[195A]1 ML! 45‘ am: Klaw Am Hung co no V Tan Tlen Choy[1964]1 ML! 99] my Issue lama, lr aocopwm would oomulaloly change we crmraclor aflns appollanla defence to me respondvnllr C/mm am would be Ivlghly projmcl-l lo the lupmaanr: case ' Conclusion [67] ms com was sansneo on a balance -11 prubabdlhefi max me Defendants had Vodged me caveats on me vour Damek ol wands wwmom reasnnahle cause ms Conn uanslaelea mat the P\amfill had shown n smveled loss ln me sum ol RMI,A00.UOD as perlha oonson: omer bound ma Flainulno oaylol such damage to Magnawlse Consulvanw Sdn am 10 am mvyGIm7EsEnR\zIFlusw «ma Snr1n\lnnnhnrwH\I>e LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: flan-mm VII nF\uNG palm [41 rne Onmnafing Sumrmms (cs) was eonvuned rnrc a WrIlA4;1icn (mm are as and an rm amdavirs as pleadings) Tnar mmmenbed on 21. 2017 and oonanued on 3 5 2017 loflowed by an adpcummenn due In one uaeemg dune rnmar named Second Plarnurr an 3.102017 who was the sale wrlness for me Plaintiffs The mural Vale named Second Plamlm nad compteted admcmg ewdenae [5] Yhere were swam! appllcatmns and appeab ma: mnoemed leave 10: me appdinunem 0! a new receiver and manager «or me Frrsr Plamuli |o rerxaoa the Iare mma\ named second Plalrvfifl. me couns had nan allowed me appbcafions Hmaeverr me nrsr Plalnllll ned mcelved conunnaucn from me Dapanrnenr M Vnsolvuwcy lo pmcsed mm we and wrlhnul leave lmm rne omaal Recarver an In a 2019 [6] WI?! Iuil. nawavan waa llmck out by me an own on 1 7.ZD19on ma uruund rnarme couna nad nargranree raaaa Onnha proposed ncelver and Inanauorto preeeed wllh me suit. on ID 3 2:122, me caun or Aupsal set aside me said decrwn and amend we sumo unwaed aanxa ancmer Hgh coun Thus, me name er the were second Plamhll‘ vs no Ioncer reneaed In me cause papers, and me mamlm herein was named as code ariuiam sun and (In Reoeivelship and Liquidation) (company No 389707-M). II will nenenener In we rudgmem ne rerened In as me Plamnfl [7] In the mearmms, belure me com 0! Appeals rulmg. the Fast Defendant nad passed away an 2511 2020 and was removed as me Hquldatur for me ‘rmrd Deveodenr. The caun nad armed Ihal his es1are Ruckwms Tmslae semad to be suusmumd as me FinlDs1endanl am rmyGAm7EsEnR\zIFruew «ma a.n.r n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 a my r... nrW\nnU|:I am. dun-mm wa mane v-mm [ax] Tm: Cour! was ssumsd mat me sum was sums-em oampemadm as me caveats were ramovud as 0!‘ 9.: 20m when me Defendants nad wllhdrawn ma :‘avea|s lodged on ma bur pamels wand [69] The court was mmded |o nrdefirvleresl 014% from me data -2! me oonssnt nrdzrfrom 7 10.2011 umn run and final semsment Hawsvsr‘ Ihe Isimed odunse4 tor mu Deisndams umptcrad for mu Court to mnsider assessing me damages as prayed hr by me Plan-mi, [701 To sums ms Conn accom mics, ma haaling an me arguments on wname: ms damages shnuld be assosaed wm be heard an 25 May 2023. ml A: to me |isbvHty‘ IN: cam found Ina! mm was on ms par! av Ihe Devandanu. V21 On 25 May 2023. «ms Cowl waged mu narandams lo «name on me issue or whamar damages should be assessed This court heard sunrmssions fmrn me eounsal var ms Dedendanu on whsmar mia caun snauld near an assessment for damages The cum’: quay on ma issue M Iunclu: affidu was answaed m that the Defendans were only apmymg lmlhis Court to assess darnayzs and mu askmg mis Cuun lo recdnsudar ms dafsnon on me finding ml-amlny. [I3] In.-as mesubmlsuonsofme Defendanls mac me RM1,4ou,ooc was based en|ua\y on me coosenn judgment damd 7 «uzon Vial ms Plamnfl rm entered lmn mm Magnawuse Consultancy Sdn Bhd Allmugh ms Dafanflanls submulmd mz| may were nut Iaokmg bamnd ma sa.d mass!!! 2. am nmycamvzsznkwzlfiusw mm. Snr1n\n-nhnrwmbe LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: flan-mm VII mum v-vrm judgment rm :1 was hlghllumed lnal n dld nol eoneam lnam as they ware nul pam-s lo ll Md onally. the uefendans contended «hm ms rellei was not pleaded In the Plalnlnra oliginanng Sumrrlnlls As such, may suughc mat only nominal damages should be awarded |o lha Plalmm. ml Thlx com omlsldefed all me algumerlls puuunn by Ina Dalandanra and ls not lnclmad la wnclufle to assess damages uuuuanl Io lrmr llablllny. Tlua ls buss ma assessmenl of damages nad aclually moan place dunng ma man were avldeneo wu auducld 15! ml: ooun lo mike - ludgnanl. Whelhar ma Plamlm had sufhrld loaaea ln ma amount 07 RM1.4oo.ooo purauanl |0 ma mnsan: ludumanl was a viable mun -n wmch evidence was adduoad by me Plmnn« and sunlecl lo unsa- emmlnflllon by lne Dalandam. [75] Though ms damnlnan afgeneml and speclal damagzs as submmed bylhe odunsel {or me nalandama are urI1ISDIl\Bd as laid nu] by a bevy nl anmomles lndudmg those med by Ina eoumal, H Illslly canml be said ma: i| was nol plaadad. The Plalrmffs msl prayer w|: lo( dnmagls or mmpensnllnn Reproduced rma which shmns mm cermnly me! n wns plaadad ‘Thu oarandanls do pay aamngas or compennfion to ma Flalnfifls as assessed by this Honourable com and lo be pom by me darandanls la the Flalnlflfx unaev secllovl 329 Nahoual Land code 1955 lo! any damage surveyed by me Ptammas a result ume entry or falll/re to wvthdlaw me said pm/ale caveats " 11 am m<VyGlm7EGEnRlZlFlDsw “Nair Smnl ...m.mm a. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: flan-mm VII aFluNG Wml [761 From ma awdanoe adduced and assessed II mal. «ms Oourl -- salisfied mac such wmoersatinn shoum be mama: nun. vlaunm by the Defendants (er mu: Vodmng nfcaveals wnnoun reasonable cause. The amount m «ms case happens to be nmmocnono This Court ts saflsfied mac ma amount addressed the perm or me when the caveats was wrongruuy In place without reasonable cause. me Davandanrs unlawful adions resulted In ma Plavmfinm being ame lo proceed wnn Ihesa\e and purchase agroemem. [771 Yhe Def:ndan(s' [our wrman suhm|ss4ons and also ora\ argumenls had addlsssad me amaunl la wmch may argued was unsusxamaua. Thus. may cannal nnw ask a mom nppnnunny on auspuung that amount. Daemon has been made by ms calm. in Is nmod by this Court mat the Dellndarws nan not nnaaaaaa vmalwevnv max damagse warn In In massed m saparslu pmoaldlngs. u was nnly m me delivery of mu Donn‘: ludglrlanl on ma findmg av Iiabilmas ma coun Mes (M! u 1: unnecossury Eapslially wnan um mnw is vamng on ma same mam druady adduced mmng lnal. [vs] ms we as submmsd byme mania! forms vlavmm, me Defendants had ma saugm var entirely sesame pmcsedmgs for me asse=.§menI of damages at an prevlomly mougn may had ampll opportunity to raise n In any emu, an: own due: damn that mzce§aIy as zvldsnoe IQ arraaay suffiuml In resowe me quantum. [79] II 15 reneratsa man lms Court Is sansviaa that me Rmunaooo Is sufficlent for eocnpensanon lar me Halnml, And mus court orders .2 so lnkerssl Is to run lrom 7.1a 201 I. on me Issue 01 cash‘ mu on-m rqsas am rmyG0m7EsEnR\zIF:uaw «ma am.‘ n-nhnrwm a. med a mm s. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm me Plalrmlh apphcafion cf RM:4os,ooo on an indemnity basws This Caun awards RM5D.DOD Instead. DATED 25 MAY 2023 W4» ROZ MAWAR ROZNN JUDVCVAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT IN MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For 1». Piurnlrfla Karon Lu Foon Voon and H9 zm V51 T/n Wong mm Knaong Forlne Datemtams. Mari: Ha Hmg Kheng, snwy Wbng Lr Van and um u Ken (PDK) rm ongxok Bin 5 ca. 2. sm mvyGAm7EsEnmzIF:usw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! lal Thenafllr. on 3 9.2u21 me coun oi Anpeal rarnmrud ins Sermon osiendam as me llquiuaiorlorlvrnnira uelenaanl and rudaoad nlrn wiin om Lee cnsw vainlrom Messrs Kevin Lee a Co on 9 .2022. in: Tram Deiendanrs solleiims had discharged memsewes from scan; for the Thin: Defendant upon me mnaval of me Irlmal Second Defendant as me liqmdamrlorine Tnlrd Delsnuanl. [E] rnal men resumed belore inns own on 14.11.2922. As ms Plalmifi ma closed as case. me Deienaanls called Panrldx Donald Ml:Pnes(DWI ) and Lin: LIII (uwzl in tnsmy The hackgggnd 13:1: and cowl graces gs no} In ma. lnrly~6nur penal: M land ncludlng me loul parcel: in «ma use were lranslansd In ma Plalnnfl by in. Third Dafundanl nun on 15.2 1995. a pallet r-pan wax lodged by one Em: Lau Man Hlng (oon|ribl.l\ory nl me rrnm Delenaanl) man alleged mam were unauirmim dlwusal uffony-lnur pieces M land by ins Tnlm D-lmm-no me Plalrmfl. [11] on a 4 1995. me lransler of the lands from ins Third Deiendani lo the Plainm was registered Two years later on 2 a.2oou. a windlngup pemim was pnaeeinea against me Thlld Deienaanl on 29.2.2002. me Third neienaani was wnund up on 412 2003. a money lending agreemenl between me Pialnml and Prlmavlew Emerpnse Sdn BM (FESB| was enierea lnlo where a sum a1RM4,49c.D0fl was luanemo me Pialniiu [12] on 5 7.2005, me First ana Second Delenuanls were awolnlld as llquldalers Ior me Third Delendarll on 12.12 zoos, me mm Delendanl A srn rmyGlm7EGEnRlZlFlDsw “Nair s.n.i n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 M my r... nflnlnnllly mini: flan-vlnnl VII nFluNG vtmxl Ind me Irqvraaners med an os D6-24457-2005 mama! mu Pla\nmV seskmg e dedarmm urarmerrerrsver nlme iermaurprerxas hylhe Thwd Defendant to me Plainnfl was void agarnm me Iiquidalon and man we mm neveneenrwes the ngrmm ewner elma lands (os 457) [13] on 31.1 2007, me Plainmf entered inlo a sale and Dumhass agreemefll (SPA) in gen me wands ncludmg me (am parcels to Grand Dynasty Inausrrres Sdn Brm [Gland Dynasty) Vn January and April 2005. me pnvale caveats were Ioogea as above. [14] om PESE zoos, e debenture was axncmed by me Flalmlfl Vn oevnur 01 [151 on 10 5 2010, ma men Court armex 011105 457 on me basis Iha| me land: had already been sald In a third pany and win nal named rn me os TM man om: vorrne rrrer rrre vrernuu was no ranger ewner a! we end [16] on I1 52010, are P1ain|1lFs vormr senators lent demands re remove the caveau On 123 6.2010. me De1emJan|s’ scltclkxs mlolmed manrrey were ablalmnn Vnstrucficns nerlaming In me czvmts an are four parcas enand on 16.7 zmu me Defendants‘ eolicrcors invermeu that me Devrenaarm. were agvwable Io wflhdrsw Ina caveais The {aims at wnnarawal el naveals were lodged on 9 3.2010. [171 Meerrwnue, me Defsndams had appeakzd against me Hrgh oourrs decisiurr In 05 457 — CM! Appeal w-o21M)»1n9s—2mn. srrv nxvyG4m7EsErrR\zlF:uew “Nana a.n.r n-nhnrwm a. med m my r... anrn.r-y mm: dun-mm v.. .rrune em [Is] on 22 11 2019 me Second Plal m was appomtea as 1M Plamws mcmvur and manager. On 2a.1.2a11_ the Plairmfl had a mavnbuf wmamg up and the First and Second Daiundantx were apnmnled as nqunuacon. iorme Piammf. [19] On 2.3.2u11, Ihe P\ain|x'N and PESB onauengeu the sppomlmamof the liqmdalcls via cs D-Z¢—NCC-532011 (os 53) On 13.3.2011 m as 55, me Plammemamec an ex-pane in,um‘m agams1Ihe|u1uIdalors fram aclmg as me Piainmfs liquidators [20] On 29 4.2a1mma rum Delendarn lodged pnvam caveam on muse four Mher parcels of land.» 41) can 49535‘ Lm 19:54: my can 49549‘ La! 19355: (In) GRN 49553‘ Lu| 1945:: am my GRN 4ssw,Lo|194w2. [21] on 20.5 2011‘l>IeCour|n1AppeiI\dumlssedlheliquidatufi aupaal Thus, me daemon In aismiss 05 457 byme High coun was avnrmoa. [221 On 3.9.2011, Magnamse Consultancy sun Ehd commenmd a suil agamu me Pvaxnan my faflure to cmnsm ma Mess o1 land to Grand Dynasty A wnssm ludgment was entered by me pamss an 7.10 2011 vmere me P\amlm was to pay damages 0! R.M1,4D0,0D0 wuh Inlzevesl of 4%.. [21] On 2 11.2011 «nos 53, In mcsr-pane Vnjuncnon was gramad lo mslmm me Hquidalovs Imm aclmg en: the s-Iuum. 5 sm mvycamvzsznkwzlfiusw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [24] On 13 1 2012. ms Plaumm was grzmed mews to wmmenoa this man agzlnsl me Daranuams for damages purwanl to 5329 Nanonal Land 0m‘le1NLC)andlhe mgr: com misv for as 457 The qmunds 4:! me decxslun died werelhm up The llqmdatovs had entered (he cavaals wmngry; The Furs! P\a1M.iW had entered [mo sale and purchase agreemanu m sell me parcels av warm on :1 1 2007; mu) The riqmaacam had msnrameo me Hrs: Plairmfllmm aealmg ma parcels M land (or «me years; and uv) The liqundalms had no valvd use uvacuon In 05 457 [25] FurOS 53‘ on 2014 me Hugh own had aHuwad n, thus are Pm and saconu Decanuams were rammed as nqmuaxors var ms Pla\nM1. In 2017 me Vuzulflnlon‘ appeal against min daemon -n as 53 was dmmued by me Court of Aupnl The appllcaflon (01 law: On appeal In ma Fodem Counwa: a\so dlslmsuod Thus ma HquIda|olI were varnovad and could nu|aI:1 to: me Plainml. TPI [25] me Mainlwflsubmmed man may had lulfilled Ihe lequvramems under 5329 NLC to user! lhalme necsnaams had wmngfully eniersd me nnvate caveats and wt had suflered damages and losses as a resun o1 me said wmngful lodge-nenn [271 me Flalnnfl relied on me Own 0! Appeal‘: asasm in mnfilrmng am fat! man me caveats wua wronyflmy lodged by me Defendants. The Pmnm: pnvnled oul mat (he naveau were nu! lodged as soon 3: me police 1 sm mvycamvzsznkwzlfiusw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm rupuns were blown! to ma ifllnfian olma Flrsl and Second Dalandanla n 2005 Mien may were appmnled as Ibqubdatom. The cavaana rnalaad were lodged lnraa ysars lay in zoos The Halnlm wbmmed Ihal lherefnle me Imemlan could name said In preserve me status quo of ma land. [25] More man a year pnor co ma loddarnanl onna cavea|, 05 457 nad commenced in zoos, mus again, the Plarnunauornlnad mat ma aaveava could nor be in ma prasarvanon ol me land is may were no: axacurad srnnlnanaausly wlm lna Ming olma slllt Mae were lso rasoluuons man an lnnlnclron was to be mad lo nalrarn any daalrngs wnn me land. lnaugn naming was rnalannuud. The Plnmm subrniflad mar me liquidators‘ conduct was m gmss mntempl my rna aavula were alsu lodgad mom lnan a year anar lna aala and purchase agraarnanlwas anlaroo lnlo by our FlamWwi|I1 Grand Dymzsly. rna Plainril! suornmao mal lna llquldalon wiln lull xnowladaa onnarr had only done so no orananl lna sulxess of ma puronaunransvar av lands to Grand nynasly Theta war: no auzons by ma liduvdarors lo lagnny sol aslda ma sala and Duldmse aarlemenl 130] The Plalnnfl rmplorad this Court to consider me lac! lhal than M: no awdenua that me lands were fra\ll1ll\em|yIransferred in me P\aIn|l’fl [311 Laslly, ma Flainafl submllled lnal me First and samnd Defendants were rnava was wnan may lodged another tour caveats on 29.4.2011 an Ihe basis lnal me money landrng agraemem wlm PESB was rwalrd. To cm‘ are onallenga oylm Fnal and Second Defendants on me valldwry had man In 05 53 The nlher auuanga was by way alwm WA—22NCC4Z!I- arn lmyGIm7EsEnR\2lFluaw «ma s.n.r lunhnrwm .. d... w my r... nrW\nnU|:I mm: m.n.n n. mane v-max 10/2017 betweln ma Third oerlenaann and Om: Chang Naang (sun 431) were the gr» cmn had umak am we smf [32] The mm mm was also rm su may fur the Detenuams wnare 1n ma Plamhffs appmznon 1m weave lo commence nus sun was objected no but was aveIru\ed by me Hxgll Own The (mm allsmpt was ma me omedmn on me vananyoma umeyenuxng agreement in ma applitzllan «or Valve tn wmmenee [ms 5 agam ws msmsssa. [331 The mass shnwn by me P\amtill mcludsd me mdgmenl anier at RM1,mu,noo whh mcamscs [:4] ma P\aInllIl had also mmmmaa man mane inlerence shomd be drawn agnman lha Second Defandzm as he nan opted nu! |o give evidence .1 man The Dlhnol [351 II was suhmlllad (or me Frrs| and Seuund Defendants max H15 Plamrm am not havu mus slandw Io mrnmenee ems action as me proper parry Io sue fur and on behaflohhe PLaintif11n llqmdancn was Iha 0ffda\ Receaver. As here was no sanohon mm Ihe Offidal Reoemr, ma receiver and manager had no locus standl Io oanunue mm ms smc unaa me name 07 am my me Plammv. Amongst me aumonbes med by me Defendants muuaeu swam NLC. mum Marketing v Bousoead Eldred Sdn BM [2010] 3 cu 735, Small Medium Enlerpriso Bunk Mu-ym Bhd v Blzckrock Cnrpontion sun and [2017] 9 cm 45 and cam Brillllnl Sdn and 5 Or: vNInq[lKIng A on [21:14] 5 cm 502 sw nxvyG4m7EsEnR121F1usw «ma 5.1.1 ...m.mm as used m mm .. mmmuuy mm: dun-mm VII .mm v-mm [351 Parlalnlng to me dalm by ma vlalntlll. (he learned counsel lo: lna Delennanlx nan suhmmed matlnla Caurl mus1 am make a findlng under $329 NLclnal lna caveats were wronglully lodged before nonslderlng ma evlderlce on loss or aamaga wflemd. The Dsaenoanls mnlanoao lnat they had lzvealable interesls when me caveats were lodged pursuant to 5323(1) NLC‘ Luyqigl Distributors (14) sun and v ran No! Tong l Anor[1995] 1 mm 719 and Ins1llul7-krloIogAF¢d-ml Sdn am It uuu Eaumlon Sdn BM [2005] 3 Mu 221 [37] ma Dekndarlts submlflod lnat ma cavuis were Wllhdmwn by Vnemielvas and um rarmwed by way ol an anal ton urldav 5329 NLC mus ma Plalrlnfl was uraciuded from alalmlnoloroamagas [33] Aoomdmg lo the Derandanla. tna second Isqulremenl olsnawma losses oy lna Plalrmfis was also unsustainable The omaanl otdev dated no mm between Magnawlse Oonsunanny Sdn BMI and the Flrst Flainmlcould not bound me Delendallls.As4oe1rom ma soectal oalllagu M Rmllaoolooo. no general oamagaa were mdued as me nouns vounu mat Magnnwlse om nnl sufler any loss lnal la dlractly amlhuled by me Flra| Plalnbfl rna Defevldann: Ilsa claimed mat tna Flat Flalnlifl nao nol Dald lna aooalal oanlaoen Iwardsd to Mlgrllwlse Consultancy son lam. [av] The Defendants clalnlau mat the caveats were amred for a purpose - the premise also by tne uelenaants was ln in En‘: Lia Min rung v Er-mm Jay: Sdn BM [1993] 7 MLJ 523 wheve mete was a rlnolng that me lands warn lllagalty transferred to ma Flrsl l>lalmlll. Falkwllng mall. ttlemlronal-naanlllao filed an acnon m reoaverlhelands lmm ma Flrs| Plainnfl vlde es 457. so, me caveats were to aaleguam me lntaraol Olllls mm ualanoanl am flxVyG4m7EGEnRl2lF|Daw «mu s.n.l In-vlhnrwm a. HIGH M my t... nflmnaflly ml. dun-mm VII mum ow

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

AC-83-456-11/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHAMMAD FAIRUZ BIN MOHAMAD SUIB

AKTA RUMAH JUDI TERBUKA, PENDUAAN PERTUDUHAN, DUPLICITY OF CHARGE, KAWALAN, SIMPANAN, JUDI ATAS TALIAN,

11/12/2023

Puan Ashvinii a/p Thinakaran

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e92f3193-f12a-40fb-929e-bfbee4b10346&Inline=true

KEPUTUSAN DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN AC-83-456-11/2021 PENDAKWARAYA V MOHAMMAD FAIRUZ BIN MOHAMAD SUIB (NO.KP: 841128085151) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PERTUDUHAN “BAHAWA KAMU PADA 08.08.2021 JAM LEBIH KURANG 2.25 PETANG, BERTEMPAT DI KEDAI RUNCIT NO. 101 BATU 6 TAMAN MUHIBBAH JALAN MAHARAJA LELA 36000 TELUK INTAN PERAK, DI DAERAH HILIR PERAK, DI NEGERI PERAK, TELAH DIDAPATI MENGURUSKAN SUATU TEMPAT YANG DISIMPAN ATAU DIGUNAKAN SEBAGAI SEBUAH RUMAH PERJUDIAN TERBUKA. OLEH YANG DEMIKIAN KAMU TELAH MELAKUKAN SATU KESALAHAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 4(1)(C) AKTA RUMAH JUDI TERBUKA 1953.” HUKUMAN:- BOLEH DIKENAKAN DENDA TIDAK KURANG RM5000.00 DAN TIDAK LEBIH RM50,000.00 DAN HENDAKLAH JUGA DIKENAKAN HUKUMAN PENJARA SELAMA TEMPOH TIDAK MELEBIHI 3 TAHUN DAN SELAIN ITU HENDAKLAH DIKENAKAN DENDA YANG TIDAK KURANG DARIPADA RM5000.00 DAN TIDAK LEBIH DARIPADA RM50,000.00 BAGI SETIAP MESIN JUDI YANG DIRAMPAS. LATAR BELAKANG KES Bagi kes ini, keterangan SP1 dan SP2 telah didengar oleh Puan Majistret terdahulu. Puan Majistret terdahulu kemudiannya telah berpindah ke Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh, dan kes ini selanjutnya telah saya ambil alih dan disambung dengan keterangan SP3 sehingga ke akhir bicara. Saya telah meneruskan bicara kes ini dengan bergantung kepada nota keterangan yang telah disediakan oleh Puan Majistret terdahulu dan juga rujukan kepada Sistem Rakaman Audio Video Mahkamah (RVT). Saya telah menyemak rakaman tersebut dan dapat melihat suasana perbicaraan serta demeanor saksi-saksi yang telah memberikan keterangan. 11/12/2023 16:35:20 AC-83-456-11/2021 Kand. 44 S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Pihak-pihak juga tiada bantahan dalam saya mengambil alih bicara bagi kes ini. Saya juga memilih untuk meneruskan bicara tanpa memanggil semula saksi-saksi pendakwaan yang telah memberi keterangan sebelum ini kerana nota keterangan yang telah disediakan oleh Puan Majistret terdahulu dan rakaman RVT mahkamah adalah jelas dan boleh difahami. KEDUDUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG DAN PRIMA FACIE: [1] Seksyen 173(7i)(i) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ) telah memperuntukkan berkenaan tugas mahkamah di akhir kes pihak pendakwaan adalah untuk memutuskan sama ada pihak pendakwaan telah mengemukakan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Tertuduh atas pertuduhan terhadapnya. Mahkamah perlu menilai keterangan-keterangan saksi pihak pendakwaan yang credible yang telah membuktikan semua intipati pertuduhan sebelum Tertuduh dipanggil untuk membela diri. [2] Perkataan prima facie tidak ditakrifkan di bawah Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Walau bagaimanapun, Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Balacahandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85 [2005] 1 AMR 321: [2005] 2 MLJ 301 telah menghuraikan berkenaan ujian prima facie sepertimana yang berikut: ...The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? If the answer is in the affirmative then a prima facie case has been made out. This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima facie case. [3] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Mahkamah ini telah meneliti keperluan untuk melakukan penilaian secara maksimum ke atas keseluruhan keterangan dan bukti- bukti sokongan di dalam kes ini. Seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan kes-kes yang berkaitan telah dirujuk. Section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code sets out the procedure to be followed by the court at the close of prosecution case as follows; (1) When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused. (2) If the Court finds that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against the accused, the Court shall record an order of acquittal. (3) If the Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused on the offence charged the Court shall call upon the accused to enter on his defence. (4) For the purpose of this section, a prima facie case is made out against the accused where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction. S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [4] Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Looi Kow Chai v. Public Prosecutor [2003] 1 CLJ 734 [2003] 2 MLJ 65; [2003] 2 AMR 89 berkenaan prima facie telah menyatakan seperti yang berikut: "In our respectful view, the correct test to be applied in determining whether a prima facie case has been made out under s. 180 of the CPC (and this would apply to a trial under s. 173 of the CPC) is that as encapsulated in the judgment of Hashim Yeop Sani FJ (as he then was) in Dato' Mokhtar bin Hashim & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1983] CLJ Rep 101: [1983] 2 CLJ 10: [1983] 2 MLJ 232 at p 270: To summarize, it would therefore appear that having regard to the prosecution evidence adduced so far, a prima facie case has not been established against Nordin Johan and Aziz Abdullah, the second accused and the fourth accused which, failing their rebuttal, would warrant their conviction. In other words if they elect to remain silent now (which I hold they are perfectly entitled to do even though they are being tried under the Emergency Regulations) the question is can they be convicted of the offence of section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code ? My answer to the question is in the negative.' We are confident in the view we have just expressed because we find nothing in the amended s. 180(1) of the CPC that has taken away the right of an accused person to remain silent at the close of the prosecution case. Further we find nothing in the legislative intention of Parliament as expressed in the language employed by it to show that there should be a dual exercise by a judge under s. 180 when an accused elects to remain silent as happened in Pavone v. Public Prosecutor [1985] 1 LNS 99: [1984] 1 MLJ 77. In other words, we are unable to discover anything in the language of the recently formulated s. 180 that requires a judge sitting alone first to make a minimum evaluation and then when the accused elects to remain silent to make a maximum evaluation in deciding whether to convict or not at the close of the prosecution case.” [5] It therefore follows that there is only one exercise that a judge sitting alone under s. 180 of the CPC has to undertake at the close of the prosecution case. He must subject the prosecution evidence to maximum evaluation and to ask himself the question: if I decide to call upon the accused to enter his defence and he elects to remain silent, am I prepared to convict him on the totality of the evidence contained in the prosecution case? If the answer is in the negative then no prima facie case has been made out and the accused would be entitled to an acquittal." [6] Kes Public Prosecutor v Poh Ah Kwang [2003] 3 AMR 670 dirujuk berkenaan maksud prima facie ini: S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “Since the standard of proof at this stage is prima facie proof, which means a maximum evaluation of the evidence on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence of SP2 is therefore for all intends and purposes uncorroborated in so far as the answers given by the accused were concerned..” [7] Kes Public Prosecutor v Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ turut dirujuk; “After the amendments to ss. 173(f) and 180 of the CPC, the statutory test has been altered. What is required of a Subordinate Court and the High Court under the amended section is to call for the defence when it is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out at the close of the prosecution case. This requires the court to undertake a maximum evaluation of the prosecution evidence when deciding whether to call on the accused to enter his or her defence. SEKSYEN KESALAHAN: [8] Dikemukakan seksyen-seksyen berkaitan pertuduhan dan kesalahan untuk rujukan mudah seperti berikut; Offences relating to common gaming houses 1. Any person who— (a) ... (b) ... (c) has the care or management of or in any manner assists in the management of a place kept or used as a common gaming house ; or (d) ... (e) ... (f) ... (g) ... (h) ... shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction. be liable to a fine of not less than five thousand ringgit and not more than fifty thousand ringgit and shall also be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and in addition shall be liable to a fine of not less than five thousand ringgit and not more than fifty thousand ringgit for every gaming machine seized; (2) Any person who occupies or has the use temporarily of a place which is kept or used by another person as a common gaming house shall be presumed until the contrary is proved to have permitted S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal such place to be so kept or used. ELEMEN PERTUDUHAN: [9] Di dalam kes ini, Mahkamah telah meneliti keperluan elemen-elemen pertuduhan di bawah pertuduhan ini iaitu; a) Wujudnya satu tempat yang disimpan atau digunakan sebagai suatu rumah perjudian terbuka; b) OKT mempunyai jagaan atau pegurusan atau membantu dalam pegurusan tempat tersebut. DIPUTUSKAN (pihak pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh; tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan): [10] Mahkamah ini setelah mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan, eksibit-eksibit yang dikemukakan sepanjang kes pendakwaan dan hujahan kedua-dua pihak, Mahkamah atas penilaian maksimum berpuashati untuk membebaskan dan melepaskan tertuduh tanpa dipanggil untuk bela diri daripada pertuduhan pada hari ini atas dua alasan berikut: a) Pertuduhan adalah cacat kerana ada penduaan (duplicity); b) Pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan kes prima facie. PENDUAAN (DUPLICITY): [11] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada elemen pertuduhan dalam kes ini dimana seskyen kesalahan dalam kes ini menyatakan seperti berikut: 4. Offences relating to common gaming houses 1. Any person who— (a) ... (b) ... (c) has the care or management of or in any manner assists in the management of a place kept or used as a common gaming house ; or (d) ... (e) ... (f) ... (g) ... (h) ... S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction. be liable to a fine of not less than five thousand ringgit and not more than fifty thousand ringgit and shall also be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and in addition shall be liable to a fine of not less than five thousand ringgit and not more than fifty thousand ringgit for every gaming machine seized; (2) Any person who occupies or has the use temporarily of a place which is kept or used by another person as a common gaming house shall be presumed until the contrary is proved to have permitted such place to be so kept or used. [12] Manakala pertuduhan yang dipertuduhkan terhadap Tertuduh pada hari ini berbentuk seperti berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 08.08.2021 jam lebih kurang 2.25 petang, bertempat di Kedai Runcit No. 101 Batu 6 Taman Muhibbah Jalan Maharaja Lela 36000 Teluk Intan Perak, di daerah Hilir Perak, di negeri Perak, telah didapati menguruskan suatu tempat yang disimpan atau digunakan sebagai sebuah rumah perjudian terbuka. oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 4(1)(c) Akta Rumah Judi Terbuka 1953.” [13] Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah mendapati pihak Pendakwaan telah mewujudkan 2 kesalahan yang berbeza di dalam pertuduhan yang sama iaitu limb pertama, ‘menguruskan suatu tempat yang disimpan sebagai sebuah rumah perjudian terbuka dan limb kedua ‘ menguruskan suatu tempat yang digunakan sebagai sebuah rumah perjudian terbuka’. [14] Ini menunjukkan terdapat 2 kesalahan yang berbeza di dalam satu pertuduhan. Maka, pertuduhan terhadap pembelaan mengandungi dua kesalahan yang berbeza dimana pihak Pendakwaan telah mengaitkan limb pertama dan limb kedua. Oleh it, wujudnya penduaan di dalam pertuduhan yang menimbulkan kekeliruan kepada Pendakwaan, Pembelaan dan Mahkamah. [15] Penggunaan perkataan ‘atau’ di dalam pertuduhan di atas cukup menunjukkan Pendakwaan sendiri telah terkhilaf dan terkeliru mengenai kesalahan mana yang sepatutnya dipertuduhkan terhadap Tertuduh. Apabila Pendakwaan gagal mengenal pasti kesalahan mana yang seharusnya perlu dibuktikan terhadap pembelaan, maka Pembelaan juga terkeliru tentang kesalahan mana yang perlu dijawab. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini juga tidak boleh memutuskan dengan kepastian sama ada keterangan-keterangan yang dipertengahnya oleh Pendakwaan dalam kes ini adalah untuk membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap kesalahan yang mana satu? [16] Mahkamah dalam hal ini merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Ravindran S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Ramasamy v PP [2015] 3 CLJ 421. Di dalam kes ini, HMP Jeffrey Tan menyatakan: (1) Pertuduhan terhadap perayu adalah untuk satu kesalahan di bawah s. 3A FIPA. Berikutan seksyen tersebut, perayu merupakan rakan sejenayah dan butir-butir kesalahan menunjukkan bahawa perayu merupakan rakan sejenayah. Walau bagaimanapun, pertuduhan tidak dirangka sebegitu. Pertuduhan bahawa perayu dan Jayakumar telah melepaskan tembakan adalah bercanggah dengan pertuduhan di bawah s. 3A. Pada masa yang sama, pertuduhan juga menyatakan bahawa perayu mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa Jayakumar mempunyai senjata api dalam kawalan atau jagaannya. Ini adalah konsisten dengan pertuduhan di bawah s. 3A. Memandangkan butir-butir kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan merentangi kedua-dua ss. 3 dan 3A, ia tidak menunjukkan bahawa pertuduhan di sini telah memberi notis yang adil kepada perayu berkenaan seksyen undang-undang bagi kesalahan yang dituduh telah dilakukan. Tambahan lagi, di bawah FIPA, seseorang pesalah tidak boleh menjadi pesalah prinsipal dan juga rakan sejenayah pada masa yang sama. Oleh itu, walaupun pertuduhan berasingan dikenakan, perayu tidak boleh dituduh dan dibicarakan di bawah ss. 3 dan 3A. (2) Memandangkan butiran pertuduhan menjurus kepada pelanggaran s. 3 FIPA, adalah amat diragui bahawa penyataan mengenai s. 3A semata-mata akan menyampaikan kepada perayu bahawa tidak terdapat seksyen undang-undang lain bagi kesalahan yang dituduh dilakukan. Tambahan lagi, ingredien penting bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 3A adalah kehadiran rakan sejenayah di tempat kesalahan itu dilakukan atau cuba dilakukan atau bersubahat melakukan kesalahan tersebut. Kehadiran perayu, walau bagaimanapun, tidak dinyatakan dalam pertuduhan, yang sepatutnya tidak betul jika seksyen undang-undang di mana kesalahan dikatakan telah dilakukan adalah di bawah s. 3A. Sebaliknya, fakta bahawa perayu berada di tempat kejadian tidak perlu dinyatakan jika seksyen undang-undang di mana kesalahan dikatakan telah dilakukan adalah di bawah s. 3. (3)Seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan bukanlah ingredien bagi kesalahan yang dituduh. Walau bagaimanapun, dengan adanya s. 34, pertuduhan di sini telah memberi notis kepada perayu bahawa kes terhadapnya di mana kelakuan jenayah yang dibuat oleh perayu dan Jayakumar adalah seumpama ianya dilakukan oleh perayu seorang. Sebagai kesannya, notis kepada perayu adalah bahawa senjata api telah dilepaskan olehnya. Pertuduhan juga menyatakan bahawa perayu berpengetahuan bahawa Jayakumar mempunyai senjata api dalam kawalan dan jagaannya. Oleh itu, pertuduhan telah memberi gambaran untuk dua kesalahan atau dua bahagian kesalahan, iaitu, satu di S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal bawah s. 3 dan lagi satu di bawah s. 3A, yang telah melanggar s. 163 KTJ dan oleh itu, tidak sah disebabkan penduaan. (4) Berdasarkan s. 156 KTJ, tiada kesilapan dalam menyatakan kesalahan atau butir- butir yang dikehendaki dinyatakan dalam pertuduhan, dan tiada peninggalan dalam menyatakan kesalahan atau butir-butir itu, boleh diambilkira, pada mana-mana peringkat kes, sebagai material melainkan jika tertuduh sebenarnya telah tersalah arah oleh sebab kesilapan atau peninggalan tersebut. Dari sudut s. 422, bagi suatu kesilapan atau peninggalan menjadi material, adalah tidak mencukupi untuk tertuduh tersalah arah. Perlu ada ketidakadilan. "Kesilapan" yang dinyatakan dalam s. 156 KTJ adalah kesilapan dalam menyatakan kesalahan atau butir-butir yang perlu dinyatakan dalam pertuduhan dan bukan kesilapan dalam menyatakan ingredien kesalahan. Perbandingan sama ada kesilapan menyatakan butir-butir atau kesilapan menyatakan ingredien-ingredien mesti dibuat bagi kehendak s. 156 dan/atau s. 422 KTJ. (5)Seksyen 156 dan/atau s. 422 KTJ tidak boleh menyelamatkan pertuduhan yang cacat di mana tertuduh terkeliru dan satu ketidakadilan telah berlaku. Berdasarkan fakta, adalah jelas bahawa kemungkinan perayu telah terkeliru dan suatu ketidakadilan boleh berlaku. Peninggalan dalam tidak menyatakan kehadiran perayu di tempat kejadian telah membuatkan perayu terkeliru bahawa kes untuk dijawab bukanlah untuk suatu kesalahan di bawah s. 3A. Sebaliknya, peninggalan tersebut bersama-sama dengan kesilapan menyatakan bahawa perayu dan Jayakumar telah melepaskan tembakan, mungkin boleh meyakinkan perayu bahawa kes untuk dijawab adalah bagi suatu kesalahan di bawah s. 3 FIPA. Pertuduhan bagi kesalahan di bawah s. 3 dibaca bersama s. 34 dan/atau s. 3A dibaca bersama s. 34 tidak diterima di sisi undang-undang. Sabitan perayu, oleh itu, adalah terbatal dan terdapat kegagalan dalam pelaksanaan keadilan. [17] Mahkamah ini juga merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Rayuan terkini iaitu kes Sam Ke Ting vs PP [2023] 5 CLJ 704, yang menyatakan seperti berikut: Penduaan (Duplicity) [13] Seksyen 41 (1) APJ 1987 di bawah mana perayu disabitkan memperuntukkan: Any person who, by driving of a motor vehicle on a road recklessly or at a speed or in a manner which having regard to all circumstances (including the nature, condition and size of the road, and the amount of traffic which is or might be expected to be on the S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal road) is dangerous to the public, causes the death of any person shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than ten years and to a fine not less than five thousand ringgit and not more than twenty thousand ringgit. [14] Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Ng Beng Kok v PP [2017]7 CLJ 157 telah memutuskan bahawa seksyen 41 (1) APJ 1987 mewujudkan tiga jenis kesalahan yang berbeza iaitu: (i) limb pertama - driving a motor vehicle recklessly (memandu melulu); (ii) limb kedua - driving at a speed (memandu laju); dan (iii) limb ketiga - driving in a manner dangerous to the public (memandu secara merbahaya). [15] Tafsiran yang serupa diterima pakai dalam kes-kes berikut: Poleon Ajan v PP [2010] 10 CLJ 420; Wee Hui Hoo v PP [1987] 1 ML J 498; dan Yap Liow Swee v PP [1937] MLJ 225. [16] Dikatakan tiga kesalahan yang berbeza kerana intipati bagi setiap satu dari tiga kesalahan tersebut adalah tidak sama. [17] Dalam kes ini, pertuduhan terhadap perayu mengandungi dua kesalahan dalam satu pertuduhan iaitu memandu melulu atau secara merbahaya. Pendakwaan mengaitkan limb pertama dengan limb ketiga seksyen 41(1). [18] Menggunapakai tafsiran daripada kedua-dua kes di atas adalah jelas, dalam kes pada hari ini Pendakwaan telah menggabungkan 2 limb yang berbeza dalam satu pertuduhan yang sekali arus menyebabkan Tertuduh telah terkeliru bahawa kes yang mana perlu dijawab dan suatu ketidakadilan telah berlaku disebabkan pertuduhan yang cacat. Tambahan pula, Seksyen 156 dan/atau s. 422 KTJ tidak boleh menyelamatkan pertuduhan yang cacat di mana tertuduh terkeliru dan satu ketidakadilan telah berlaku. [19] Kes Mahkamah Rayuan yang sama menyatakan, bagi kes terhadap tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan, Tertuduh haruslah menunjukkan bahawa duplicity telah memberi dua kesan berikut: (i) Tertuduh telah dikelirukan; dan (ii) salah laksana keadilan (miscarriage of justice) telah diakibatkan kepada Tertuduh. [20] Bagi isu pertama isitu Tertuduh telah dikeliurukan, adalah penting untuk Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada definis dan penggunaan perkataan yang digunakan dalam Pertuduhan ini iaitu ‘disimpan’ atau ‘digunakan’. [21] Berdasarkan Kamu Dewan Edisi Terkini, perkataan ‘disimpan’ berasal daripada perkataan ‘menyimpan’ yang membawa maksud seperti berikut: S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Menyimpan Menaruh di tempat yang selamat (supaya tidak rosak, tidak hilang, dan lain-lain): barang itu disimpan dalam stor; [22] Manakalan perkatan ‘digunakan’ berasal dari perkatan ‘guna’ yang membawa maksud perti berikut: Guna Peranan, Fungsi semua kertas digunakannya dapat dibeli. [23] Maka persoalan di sini adalah, adakah Pertuduhan yang dipertuduhkan terhadap Tertuduh adalah bagi kesalahan dimana tempat kejadian sekadar disimpan sebagai tempat perjudian atau tempat kejadian tersebut berfungsi sebagai tempat perjudian? Kedua-dua ayat ini membawa kepada maksud yang berbeza dimana satu menyatakan tempat kejadian tersebut berada dalam milikan ataupun kawalan Tertuduh untuk disimpan manakala satu lagi membawa maksud tempat kejadian itu secara khasnya berfungsi dan berlakunya aktiviti perjudian. [24] Elemen pembuktian kedua-dua ayat ‘disimpan’ dan ‘digunakan’ adalah berbeza dimana bagi membuktikan tempat kejadian itu ‘disimpan’ maka Pendakwaan perlu membuktikan terdapat milikan ataupun kawalan oleh Tertuduh terhadap tempat kejadian. Malah, bagi membuktikan tempat kejadian itu ‘digunakan’ maka Pendakwaan perlu membuktikan adanya aktivit yang bertujuan perjudian sewaktu serbuan dibuat. [25] Beralih kepada isu kedua iaitu salah laksana keadilan. Ciri utama yang dilihat ialah: i. pertuduhan telah melanggar peruntukan s. 163 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ) yang menghendaki satu pertuduhan hendaklah mengandungi satu kesalahan sahaja; ii. pertuduhan yang cacat kerana duplicity tidak boleh diperbetulkan di bawah s. 422 KTJ; dan; iii. sabitan atas pertuduhan yang cacat tidak boleh dipertahankan kerana pertuduhan tidak sah. [26] Seksyen 163 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah memperuntukkan: 163. Separate charges for distinct offences For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every charge shall be tried separately, except in the cases mentioned in sections 164, 165, 166 and 170. S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [27] Seksyen 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah memperuntukkan: 422. Irregularities not to vitiate proceedings Subject to the provisions contained in this Chapter, no finding, sentence or order passed or made by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on account of: a) any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, sanction, consent, summons, warrant, charge, judgment or other proceeding before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceeding under this Code; b) the want of any sanction; or c) the improper admission or rejection of any evidence, unless such error, omission, irregularity, want or improper admission or rejection of evidence has occasioned a failure of justice. [28] Dalam kes Yap Liow Swee v. PP [1937] 1 LNS 93; [1937] 1 MLJ 225, perayu disabitkan dengan pertuduhan memandu dengan melulu atau cuai. Dalam menjawab isu sama ada duplicity dalam pertuduhan adalah semata-mata ketidakaturan (mere irregularity) atau kepenyalahan undang-undang (illegality), Terrell Ag CJ menyatakan di ms. 226: But in a case like the present, the prosecution do not set out to prove both recklessness and negligence but merely one or the other. Accordingly, the accused is embarrassed in his plea and if he is convicted he is left in doubt as to the offence of which he has been convicted. I have no doubt therefore that duplicity of his kind is an illegality,... [29] Di ms. 226 kes yang sama, Cussen J menyatakan: It is impossible to make a simple plea of "guilty" to the charge in this case; and that shows clearly that the charge is bad-it is an illegal charge because it contains two distinct offences contrary to the provisions of section 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A charge must contain one offence and no more. [30] Seterusnya, di ms. 227 kes itu, Cussen J menyatakan: Finally, I do not consider that this is an irregularity curable under section 422 of the CPC... This is not such an error, omission or irregularity. It is a contravention of an express provision of the Code ie, section 163; it is a matter of substance and not of form; it creates uncertainty and embarrassment; it is a charge to which it is impossible to make a simple plea; it is an illegality. S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [31] Dalam kes Yap Liow Swee, sabitan terhadap perayu diketepikan kerana pertuduhan menyalahi undang-undang (illegal). [32] Dalam kes Wee Hui Hoo v. PP [1985] 1 LNS 6; [1987] 1 MLJ 498, perayu disabitkan dengan pertuduhan memandu dengan melulu atau secara berbahaya. Perayu merayu terhadap sabitan dan hukuman. Isu di hadapan mahkamah ialah sama ada duplicity dalam pertuduhan telah mengakibatkan kegagalan peradilan (failure of justice). Chong Siew Fai J memutuskan kegagalan peradilan telah berlaku kerana perayu disabitkan bukan untuk satu dari dua kesalahan alternatif, tetapi atas pertuduhan yang cacat. Oleh itu, sabitan diketepikan. [33] Mahkamah ini juga mendapati, bagi lebih daripada satu kesalahan dimasukkan dalam satu pertuduhan maka kesemua kesalahan itu perlulah terarah dan terjumlah kepada satu transaksi yang sama seperti mana yang telah diputuskan di dalam Amrita Lal Hazra [supra ] dan juga yang telah diputuskan oleh YA Abdul Wahab Patail HMR di dalam Bunya Jalong v. PP [2015] 5 CLJ 893. Nas duluan yang berkaitan berkaitan dirujuk di dalam Bunya Jalong [supra ] adalah seperti berikut: "[44] We observed that s. 164 pertains to "offences of the same kind... whether in respect of the same person or not...", while s. 165 pertains to "... one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person...", and both these are exceptions to s. 163 which ensures that an accused is in no doubt or confusion as to the particular offence for which he is charged and tried and must defend himself against. Though the alleged incidents in this case, regardless the incidents were in different months, involve the same accused, same victim, same offence and same place, they involve separate offences of rape. That the charges involve the same witnesses and evidence, and time and expense would be saved by a trial of the four charges together, find no merit in the light of the specific provisions of s. 164 that only three offences of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months may be charged and tried together, and s. 165that an accused may be charged and tried together for offences that arosefrom one series of acts committed by one person so connected together as to form the same transaction. We failed to see how four rapes, and over four separate months, can be seen as one transaction even if by the same accused upon the same victim and in the same place. [45] We observed also the reference in PP v. Ridzuan Kok Abdullah (supra) to S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Babulal Chaukhani v. King Emperor AIR [1938] PC 130 that the court must determine whether the acts were committed in the same transaction or not at the time the charge was framed and not at the end of trial. This is for the reason that s. 163 of the CPC provides that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in the cases mentioned in ss. 164, 165, 166 and 170. Therefore, when a trial is in breach of s. 163 and not saved by s. 164 or s. 165 of the CPC, it constituted an illegality which cannot becured under s. 422 of the CPC. (See Jagar Singh v. Public Prosecutor [1936] 1 LNS 25; [1936] 1 MLJ 92, Yap Liow Swee v. Public Prosecutor [1937] 1 LNS 93; [1937] 1 MLJ 225; Saw Tuan Cheong v. Public Prosecutor [1946] 1 LNS 31 and Muthan v. Public Prosecutor [1947] 1 LNS 70; [1947] 1 MLJ 86)." [34] Akhir sekali, bagi isu 1 ini, Mahkamah mendapati pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan pengecualian dibawah Seksyen 164 dan 165 terpakai, maka Mahkamah ini mendapati perbicaraan yang telah dijalankan terhadap tertuduh bercanggah dengan peruntukan Seksyen 163 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah dan ia tidak dapat dipulihkan dibawah Seksyen 422 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. Pihak Pendakwaan sepatutnya mengemukakan pertuduhan yang spesifik terhadap tertuduh. KES PRIMA FACIE [35] Terdapat dua elemen yang perlu dibuktikan oleh Pendakwaan dalam kes ini, iaitu: a) Wujudnya satu tempat yang disimpan atau digunakan sebagai suatu rumah perjudian terbuka; b) OKT menguruskan tempat tersebut. [36] Bagi elemen pertama Pendakwaan telah berhujah telefon bimbit POCCO X3 PRO iaitu P9 adalah merupakan telefon bimbit yang digunakan oleh Tertuduh bagi menjalankan aktiviti loteri awam. Keterangan SP1 menunjukkan Tertuduh sendiri yang menyerahkan telefon bimbit tersebut kepada SP1. Perkara ini jelas di m/s 7 Nota Keterangan dimana SP1 menyatakan seperti berikut: “Setelah diperiksa, nama Mohd Fairus bin Mohd Suib. Seterusnya di saksikan oleh Penama, saya telah jalankan pemeriksaan di meja kaunter tak menjumpai apa-apa barang salah. Kemudian saya telah meminta penama menyerahkan telefon bimbit untuk diperiksa. Penama telah menyerahkan telefon bimit warna hitam jenama POCO X3 PRO. S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Pemeriksaan telah dijalankan dan didapati terdapat paparan disyaki top up perjudian online. Saya dan pasukan telah membuat tangkapan dan rampasan telefon bimbit dan wang sebanyak RM200.00.” [37] Selain itu, keterangan SP2 melalui Laporan Pakar Judi iaitu P12 yang disediakan oleh SP2 sendiri menyatakan terdapat aplikasi MySejahtera yang dimuatnaik ke dalam telefon tersebut. Hasil semkkan didapati aplikasi MySejahtera didaftarkan atas butiran seperti berikut: 3.6.1 Mohammad Fairuz Bin Mohammad Suib No telefon bimbit: +601121891132 [38] Nombor telefon yang didaftarkan di dalam aplikasi MySejahtera tersebut juga merupakan nombor telefon bimbit bagi Sim Kad jenama XOX yang disita bersama-sama telefon bimbit (P9). SP1 juga telah menyatakan tiada tandaan dibuat ke atas mana-mana sim kad memandangkan sim kad tersebut berada di dalam telefon bimbit yang di rampas dan nombor telefon juga turut disertakan dalam repot polis yang dibuat. [39] Seterusnya pihak Pendakwaan telah menghujahkan bahawa P9 tersebut adalah merupakan satu mesin judi sebagaimana definisi dibawah Seksyen 2 Akta Rumah Judi Terbuka seperti berikut: “mesin judi” ertinya apa-apa mesin atau peranti mekanikal, elektrik atau elektronik (termasuk apa-apa program komputer yang digunakan dalam mesin dan peranti itu), sama ada keseluruhannya atau sebahagiannya dikendalikan secara mekanikal, elektrik atau elektronik, yang direka sedemikian atau yang telah disesuaikan sedemikian bahawa— a) ia boleh digunakan bagi maksud bermain permainan nasib atau permainan campuran nasib dan kemahiran; dan b) akibat daripada permainan atau pengendalian mesin atau peranti, kemenangan dalam bentuk wang atau nilai wang yang boleh menjadi kena dibayar;” [40] Kemudiannya bagi membuktikan element (b) Pihak Pendakwaan telah bersandar kepada Laporan Pakar Judi yang disediakan oleh SP2. Keterangan SP2 adalah seperti berikut: “Saya berpendapat telefon bimbit yang bertanda S1 digunakan sebagai medium untuk memasukkan kredit perjudian online bagi seseorang pengguna/pemain yang ingin bermain perjudian online jenis MEGA888... Barangsiapa yang memiliki dan mengakses telefon bimbit yang bertanda S1 adalah seorang ejen yang menjaga atau S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal menguruskan aktiviti perjudian online. Saya berpendapat telefon bimbit yang bertanda S1 adalah mesin perjudian sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam Seksyen 2 ARJT (Tafsiran) ‘mesin judi’ para (b)” [41] Akan tetapi Pembelaan telah menghujah dan menyangkal keterangan Pendakwaan atas alasan-alasan berikut: i. Pendapat Pakar Judi (SP2) tidak boleh diterima oleh Mahkamah ini akibat kegagalan Pendakwaan dalam (to establish kepakaran dan experience pakar judi) ii. Laman Sesawang yang dijumpa melalui aplikasi Google di dalam P9 adalah bukan satu Lawam Sesawang Perjudian Online malah adalah Laman Sesawang yang hanya mempunyai Perkhidmatan Top Up. iii. Kegagalan Pegawai Penyiasat untuk siasat siapakah pemilik sebenar Kedai Runcit tersebut? iv. Kegagalan Pegawai Penyiasat untuk siasat sama ada wang tunai yang disita adalah hasil aktivit Perjudian Terbuka atau hasil jualan Kedai Runcit? [42] Bagi isu pertama yang dibangkitkan oleh Pembelaan, Mahkamah mendapati Pendakwaan telah gagal untuk menanyakan soalan-soalan yang penting bagi membuktikan kepakaran dan pengalaman SP2. Malah Pendakwaan dalam Hujahan Bertulis mereka telah mengakui soalan-soalan tersebut hanya ditanya oleh Peguambela semasa Pemeriksaan Balas dan bukan oleh TPR sewaktu Pemeriksaan Utama. [43] Perlantikan seorang pakar judi untuk memberi pendapat pakar dalam hal perjudian adalah pakar yang dilantik oleh Menteri Kewangan serta diwartakan. Merujuk kepada Seksyen 11(6) Akta Rumah Judi Terbuka 1953 menyatakan, “The Minister may by notification in the Gazette appoint any person whether a public officer or not to be a gaming expert in respect of any or all games.” Sementara, Seksyen 2 akta yang sama memperuntukan: “Minister” means the Minister charged with responsibility for the regulation of lotteries;” [44] Di samping itu, Seksyen 4 Akta Tugas-Tugas Menteri 1969 memperuntukan: ”Any reference in any written law or in any instrument, contract or legal proceedings to any Minister as such by the style or title of his office shall unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as a reference to the Minister for the time being confered with the functions or charged with the responsibility or to the Minister for the time being assigned with such style or title.” Mengikut Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan (No. 2) 1983, (P.U. (A) 520 S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal tahun 1983) Menteri Kewangan adalah dipertanggungjawab mengenai pentadbiran aktiviti-aktiviti loteri dan pertaruhan perjudian.” Maka, mengikut peruntukkan- peruntukkan ini, Menteri yang patut melantik pakar judi mengikut seksyen 11(6) adalah Menteri Kewangan. [45] Di samping perlantikan sebagai pakar judi, menjadi tanggungjawab mahkamah untuk menilai perkara yang dinyatakan dalam kes berikut. Dalam kes Wong Chop Saow v. Public Prosecutor [1965] 1 MLJ 247, yang mana YA Hashim mengatakan: “May I, with respect, suggest that to avoid confusion the espert witness should give his evidence as follows. He should first state qualification as an expert. He should then state that he has given as an expert in such cases and that his evidence been accepted by the Courts. He should then proceed to describe the various documents and give his reasons why in his opinion they relate the characters lottery. The trial Magistrate must then come to a finding that he either accepts or rejects the evidence of the expert witness vis-a-vis characters lottery. In this case the trial magistrate did not come to any finding but merely stated what the expert evidence was.” [46] Pada pandangan mahkamah tidak kira samada seseorang itu diwartakan atau tidak dia dikehendaki memuaskan Mahkamah tentang kepakaranya dan caranya disebut dalam petikan di atas. Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini mendapati Pendakwaan telah gagal umtuk membuktikan SP2 adalah seorang yang berkredibiliti dan mempunyai pengalaman yang kukuh serta seorang yang mana keterangannya boleh diterima oleh Mahkamah sebelum menjelaskan pendapat dan penemuan beliau di dalam Laporan Pakar Judi di P12. Maka pada hematnya keterangan SP2 dan Laporan Pakar Judi di P12 tidak boleh diterima oleh Mahkamah ini. [47] Namun begitu, Mahkamah ini juga telah meneliti penemuan SP2 di dalam P12 dan Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan Pembelaan di mana Laman Sesawang yang dijumpai di dalam aplikasi Google adalah bukan satu Laman Sesawangan dimana Perjudian Online dijalankan malah adalah merupakan satu Laman Sesawang yang menawarkan perkhidmatan top up untuk tujuan Perjudian Online. Perkara ini adalah jelas melalui P12 di para 3.3 hingga 3.5 seperti dibawah: S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [48] Selanjutnya, keterangan SP2 sewaktu pemeriksaan balas juga mengakui perkara ini dimana SP2 menyatakan laman sesawangan yang dijumpai di dalam P9 adalah hanya digunakan untuk top up dan bagi bagi membolehkan sesiapa untuk berjudi maka mereka perlu menggunakan laman sesawangan yang lain. Berikut adalah keterangan SP2 yang berkaitan: Q: ASP disebabkan dikatakan pakar di dalam kes judi ini, bolehkan ASP memberitahu pada Mahkamah laman ini iaitu k2.mgwin883 merupakan 1 laman hanya digunakan untuk top up? A: Setuju S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Q: Jadi maksudnya setakat sampai laman tersebut masih belum dikira judi? Maksudnya itu hanya untuk top up belum lagi bermain untuk perjudian tersebut? A: Setuju Q: Disebabkan ASP menyatakan bahawa laman tersebut hanya digunakan untuk top up, jadi andainya kalau saya sudah top up untuk RM100 ke dalam laman tersebut bolehkah saya berjudi di dalam laman yang sama ataupun saya akan di redirected ke laman yang lain? A: Laman yang lain. [49] Perkara ini juga tidak di periksa semula oleh Pendakwaan bagi menyangkal pembelaan ini. Malah TPR hanya menanyakan soalan berkenaan perbezaan laman sesawang di para 3.5 dan laman sesawang k2.mgwin883.com. Jawapan SP2 adalah kedua-dua laman sesawangan k2.mgwin883.com dan k2.mega383.com adalah sama dan apabila diakses akan memaparkan skrin untuk masuk top up perjudian online. Akan tetapi jawapan ini adalah tidak mencukupi untuk membuktikan laman sesawang di dalam aplikasi google di P9 iaitu k2.mgwin883.com adalah laman sesawang untuk perjudian online malah merupakan datu laman sesawang yang menawarkan perkhidmatan top up untuk perjudian atas talian. [50] Mahkamah ini turut merujuk kepada kes Pendakwa Raya lwn Ong Chee Chun [2021] MLJU 1596:- [18] Semasa pemeriksaan balas, PW4 (pakar judi) telah memberi keterangan seperti berikut: “S: Contoh kalau seorang ada telefon bimbit ada gambar lucah, halaman tunjuk gambar lucah ialah laman yang haram. Adakah kiosk918kiss.com ialah satu laman yang haram? J: Haram jika digunakan untuk permainan judi online. S: Maksud saya contohnya, kalau kita pegang satu pisau adakah ia satu kesalahan? J: Tidak. S: Tapi bila kita acukan pisau kepada orang ia kesalahan. soalannya ialah jika ada laman kiosk918kiss.com di telefon adakah ia haram? J: Tidak. S: Ada tak lihat lelaki Cina itu melanggan laman kiosk918kiss. com ? J: Saya hanya lihat di telefon yang dimiliki oleh lelaki Cina tersebut. S: Adakah kiosk918kiss.com laman hanya untuk top up? J: Ya. S: Setakat sampai kiosk918kiss.com masih belum dikira judi, betul? J: Belum. Ya.” [19] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa bertentangan dengan laporan bertulis (P8) dan S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal setelah diperiksa balas, PW4 (pakar judi) telah bersetuju bahawa telefon bimbit (P9) bukan “gaming machine” seperti yang dikehendaki oleh seksyen 2 Akta tersebut. [20] Mahkamah ini juga telah meneliti keterangan lisan PW4 (pakar judi). [30] This finding is supported by the evidence of PW4 during cross examination as follows - S: Ada tak lihat lelaki Cina itu melanggan laman kiosk918kiss.com? J: Saya hanya lihat di telefon yang dimiliki oleh lelaki Cina tersebut. S: Adakah kiosk918kiss.com masih belum dikira judi, betul? J: Belum. Ya. … S: Laman kiosk918kiss.com siapa-siapa pun boleh masuk internet dan download ke dalam telefon bimbit betul? J: Betul. S: Kami faham sarjan ada buat tugas kamu. Kalau ikut perjudian online andainya saya sudah top up RM100.00 dalam kiosk918kiss.com, bolehkah saya berjudi dalam kiosk918kiss.com atau ke laman lain? J: Laman lain. [21] Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa terdapat bahan (material) yang mencukupi untuk Mahkamah Majistret membuat dapatan bahawa elemen 1 tidak dibuktikan oleh Pendakwaan. [22] Mahkamah ini selanjutnya mendapati setelah Mahkamah Majistret membuat dapatan bahawa elemen 1 telah tidak dibukti oleh Pendakwaan, maka akibatnya elemen 2 juga adalah tidak terbukti. Dengan itu, Mahkamah Majistret tidak terkhilaf dalam membuat keputusan bahawa Pendakwaan telah gagal untuk membuktikan satu kes prima facie terhadap Responden. [51] Oleh itu, berdasarkan keterangan SP2, Laporan Pakar Judi di P12 dan kes Ong Chee Chun, Mahkamah ini mendapati Pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan telefon bimbit POCCO X3 PRO (P9) yang disita daripada Tertuduh adalah merupakan mesin judi sepertimana definis dibawah Seksyen 2 ARJT. Oleh itu, Pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal mempuktikan element pertama bagi pertuduhan ini. [52] Seterusnya, bagi mengupas element kedua dalam pertuduhan ini Pihak Pendakwaan perlu membuktikan Tertuduh adalah merupakan orang yang menguruskan Perjudian Terbuka tersebut. Dalam hal ini, keterangan yang diketengahkan oleh Pendakwaan adalah keberadaan Tertuduh sewaktu serbuan dibuat. Melalui keterangan SP1, Pihak Pendakwaan menghujahkan, Tertuduh sewaktu serbuan dibuat berada di kaunter, Tertuduh sendiri yang menyerahkan P9 S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal iaitu telefon bimbit POCCO X3 PRO berwarna hitam yang mana setelah pemeriksaan didapati terdapat laman sesawangan top up perjudian atas talian dan juga wang tunai RM200.00 yang kononnya merupakan hasil perjudian atas talian. [53] Namun begitu, setelah penelitian Mahkamah ini mendapati tiada apa-apa pemantauan yang dijalankan oleh Pasukan Serbuan dalam kes ini sebelum serbuan dibuat. Perkara ini disaghkan oleh SP1 dalam keterangan beliau seperti berikut: Q: Setuju Inspektor tidak membuat apa-apa pantauan sebelum serbuan? A: Tidak Q: Saya rujuk P8 Laporan repot Polis oleh Inspektor Mohd Kausar. Setuju Inspektor dalam laporan ini Inspektor tidak memberitahu ada pantauan dibuat? A: Betul, tidak dinyatakan. Q: Setuju? A: Setuju. Q: Oleh kerana pantauan tidak dibuat, setuju Inspektor tidak tahu siapa yang berada di Kaunter? A: Setuju. [54] Malah, perkara ini diperkukuhkan lagi oleh Pendakwaan sewaktu dalam Pemeriksaan Semula dengan keterangan berikut: Q: Inspektor kata tadi ada buat pemantauan atau tidak semasa serbuan itu? A: Tidak [55] Dalam hal ini, kegagalan Pasukan Serbuan menjalankan pemantauan, dan ketiadaan keterangan lain, mahupun dokumen tasi lain untuk membuktikan Tertuduh adalah smerupakan orang yang menguruskan tempat kejadian. Tiada apa-apa keterangan lain daripada saksi pendakwaan untuk menjelaskan berapa lama Tertuduh telah berada di kaunter tersebut dan jika pasukan serbuan telah melihat pelanggan memberi duit bagi tujuan top up bagi aktiviti perjudian atas talian. Malah, Pegawai Penyiasat dalam kes ini telah mengakui beliau tidak siasat langsung pemilik asal Kedai Runcit tersebut dan sama ada perniagaan tersebut berdaftar dibawah SSM mahupun Majlis Perbandaran dan perniagaan tersebut didaftarkan atas nama siapa? Perkara ini jelas Pegawai Penyiasat tidak siasat kes ini secara hollisticcaly dan sekadar menerima maklumat daripada Pegawai Serbuan. [56] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP v. Tukiman Demin [2008] 1 LNS 188, dimana PK MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH menyatakan seperti berikut: S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal The accused is not an occupier of the room within the meaning ofsection 37(b) of the Act. To be an occupier of the room or premises, the accused must have exclusive occupation or exclusive use and care or management of the room or premises where the offending exhibit is found (see Lee Chee Meng v. P.P [1992] 1 CLJ 168 (Rep); [1992] 1 CLJ 345; [1992] 1 MLJ 322, SC; P.P v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 4 CLJ 209; [1998] 6 MLJ 678; P.P v. Aris bin Yunus [1989] 2 CLJ 289 (Rep); [1989] 1 CLJ 239). [23] It is admitted that it is not necessary for the occupier to be the owner of the premise. He may be a tenant or a mere licensee. The necessary requirement is that the occupier has or appears to have the care and management of such premise at the time of the commission of an offence. Mere presence of the accused in the premises or any part thereof does not amount to having care or management (see P.P v. Lai Ah Bee [1974] 1 LNS 119; [1974] 2 MLJ 74). In P.P v. Tan Ah Ling [1990] 2 CLJ 839 (Rep); [1990] 2 CLJ 83, the court held that although the electricity and telephone bills were in the name of the accused, they did not afford sufficient grounds for the operation of the aforesaid presumption as there was no evidence adduced to indicate that it was not the wife or the accused "who had care and management of the house or control of the incriminating items so that either the one or the other could have been the occupier of the premises". In P.P v. Chong Wei Kian [1990] 2 CLJ 690 (Rep); [1990] 2 CLJ 435; [1990] 3 MLJ 165, the evidence was adduced that at the time of arrest, the accused had with him the keys to the room in which the drugs were found and in the said room the police recovered a passport and a bank book belonging to him, yet the court was of the view that it was insufficient to trigger the presumption. [24] The prosecution had tendered the accused's personal belongings (Exh. P18, Exh. P19, Exh. P20, Exh. P21, Exh. P22 and Exh. P23) to trigger the presumption that the accused was the occupier of the room. The prosecution also called SP4, the owner of the house, to give evidence that the said house was rent out to the accused. However, there was nothing to show that other person has no access to the said room. In fact, there was evidence that other people inside the house and visitors can enter and leave the said room freely. As such, the court concluded that the accused had no care and management of the room to trigger the presumption under section 37(b) of the Act. [57] Merujuk kepada kes di atas, bagi membuktikan Tertuduh adalah merupakan orang yang menguruskan tempat kejadian, maka Pendakwaan perlu membuktikan Tertuduh ada kawalan terhadap tempat tersebut. Namun dalam kes ini, Pendakwaan tidak mengetengahkan apa-apa keterangan lain yang boleh membuktikan Tertuduh mempunyai kawalan terhadap tempat S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal kejadian dan sedang menguruskan tempat kejadian sewaktu serbuan dibuat. Walaupun dalam kes ini tiada isu ‘exclusive possession’ akan tetapi adalah penting untuk Pendakwaan membuktikan melampau keraguan yang munasabah bahawa Tertuduha adalah orang yang sememangnya menguruskan tempat kejadian tersbeut. Keterangan tertuduh berada di kaunter, P9 yang mempunyai laman sesawang top up perjudian atas talian serta wang RM200.00 adalah tidak mencukupi bagi membuktikan elemen ini. [58] Mahkamah turut merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan iaitu Ghasem Hozouri Hassan v. PP [2018] 6 CLJ 133 yang menjelaskan dengan teliti berkenaan isu ‘care and management of premises’. Dalam kes ini semasa satu pengawasan yang dijalankan oleh pihak polis, perayu dilihat masuk dan keluar sebuah bangunan sambil membawa beg sandang. Pihak polis menyerbu premis tersebut dan carian yang dijalankan menjumpai (i) satu beg sandang yang dilihat disandang oleh perayu sebelum itu dan di dalamnya terdapat (a) pasport perayu; (b) segugus kunci yang salah satunya membuka pintu gril premis tersebut; dan (c) kad akses bagi premis tersebut (ii) 45 bungkusan berisi bahan serbuk kristal; (iii) bahan serbuk yang seakan-akan kristal dalam kerajang aluminum; dan (iv) satu mesin timbang. Di dalam bilik tidur kedua, pihak polis menjumpai (i) satu mesin timbang; (ii) dua bungkusan berisi bahan serbuk berwarna perang; (iii) perjanjian penyewaan; dan (iv) kad akses. Laporan kimia mengesahkan bahan serbuk yang dijumpai di dalam bilik tidur pertama dan kedua adalah dadah seberat 49,621.8g methamphetamine. Analisis forensik juga mendedahkan bahawa selain cap jari dan DNA perayu, DNA individu-individu lain turut dijumpai. Perayu dituduh di Mahkamah Tinggi kerana mengedar dadah, satu kesalahan bawah s. 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 ('ADB'). [59] Kes Mahkamah Persekutuan di atas menunjukkan Pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan Tertuduh dalam kes itu menguruskan tempat kejadian kerana adanya pemantauan yang dibuat oleh pihak Polis yang jelas Tertuduh keluar masuk bangunan tersebut dan setelah serbuan dibuat Tertuduh mempunyai kad akses dan kunci tempat kejadian. Selain itu, terdapat perjanjian penyewaan yang membuktikan Tertuduh menyewa tempat kejadian. Dalam hal ini, terdapat ‘overwhelming evidence’ bagi membuktikan Tertuduh semamangnya mempunyai kawalan dan ke tas tempat kejadian dan sekali arus menguruskan tempat kejadian tersebut. [60] Bagi kes pada di Mahkamah ini, tiada keterangan sebegitu. Malah, Pegawai Penyiasat tidak langsung siasat akan pemilik sebenar premis, tiada lesen perniagaan mahupun pendaftaran premis, atau perjanjian penyewaan yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah. Tiada pemantauan yang dibuat untuk melihat berapa lama Tertuduh telah duduk di kaunter dan sama ada terdapat orang lain yang kemungkinan turut menguruskan tempat kejadian sepertimana S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal yang dibangkitkan oleh Pembelaan iaitu isteri Tertuduh. Tiada kunci yang dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah. Juga tiada keterangan daripada mana-mana saksi pendakwaan berkenaan pembayaran oleh pelanggan bagi membeli top up untuk perjudian atas talian. [61] Selain itu, SP1 sendiri mengakui wang RM200.00 yang disita adalah disyaki sebagai hasil jualan top up perjudian atas talian. Tiada apa-apa keterangan yang boleh membuktikan perkara termasuk. Mahkamah ini juga ambil maklum tempat kejadian adalah merupakan satu Kedai Runcit dimana SP1 sendiri mengakui kemungkinan terdapat orang lain di premis sewaktu serbuan dibuat maka terdapat kebarangkalian wang RM200.00 yang disita itu adalah hasil jualan barang runcit. [62] Keterangan SP1 adalah seperti berikut: Q: Inspektor telah merampas duit sebanyak RM200, betul? A: Ya Q: Dan Inspektor menyatakan sebentar tadi bahawa duit itu digunakan untuk hasil judian? A: Disyaki hasil perjudian Q: Disyaki hasil judian. Maksudnya inspektor menyatakan itu hanya disyaki bukan kepastian? A: Ya. Q: Jadi disebabkan Inspektor tidak membuat sebarang pantauan, saya cadangkan bahawa Inspektor sebenarnya tidak tengok bahawa duit itu tidak di bayar untuk judian ke, atau untuk membeli barang-barang runcit? A: Betul. [63] Pendakwaan dalam Pemeriksaan Semula ada menanyakan SP1 berkenaan isu ini, namun tiada apa-apa penjelasan kukuh yang diberikan oleh SP1. [64] Maka, mengambil kira kes-kes di atas dan keterangan kes Mahkamah ini mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan elemen kedua bagi kes ini. Oleh itu, tiada kes prima facie yang boleh dibuktikan oleh Pihak Pendakwaan. [65] Kesimpulannya, dengan adanya Pertuduhan yang cacat kerana terdapat penduaan dan kegagalan Pihak Pendakwaan membuktikan kes prima facie, Mahkamah ini telah membuat keputusan utnuk melepaskan dan membebaskan Tertuduh daripada membela diri. S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Keputusan di akhir kes pendakwaan [66] Setelah mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan, ekshibit-ekshibit yang dikemukakan di sepanjang kes pendakwaan dan hujahan kedua-dua pihak, Mahkamah di atas penilaian maksimum berpuashati untuk membuat Keputusan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan prima facie kes terhadap OKT, maka dengan ini OKT dilepaskan dan dibebaskan daripada Pertuduhan ini tanpa dipanggil untuk membela diri. Barang kes TPR lupus dan tertakluk kepada rayuan. Wang jaminan dikembalikan. ..................tt................ Ashvinii Thinakaran 8.12.2023 S/N kzEv6Srx0CSnr5LEDRg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22NCvC-680-12/2022

PLAINTIF JASTAMAX SDN BHD DEFENDAN OMNI WORLD LANDS SDN BHD

This Court fixes 22 December 2022 for an inter-partes hearing. The Plaintiff is directed to serve all cause papers to the Defendant and this order to be extracted soonest. Costs in the cause.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c9fd2773-9f8a-449c-bbfa-416edf4c1416&Inline=true

11/12/2023 14:12:13 WA-22NCvC-680-12/2022 Kand. 78 S/N cyf9yYqfnES7kFu30wUFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cyf9yYqfnES7kFu30wUFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cyf9yYqfnES7kFu30wUFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cyf9yYqfnES7kFu30wUFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cyf9yYqfnES7kFu30wUFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cyf9yYqfnES7kFu30wUFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cyf9yYqfnES7kFu30wUFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cyf9yYqfnES7kFu30wUFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cyf9yYqfnES7kFu30wUFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cyf9yYqfnES7kFu30wUFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cyf9yYqfnES7kFu30wUFg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HA—22m:vc—sau—12/2022 ,1, :2, :0’ IN THE HIGH OOURT or MALAVA AT KUALA LUMFUR IN THE FEDERAL IERRHORV, MALAYSIA CIVIL surr No: WA-22NCvC-SW-1212012 BETWEEN usuumx sun Bun i...FLA|NT|FF (Camp. Nu: 199601003455 (aaoeua-x) AND OMNI WORLD LANDS sou arm ....DEFENDANT (Comp.Ma:2|1|IU1I241I22(12I2flM-D) JUDGMENT [1] Em: 2: Ex-pane Application oi ms Piaimin under Order 29 Rule 1 Rules aicoun 2012 (RM3). [2] The Piainmi is urgenily seeking ior an order to restrain me Defendant «mm deaiing wiih. iransiemng. sening andlor disposlng lo snoiner party, we piece oi leasehold land new under Individual we Nu HS(D) 3234:: PT 3263 Peksn samang, Daerah Petahng, Negen Selangor pending me posal oflhe maimiirs Writ [3] The urgahi appiicaiiarr «or an aK—parIsin]unc1ion was filed a iewdeys ago on 5.122022 iogeiher with its suit seeking a deularaliun that me pamas had entered inip a vahd and binding comracl and lhal «he Defandanfs (erminafion nulioe dated 21.11.2022 is null and vpid and specific pervurrriahee on me pan pi the Deierrdarrr than had been agreed an Thu facts boioro this coun [41 Amund sepisrrroer 2u22. the Plainlifl was appmachad by car; Prcpeniee Sdrl Bhd mm a prpppeirierr la enquire ma iana imm ma Dafendanl. There seems to be some lrwnlvement 01 CED Pmpsmes Sdn Bhd as Ils representative was presem in the subsequent meeiings belween Lhs Pialnmf and me Defendant. Its invorvemeril stops at that as the agreement penaimng the sale and purchase 0! the land, the iener or char, «ha agreerrrem on the terms oi «he eaie and purchase agreement (SPA) and «he rioliue 01 rerminahan were an rhaepehaem of can prppenies Sdh and [51 are basic |srms of me sale and purchase 0! ihe land. the purchase price The iirsi meeiing helween ihe panies was held on 23.9.2022 where per square fact and the eonaiiiorr preoadenls were discussed. The vice President or me Defendant represented, conducted and made decisions car and on behaii oi the Defendant car we rrreeiirrg and Ihe eupsequerri unes mac laliawed. SIN cyifiyvwmzsnruamufv ’ -we sum ...r..r MU .. used w my me mrirr.u-y MIN; dun-mm VIA aFiuNG WM! pa] Goals In me cause. DATED a DECEMBER 2022 R02 MAWAR RDZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAVA KUALA LUMFUR Fol me P/El/MM" Yap Yeaw Han together with Michelle Ng LI Wsl T/n Rahmal Lrm & Farmers For me Defendant omni World Lands sun Blvd sw cyifiyvwmasvmamufv “ Nuns smm ...m.Mm .. used m mm .. mmmuny mm: dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm [6] Al the second meeting on lt.iu.2u22. the parlles agreed on tne ouretiase oi min per square loot. Furttier negotiations wok place as to lne basic terms oi the sale and ourenaee aHl1e land and tne carldtllon precedents. [71 At tire third meeting on 13.10 2022, trie edmpletion period ldr tne sale and the manner at payment were discussed The parties tied agreed triat paymenl for me punlhass al me land would he made by my ol 2: bank guaranlee [5] At the iounn meeting. on 27.10 2022 the ioilowing were finalised (a) rrie llerrns oilhe letter or otter, (ta) l=eyirienteltne balance purelneee oonslderatton byway ol bank guaranleei (a) me rennet o1 tne bank guarantee, to) me removal oi illegal billboards arldlur signegs eremed ori ttie land: la) The nan ' 9 over oi vacant possession oltne land: (0 ‘ltie issues on termination or a prior Joint Development Agreement dated 2a.3.2cla between tne Delendant end one OWL Developments sun and (JDA): to) The interest rate lor liquidated asoenairied damages [9] Al the liltn meeting on 411.2022, trie parties nnelised and concluded the terms or e letter of offer (er the sale and purchase at me Land which was to be sin cyV9yVwWlES7kFu1DuL1Fv 3 -rue s.n.i In-vlhnrwm be used M mm u. nrwlrufily MIME dun-vlnril wa nFiuNG WM! (rr Free horn an encumbrances. caveats‘ charges. weases or liens; (ii) wrm vacam possession: (in)Faymenlo1Ihe bawance 0! purchase eonsrdereuen by way of bank guarantee: (ivjwuh an approved Develapmem order dated 22.1 2u22 wrch a uahduy periud up [D 23 1.2u2a; (V) Termmauan of me um. [10] The Plamfivff was manned that me s\gnaIory(ies)o1the Defendant was based VII China. Hence upun the Defendanfs requesl. allowance made m the nenemrarrerwide clause F(\))Ia enable Inglsuc errangenrenca for me signmg of me SPA belween its hnausauen dale and exewlmn dates [11] The Pneinmr had executed the letter or offer and samal deposm cheque was an handed over and accepted by me Defendant en 7.11.2022 wha had a\so executed (heleIIero1o‘fier[P6] The wener ufolfer re a comprehensive document which showed the efforts, dehberalionsand discussmns made an me numemus meeungs beforehand. [121 ‘rnereaher there are evmenoe oi drscuseidne and neguliafions between the names on the terms and eandrurrns at the SPA‘ bank guarantee and dvafls were exchanged [13] The rneedng on 14.11.2022 was to fmshse (ha Ierms 04 the SPA. mane had been cimulalad amangsl the parties. This meeting apparanfly srn cyhiyvwmasvhruzmufv ‘ ‘Nuns s.n.r n-nhnrwm be used m mm r.. uflmnuflly mm: dun-mm VI] .nuud Wm iasied 5 hours. According Ia ins submissions oi the iearneo eounsei ior me Fiainiiii, each Ierm or me SPA was rriiiiied over. There seemed io be some eonieniion on ma payineni mode of ihe baianoe piirehase oensiiiaiaiion. in Ihe and mine nieeiing, ihe neiendani had amepied ihe Plainliffs posiiion ihai ine niode wooid be lorlhe Piainiiino iurriisri a ieziar nf underlaking in issue ihe bank guarantee Parlles then resumed in iinaiise ihe resi oi ihe ienns onhe SPA. [14] The meeting wnduded wiiri ine ail lhe inaior iernis ui ine SPA agreed io Dy the osriiss exespi in my up one eiause in respec1 oi the Deisndanrs raqiiesi io oegosii me original iriie oi ihe ianii wiin Messrs Jeff Leongi Poori is wong uww) (ihe Deiendaiiis sioiioiioisi aner aii condilmn preoeoenis have been iiiimied and oeiore Messrs. JLPW was io reiease ihe iieposii io ihe neiendani The SPA was In inoorporoie ihis oiaiise insiead oiirie iniiiai proposed eisuse oi depositing ihe original iiue wiiii Messrs JLPW upon ihe signing at ihe SPA. The names had also agreed ihai ihe exeeuiion ei (he SPA was io lake niaoe on 21.11 2022. [i 5] on 15.1 i.2u22 iwo diaiis of ihe SPA were oiioiiiaied. Messrs. JLPW ior ina Deienoani adiied and on 16.11 2022 the iinai version oi the SPA was seni by the Pl 'ni‘iirs so’ ' rs [F13] The erriaii seni an mai even daie a\ 3.55 orii incorporated all me arneridrnenia agreed upon by bmh pariiea. There were no iiiiiher aniendinenis, aioeii minor or rypogiepiiioai ones thereafter. The Flainlifl asserts that this is he polnl where the contract was concluded. All that was had] was just to ink the document showing the ooniraei agreed io. Thus, «he oiiisiandiiig evidence sin cy79yVI1MES7kFuJDuuFv 5 -rise s.ii.i ...is.i M“ be is... M mm Die siiiii.iiir MIN; flnunvilnl via .riiiiis WM! confirming the eontrect rnutuavy agreed to was to crystalrze when trre SPA was |o be executed 21.11.2022. [15] Hawevsr, on 21.11.2022 the Deterrdent purported ta terminate the negauatmns tor the SPA we email lrom Messrs JLPW [P14] we the errrerl tram Messrs JLPW, me drafls were subjected ta clearams by the Detendant The grounds tor terminating cited were as tanaws: (1) The drift SPA was Subjefl (0 the Defendant‘: claalancet 07 wnterr tnere area numheroflerms and man ' by me netendent, Including: (a) 1ssue of bank guarantee; (bj Reduction of the pulchass price ‘H’! the event the ns um aeeeptable onrcumstanbes arise In secucn A uttne Second senedure; (c) Usmg the 1:1.-.inu'1rs formal ct neuter o1 undanaktng; (.1) Using the P\amtiffs lormil o1 the bank guarantee; and 12) Panies nad -/er exceeded rne orrg/nal agreed date for fins/isalion and SXSCL/lion‘ DY the SPA. [17] On 22 112022018 P\ainhH's sulicflors responded not accepting the lennrnahon as there had been e concluded contract and demanded thal tne Defendant periurrrred us part at the bargam gwen that tnere was a ounduded cunlracl [P1 3. ‘me Detendent was also put an neuee mat tne 1>1eint1r1 demanded spedne perlormance met entailed tne netendant renewing the exlsung Development Ordel srn cy79yVwW1ES7kFuJDuL1Fv ‘ -we Snrmn-v1hnrMHI>e 1;... m my n. m1n.11-y mm: m.n.n n. nr1uNG wrm [18] on 23.11.2022 the Detendant iterated that It had tried to deiiver its Iarminatiun Iettertogettier witti the earnest meque deposit to the Piaintiw but its suhcilor had retused to swept ttie same tar tne Fiaintitrs tietiait [P16] [1 9] On 24.1l.2022the Delendamlcuowed up ina iener [P17] ststingthet tne tetter of offer was eenditen and subject to a tonnei eontrm to be executed by the parties and that neilher of them were bound by the tens! of otter it was stated that me sssential terms of the spa ned net been agreed an and ttrat the parties were stitt negotiating. The neiendant reiied on the fact that Lhele was no concluded contract to Inlimaia that il was not uniiged to renew the existing Deveiopnient Order. [20] The Ptsinttw respcndsd on the same day reiterating that there was aileady a conciuded contract and that the parlifi were buund by (he Welter oi oflar [F18] it was reminded that the earnest deposit had been given by the Platntfll and accepted by the uerenannt. The Pisintitt repealed their position [21] on 30.11.2022 the Piaintifl‘ ncofied the Detendant dune Ptaihtitrs rejection at the Detendanrs terniinatiun notice and reiterated ils position as a mans flde purchaser‘ and that the Piaintm leierved its rights to ciaim tor damages and iesses. [22] The Detendnnt rind varied to respond tn the Piaintitrs letters but for on 2.12.2022 when the uetendant inionried the Ptainth that they win sin errsyvenssrirtsmrr 7 'Nnl2 s.i.i I-vthnrwm is it... w my me nflmnnflly MIME flnulfllnl VIZ nF\t.ING WM! revert on mew response to ma Plainms wetter or 3011 2022 wuhvn iouneen days At me same nme ma Plairmfl was infurmed that me Deiendanl was 171 me must at neguuauuns wmr anulher company In respect at me sa\e and purchase of me ‘and Ex-pam lnllrlm lnjunclmn [23] The Vaw on mlenm injuncnon us dear. As enuncxaled hylhe cam :11 Appeal in Keer Gerald Francis Natl John v Mohd Now an. Abdullnh 5 Dr: [1795] 1 ML] 193 at p206, this Court has assessed and decided that (5) There are Dona fide sanous Issues to he tried — (1) was mere in van 2: concluded ocnlracfi (2) was ma Defendant’: lermmahon vafid? This Coumakes cugmsence orsaverax decssions by our Fsdera\ cam m adjumcadng smular maners. This com Is oenam mare are issues wmch must be venmaled lo aenarmrna this sun! Thuugh me tamer 01 nfler dated 4.11 2622 was “SUBJECT TO CONTRACT‘ me (acts in ms case suggest lhat mare were discussmns and agreemenls already arrived to. There seemed to be some agreement as to Iha dale oi me axecmiun 011719 SPA mus the issue 0! Ihe vahdmy nhennmaliun is a serious Issue to be tried. The aulhanlies referred in by me Iearnad amuse! vorme F\aInMl are oonsmerau — Chirizs Grenier Sdn Blvd vLnu wing Hung [1923] 3 MLJ :27, Lo}! Knon May v blbun sn sinu Sysd a sw cyrsyvmzsrwsmry -we Sum In-nhnv WW as used m mm as nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm sin cy79yvvmEs7xFuam.luFv we Sum ...m.r will as used m mm as nilnlrullly MIN; dun-mm vn nFlLlNG pm Ahmad [1975] 2 MLJ 29 and Sibabuml (hndakan) sun Ehd vDatuk Yap Pakloong [1995] 1 ML! 151. (b) The justice at the case lies wllh the gaming cf ma imerim iruuriction. Thls court has laksn imp account all me relevsril matters adduced and me praclical rsalilies and also the harm in granting the sald inlerim inllmctlurl as appdselo not This Cnurl agrees mat to prserve the slams quo IS best and just in mi: case II does not remove ms litle oi liie land lmm ms Dalandanl bul yet ensured that the sumecl mailer rsmalns untouched until the delerminauon of the issues in me sui|. T coun ndled lnal mere may he cunent ongoing negoliallarls being carried out by me Defendant penainlng me said land This would cisarly leepavdise the Plairiziiis rigms and ils suil. (c) Thls Cuun is salisfied Ihal damages are rial an adequale remedy were are orders sougm our specific performance as allegedly prumlsed and agreed to Fursnanl In 511(2) Specific Relieis Act 1950. damages are an lnadequale lemedy our breaches ofounlvact mp Irarisisr immoveable property such as me land. The com ol Appeal in Kim Ah saan v Doi Kar serrg (Propcmu) Sdn and [1995] 1 MLJ 29:: ruled me: where the supiacl mauer uunoarns land. damages migm rial sdequslely be mmpensaled by damages. 9 (.1) The balance of convenience in this case lies in revdur idr grarmrig me Injunction as n wiil preserve the status quo. Otherwise the sun will bewrns academic/mom. Moreover, runrier bone fide purchasers would be prevenied or pm on notice on the iegei Issues at hand The Pieiririi ried opieined reliable inierrrieiidn Item can Properties sari BM iriei «here is Orvguirlg negotlaflans In dispose the land I0 olher pdieniiai buyers. [24] T ' Cuurt rrerehy grants me prayer under (1) cf Em: 2 «rue: me Deienderii, iis ageriis and/or eervanrs be restrained irdm dealing with. translemrig, selling and/or disposing |o anmrier peny, me piece oi ieaserraid iarid held under individual Tide Nu HS(D) 323453 F-‘T3283 Fekan Serdang. Daevah veiaiing, Negeri Sslangnr. [251 This Cuurl fixes 22 December 2i1221dr an iriver-varies hearing. The Plainlifl is directed In serve all cause papers in ms Defendani arid iriis order to be exuamed eodnem. ID sin cy79yVt1WiES7kFuJDnL1Fv we s.n.i In-rihnrwm be used m mm r.. nrwiruflly MIN: mm. wa nfluNG WM!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-12ANCvC-278-09/2022

PERAYU WAJATEX SDN BHD RESPONDEN GUNASEELAN A/L S.N. SANTHIRASEGARAN

With the Respondent’s writ of action and statement of claim struck out, the summary judgment granted by the Session Court naturally collapsed. There can be no judgment given against the Appellant as this case should have been via judicial review. Costs for this appeal are awarded to the Appellant in the sum of RM10,000 (RM5,000 for each appeal).

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=61b23bc7-7ad0-4cc7-8f16-2163aea952cb&Inline=true

11/12/2023 12:36:27 WA-12ANCvC-278-09/2022 Kand. 19 S/N xzuyYdB6x0yPFiFjrqlSyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xzuyYdB6x0yPFiFjrqlSyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xzuyYdB6x0yPFiFjrqlSyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xzuyYdB6x0yPFiFjrqlSyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xzuyYdB6x0yPFiFjrqlSyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xzuyYdB6x0yPFiFjrqlSyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xzuyYdB6x0yPFiFjrqlSyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xzuyYdB6x0yPFiFjrqlSyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xzuyYdB6x0yPFiFjrqlSyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xzuyYdB6x0yPFiFjrqlSyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N xzuyYdB6x0yPFiFjrqlSyw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—12mcvc—27s—u9/2022 Kand. 19 11/12/2023 ]2:]b-27 IN THE HIGH COURT or MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORV. MALAVSIA CIVIL APPEAL No: WA-12ANCvC-218-0912022 EETWEEN wA.IATEx sou BHD APPELLANT (Comp. Reg: masm) AND GUNASEELAM AIL S.N. SANTIRASEGARAN ....RESPONDENT was No: 190323445337) IN THE HIGH COURT or IIIALAYA AT KUALA LUMFUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAVSIA CIVIL APPEAL No: WA-12ANCvC-304-11/2012 GUNASEELAN AIL s.N. SANTIRASEGARAN ....REsI=oNDEMT me No: 19032344-5337) AND WMATEX SDN END ....AI=I=ELLANT (Comp. Rog: awsaswn) I sm x1uyVuB£xWPFIFIV\:IF1W DI! Sum! ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 M may he nrW\nnU|Y mm: dun-mm VII .mm WMI JUDGMENT The A als m The Appeflanfs appeals heme we court are against the Sessmn courts uectstone to memes rls appllcanun In strike out the sum an 2.9 2022 1ApneaI 275) and also our the summary judgment which was enlered agamat n on 27 102022 |Appea\ am) The argumentts fa! ham appeals were neem together [21 The Respondenmled a wnl ofaulon and s1anemem ovclatm agatnst me Anpenant lor hqmdated ascenained damages (LAD) to: the delay tn handing aver vacant poeeeeeten al the pmpefly houghl «mm the Appeuant The Respondent sought neclarauens that (a) Any extensuon Ofllms granted by me Mmlslry under Regwallon 11(3) to the Appellant iunhe dehvery oivecant possession fmm tmrty-stx montns to Illfy-laur mentns was nun and Void; and m) mat the Appenant shafl be otzngee tn comp\y wmt Schedule H cf the Regmauon to dehver vacant possession wttmn IhIIly—sIX months item we execullun ollhe sale and purchase agreement (SPA). [31 me Raspanflenl aeugm rot an nrdarmal ttte Appeflam pay the LAD tn the sum M RMs5,o9a 92 from 24 3 2D21IcgelherwIIh an mlelesl cl 5% par annum Mam IlIa| date unm tun and mat senlemem m xzuyVua£x|7yPFtF1r\:\?1W “Nair Sam ...n.mm be tn... M my t... nrW\ruH|Y am. dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! I271 C0515 tor this appeal are awarded lo me Appellant in me sum or! RM1oIoocIRM5,uoo hr each appeau DATED 6 MARCH 2023 dWA}£ ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT or MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Fur me Appellant om’ Annur Wang Mmg Way togemar mm Vicky Ong xmu Om 7/n Anhur Wang, Lian -L Assocrafes For me Respondent. s Prsms exp Subramamam T/n Summa Prema & Assocrates n sm xzuyvua£x|7yPIr'IFIr\:I?1W DI! Snr1|InuvIhnrwIHI>e I... In may he nrW\ruU|Y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl .mm mm [41 The Avbellant re the developer opmpeny my e condammlum project known as Residence Rica Senml in Kuala Lumpur On 151 2017, me Reeppnoem pookeo to purchase Ihe propem, (Una 5»: Reemenoe Rica Senlm mcmdmg pamng spepe) with a purchase pnoe ul RMSGBDOO A fins: Dayment av RM5,000 was made [51 On we 1 2917‘ me Respandent reoewea a name lromthe Appeuam Io swgn the SPA at me Appeuenrs ompe wmvm laurleen days lvom me date ov me nctine [6] On 23 1 2017, me Appenam had summed to me Mwmsity of Housing and Lace! Gm/emmem ior an extension onime to oompIe1e me pvqecl «pm a period of miny»s\x months lo ¢ony—e.gm momne [71 On 5 2 2017, me Responaem signed me SPA and made a further paymem ul amuse The SPA was eupsequemly dated 5 52017 The delivery of veoem passessmn was stated as lofty-ewgm meme as rellected In Clauses 25 and 29 m the SPA The Respondent had ptaoed ms mmals thereto [31 On 24.: 2021 me Respondent lock vacant possesswon 0! me pvopeny. ‘rne sml was med rm (3) A dedavatmn that me appluva\ lelter dated 23 1 2521 won. me Deputy Housing Commller ws mvahd andlar not ipphcable‘ (bh An ardevlhm me Appenem wee to oomply by Schedule H 01 me Housmg [Carmel and Lwoensmgj Regmallnns 1539 (HAD) whats me neno ave: of vacant possession was in pa lhmy-elx months From me dale of me me: payment «pm me Repponoem, a m myvoeoxnyenmxeyw «we. sow nmhnrwm .. p... p may he mm-y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Ac) An nrder that me Appellant pay me Respondent LAD In me amount or RM95093 92 as at 24 3 2021 am 5% Interest per annum Io be calculated from 25 3 2021 unm me date or lull semsrnem: (cu Casts on a senator and chant hasrs: (e) otherrelrevs anddamages me court deems apprapnate, just and reasoname Aggul 27: [9] ‘me base (or the appncaman to strike out me Respondent's sum under Order ca rule 19(1)(a)(b)(c) ana/er my Rmes of com 2012 (R08) were based on the following (1) The Respanaem ougm to eernrnenee me action vrde ruaraal review appm-anon as his gneuanoes were saw to be a resun of the excensron ol unre gramed by me Mlmslvy of Housing and Law Government, (zr The Respondenfs sun arselasea no reasonaue cause ofaciuon. 43; The Resgonaenrs sun was fnvolaus and vemlluus, 14) The Respondent’: sun was an abuse of the scum process [10] The Appeflanl had avgued that me sesswn coun had erred when n deemed Ihal «here was no need for judrcial rewew holdmg me exvens-on no urne mud and could be msregamsa without me necessny M yud\cIa\ renew it was me Appenanrs lurlher subnussmn met me sessron court had ened m rs appncanen onne legal prinouwes Vn Any Ming Lee A On v uenm Kesejumerlln Hundar, Pammnhan dln Kenjnn mnpmn A Am)! Ind Othwfippel/511-2—] 1 CLJ 152. A ru myvasaxnynnrrnmw «us. s.n.r mmhnrwm a. med m my s. nrwhuflly mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum war [H] Befnre rtus court analyses tna Apnettanrs argument mat Ang Ming Lu was to be urstrrrguisnao wilMheIac1s and erreurnstanoes ortlrrs ease, tnrs court herewml aurnrnarises tne reoeral courts ruling in Any Ming Lee In essence, pursuant to a yuarcral reurew by the purchasers agarnst me extension of tune granted by me Mrnrstry, rt was held 1a)The controller had no power to waive and/or nloony any Drovrslon {H selredule H or ttre Regulatron to the Act tn) Trre Mrnisler dld not have the power to make regutatron for delegallng powers to the controller to warye and/or rnoorry any prmnslan tn senedule H of the Regulatron to the Act (t:) Trre Mrnrster nrnrselr was empvwered to regulate true terms or the oonlract 0! sale and purchase and he mus1 have applied hls wn mind to me matter and not oetegale suen responsiblhly to me controller e s2A(2)(e) al the Act‘ (d) Regulatlon 11(3) that proyraea where the controller rs sausfred that owrrrg to specral circumstances or Ilanishrp or neoessrty eornprrarree with any or me pmwsrons rrr the contract or sale rs lmpmcucabla or unnecessary, he may, oya eel-tmcate rn wmmg, warya ornrourry such pmt/mans’ ls ultra yrres tne Act [12] In trtat case tl was thus trrrmatenal as to who had signed me letter 0! extension or trme srnoe rt was not me Mlnrster who had not made me declslnn. [131 The Appellants argurnenz to dIs1lrlgulsh wrtn trre «acts oi ttus was true In the Plarntm nas llleu a wm or action to errallenge tne SPA carllendlng that tne extension or tune granted by tne Mrnrstry was Invalid l: was me Appellants suanusaren tnat tna Respondenl anoula naye 5 ru myyaaaxrryanrrnsrsyw «nor. s.n.r ...nu.rwrrr r. u... a may r... nflnlruflly unrr. dnuuvlml Vfl arlurm war mmmenced 1udiua\ revxew under Order 53 Rules of Com 2012 (Rafi) as It was the Respondent's Intention to quash and sefl aside the dsclsmn H wasfimher submitted that the Sassmn Court had erred In prenedermming me vanany ol the extansm of «me and mat me AppeHanl was not me proper uamaanuo defend Ihat decvslon made by me Mimslry twheaher by the Mmlster urlhe Ccnlm\|e( of Housmg and Local Government) [14] \n impkmng «ms coun to rule 1haI asme Respondent, aygneved by the extenswon an-me incorpcrived m Ckauses 25 and 29 ems SPA. mus1 chauenge ca quash me deoismn byway of puma: review as m me case of Any Ming Lee. And that n cannot be done by way olwnl amen So. it must be slrudx out — casa cf Choy May May 5 Or: v Puma sonum Sdn Bhd[2022] 5 cu 614, Micluel ErmIHyda vpmm eonann Sdn Blvd [2021] ML!!! ms. Bluedrum City Development sun am: v Kany Thy: 5 On And omeo lppeals (2022) 2 cu us were referred in [15] The High cuurrs decxsion m Ohm‘:-Amblk Holding: sun am: v Puma Bnnanzi Sdn Bhd [21721] 9 MLJ 212 was uted to strengthen the Appellanrs argument, m pamcmar para 3536 '/ mm Iavuur m we derendanrs counsel argument that [he pnzdommam and sooe sumac! mans: arms ptammrs sun hes an the va/my olrhe EOT. The same As wtllun ma sphere allhe public law men was cnauangad ny me plamnfls and me EOTbemg a decrsmn granted by me Mmlslly omausmg and Local Gavemmsnl can only be ma:/anged by way ola /ud/cw /swew and nor a wnt alacllon. n rs my consodeled vrew mar ms F'Iarrmfis' conduct m Illmg ms sun‘ In seexmg we; 505 a uscraraoon mat the EOT granlod by (he s m myvaaaxmr.r.nmw «ma Snr1|\n-nhnrwmbe U... w my me mmnnuly mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum am Defendants helsm null and wold pursuanl lo llre Federal courl dsclslan rn Ang Mlng Lee (supra), ls lmprupel and an abuse aleoun process Flrslly, an appllcallbrl lo cnallerrge a declsloll afa publk: aurllorlry, re ma Mlnlslar andlar lns Hausfng conlrollar musl be made by way (if a jlldlcial rauraw saoondly lna PIalIlllIfs' sun was only llrnned lo lna developer and drd rrol rrrclude llle llllrnrsler and/ar [he Houslng Controller wnose deelslon rn allowing me Earls bslllg cha//sllgsd wlzn ralaranoe lo lhis lssua, larn dlma oplnlon rnal llrs nan irlclllslon olllle Mmlsler and/or Hnuslrlg cdnlnzller as [James ls lalal as bum lne Mrnrsler and/or Houslng connoller must be gruan lne ngnl (D be rreard (bells! lurown as “alldi sllsmm psnsm" prindple as explained by rlle Federal court ln Dr Lourdes naua Raj afl CUIIIZ aural Ra, v orlvllllorl Lum slew wan 4 AIlor[2D20] 5 ML./ ms). Thus, llre P/alarms’ app/lcatlorl fur a deolarazory order lnal me EDT given was null and ward rs llawed and lrrapsmbla As nald by llle Federal coun rn Al-lg Mlng Laa, lns absence afany alfdavli fmm the Mrnrsler nad forrlfied lls filldl/lg lnal mere was no declslon lrorn lne Mrnlsler (see paras 6565). we lunller relnlorees my vlew lllal lne Mlnlsler snould ngnlly be narned as a party by me F-larnxrrls rn challenging me 507. " [15] The Appellant suomllled that me sesslon coun emvlecusly oiled Ihe onnalple ol stare dedsls in applying when was neld H1 Lam su see V Prarna sananza sdn Bhd[l021] 1 ms :25 when the iadual malnx ln thus one was enlllaly dmerem [171 ms Court had duiy curlsldeved me argumenls ln vespcnse by me naspondenl who had malnlalned lrlanrlere was no necesslly lo: a judlclal reulew as me extension dl llme was null and vdld ld begln mm The case 7 IN xzllyVuB£x|7yP|r':Fll\:lF1W “Nana s.n.l lnmhnrwlll be u..a M vufli l... analn.ll-y sllnl. dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNfl Wrul av Chm Kwal cnun v Board of auamlcallona and mag. rlluronal Bomnd v Bnndu Nun] . nevelaprrrem Sdn Bhd [21716] 5 cu 15:: was clled lo support me suorrnsslon lnal me wnl at actlcn nlled was lhe eorrecl mode because me exterlslon oi llrrle granted was a vold declsiorl whldl was not a declslon all all [18] The Respondent also suommed lnal even rune extenslon onrrne was vahd, ll was lrreflectlve ln relexlon lo lne SPA between me names as me sale was error to me date of me appmval or me exlerlslon ol llnre (23.1 2017) The Respondent nao alleged me sale oflhe properly look olaoe on me date or me bauklrlg whlch was 15.1.2017 Tne Respondem relened In PJD Rogency Sdn Bhd v rrlounal runman Pernoell Rurnan 3. Anal and orlrer appeua. The declslon of coun [191 This coun la lnollned to agree wnn lne Appellanllnalao lne premlse or me Responoenl-s ealrn was lo challenge the valldlly ol the extenslon or (line granled, u must be by way of ludlclal revlew nre wnole clalm by me Resmndenl was uenlered on me rlollan me: me dectslon ol exlensron o1IlmeoHony—eighI hours wnlen ls nolaa wnal senedule H ned allpulaleo, was ullra vlres and thus null and vnld 129] The Mlnlslerand the cornrollermen should also be made pames as 1| conoemed lnelr declslen It was nm me Appellant‘: oecrsron but mar ol me Mlnlslry Tne law re garlernlly and wldely lmdemood as ll was men ln 2017 wnen ll came lo elmellona wnere an axreneron olllrna was requrred by developers Ilka me Appellant, me salmlon was lo apply lo me Mrrnalry‘ so one concemed me Mlnis|ly's purwers and processes a rn xzuyvda£x|7yPrlFlr\:lF1W “Nair s.n.l mrvlhnrwm be UIQG m vufli r... nflmnaflly em. dnuuvlnrrl Vfl arlum Wm! [211 Thls Courl has dellberaled me Respandenrs submlsslani lnal rl dld not rualler nuwever way «he case ends up WI lhe calms as an unlawful declslon rerualned unlawlul Thls courl canrml accept such argumenls bmshlng aslde and deliberately lgnorlng the processes m place m the atimlluslratlon pl ulsuee ll ls lhls courts opinion that me praper made m challenglng lne decl on by me Muuslry must be by way pl judicial revlew as provided «or under order 53 Rec [221 Trns Court further relecis me corueuopn ol Ihe Reaponderu that me contract ‘was sealed when he bocklrlg lee was first held on 15 1 2017 The beakmg lea ls nm a eanrran peaween the parrles mar supulaoed me terms and condlllons of the purchase cf the pmpeny by the Respondent lroru me Appellaru The SPA was the eoulraa wluch though slgned an 5.2.2011 was effective on 5521217 This cuun does not amem me Respandenrs argumenl Inst me contract for sale was concluded at me llme afthe hocklllg fee penalnlng la the Respondent: argument Ma! Ihe approved extenslun onuue dld rrol apply as the mnlram lu the lam: al bouklng fee was sand (0 be before me approval wasglven ma cpuuhma that the Respondent had mlsunderslaod me posmpn m PJIJ Regency Sdn and (supra) whrch had dean wnh me ealeulauau :71 me LAD that featured the date of me hocklng fee [23] Be that as u may‘ me argurnem Is secondary as when ls paramount here Is me made In much lhis sull was lrllllated ln me Sesslon Caml ms eourmhdr. lhatme acmn lnlllaled Dylhe Respondent lalls wilhlnlhe realm of pmlclal revlew and/or publlc law The proper mode would ha py way ol ludlclal vevlew under order 53 Roc as u ls ooncemad wur. me — powers under the Act and me vahdlly pl Regulalmrl ms) The Sesslon coun IS nal elalhed wuh me pvwev lo make such a declarallon vlz a mu acmn IN xzuy‘/flB£xDyPFIF|7\:l?1W 9 «ma s.r.l...r..ryu..u....amy...mn.lasnrl.ua.r.r.r..ru.ua vtmxl and statement at claim Steared by the precepts that emerge lmin Obala Anitiak Holdings Sdn aria tsupia) and Bluedream city Development Sdn Bhd tsuptal, this calm finds tnat tne Respondent should have met: a judicial review rather than a will action The fact remains that the Respondent did not file lei iudiciel review to challenge ttie wilidity M the respective extension. The filing oi tne inain action vide win is, therslore, pmceduially wrong and Improper [241 As me made eittte suit is Wvong. it is e stein and obvious ease for a sinking out Likewise, as found by tne leamea image in Obxtt—Anlba)t Holdings Sdn Ehd (supra) VI amounted to an abuse oltne court process. [251 The anlene undel may 18 rule |§|1)(a)(h)(c) and (d) weie lumllea This was a plain and nlwmus case that mum have been dealt with sunnnarily (see sanaar Builder Sdn Blvd 5 UIS v Unlled Malayan Banking Corpanfian stii1(1ss:l}4 cu 7) This couii allows tne appeal by me Appellant The decision at tile sessian court is aueituinesl, the Respondent's claim is struck em Apgoll 304 [26] witti trie Respondents wilt at emu ena statement ni sleini struck out. the suininaiy iuuginenl granted by the Session court naturally oallapsed mere can be nu judgment given against the Appellant as tins case should have been via iiidicial ieview )0 SN xzuyVuB£x|7yFFiFiV\:\F1W nine s.n.i nmlhnrwm a. u... M my i... nflnlnnflly mi. dnuuvlnrll Vfl .nuue Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-11ANCvC-104-09/2022

PERAYU KAMALA MANUEL A/P MANUEL RESPONDEN PANTAI MEDICAL CENTRE SDN BHD

This appeal is dismissed. The summary judgment granted by the Magistrate is affirmed. Both counsels were gallant and fair on the issue of costs. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the predicament of the Appellant, minimal costs is granted to the Respondent in the sum of RM3,000.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=41fc00d2-6f90-40b2-9142-0dafc96e777f&Inline=true

11/12/2023 11:08:11 WA-11ANCvC-104-09/2022 Kand. 15 S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0gD8QZBvskCRQg2vyW53fw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—11mcvc—1oA—u9/2022 Kand. 15 11/12/2023 nzai-11 IN me HIGH noun? IN muwn AT KUALA LUMPUR II me FEDERAL TERRIYORV. MALAVSIA CIVIL AFFEAL Mo; WA-11ANCvc-I04-OI/2022 BETWEEN KAMALA MANUELAIF MANUEL APPELANY PANTAI MEDICAL ceume sou am) (commav No:1:nsLn) nesronneuv Qggunns of JUDGMENT L [1] A summary judgment was entered by me Magnstrabe agamsc ms Anpellanlior RM4D.U17 as, which wasfovme medical semees. treatment am medvcamm pmvlded by me Raspundentfrnm 5 m 20201:: 9 1a 2020. [21 Yhe sum was lur madical sumoes and rreaurrem rem-no hut Included, rrer surgery ror an irrcrsrmal rrernia, nursing cam, and arm ve\a|ed and rrrauemel eervroee carried our and received by me Aupellanl. [31 Prior to admrssion, me Appellam rrea eeeeurea ma Ilgnld me Terms and Oondwions er servme an Panrar Meareal cenne Sdn Bhd hr In-Pabenf mar confirmed her agreenrem on pay all lees. expenses and merges. rnuuarrrg medical rrearrrrenr. surgical procedure, nursing care, pharmacy and 01711:! remea am1lna'dsnIa\ services merere [4] Pursuam |o |hal agreement, she had also unoondlnonaliy rmaenak-rr ro pay all sums due and awmg Io rrre aeepermnr lor in sand lmulmanl uru eervieee rendered. [5] Upon finding Ihfll thin: are nu flrspmls Is In Ihl lac! that lit: Agpsllanl hid neeerved I91: mama‘ Eastman! and cam‘ and no comm rll re in: amount or mains! rees and Ixpsnsei owing. me Magistrate rue gmnlsd i surllmaryiudgment against (I19 Applfliil In pay me sad sum nre 99 3g; gr ye Agguarn [a] The Appellant submllted mar rrer rnearcez fees and expenses were lo be covered by lnsurmoe from AIA and Awummg la Mr, Dr Luqman Mazlan vme emerraee in rreremre hospital doclovhad assured neramrre on 5 m mu m srre was vflsdravged ma releuea worn me rrnsprra ml 9.10.2020 wmrour havmg |o pay anylmng Even at me vouow-up check-up on 1 rv nguanzaw».cRug2wyw5:m« «me smm mmhnrwm r. med m vs-W r... nflmrrnflly mm: dnuumrrl wn mum p-ms! Terms and cwmms uf Sarvicl at Famal Media! Centre for In~PanenIx Chuse 4 stated cleanyman Dr Luqman was and \s not an annlme nhhe Rsspandsnt. [35] Mollvws ma|whalevsr DrLuqman was Sam In have represemea to me Avpellantas In her mm medical Insurance poiscy wvemge cannot be atmmned in me Respondlm — even m memw negllgencn cases the nouns would um rule me hospnms lo be vIcaI1ons\y aooounlnhla — see many Conn‘: aecmon In 1» ram Krluman I Anor v Mogul Moor In x Moqntlbnhlm L Anal And .nan.u nppul [zmaj 3 cm 421 Conclus on [36] ms Court ws satisfied band on me pleadings and amaavns um nus case '5 a shalghllnrward dalm max me Appeuam had agvead and nonsanlefl to honouring should mere be a snmvau or: failure an me purl ollhe Insurers to settle me amount due. Yhe man: can and ought to be mean wilh summaniy as Iher: are nu mable Issues that anse om at mass «am and wcumslancax [an The Responaenn may Dmcasd |o chullenge me decianon or the mwmu or even uy to extend Dr Luqmivfs any of can on the Issue av msmea medics! wverage Hewevu‘ wnn r-spec: In me Respcndervfs dalm. m onncemed the couecnon ollhe amount due and swing In whim lbs Appeuam had agreed to [as] This appeal is dismsyed. The summary judgment gramsd by me Maglslmte is aflmned. Eom counssa. were gallamand favor: me Vssue ov ms»; Based on me lasts am wwmsunces of me nzlse and the n m flguanzawkckfluz-eyw5:m« mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm pvemcamanc nflha Anpellanl, nimmal onus is gramad to me Raspoudarn wn me sum oi RMa,uoo DATED 16 MAY 2023 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER men COURT IN MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For my Apps/Van!‘ Hujlmfu S/ngn logolhol with s-mama Sam T/n Sabamdm omman 5 Ho Fof!MRl:pondem A:-Ivok K.-mdvah together with Mrsharrd Pllhmanaman T/n Hans lbralum Kandmh Partnership u m nguanzawmckugzwywam mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 22 1o.2n2o. she claunad she was assured mm them was no Amount ouxsunam as the medical fees and expenses were cnversd by me AKA insurance [51 n was an 1512 202 (and also leltas aanao 22122020 and 5 12021) than me Anpeilanl msouuenaa me msurance claim was dedined and she was In pay RM4o,o17 55. [:1 We Appellam men on 25.1.2u21 requestsd forms guarantee Veltev and all umeroorrespandenees «um MA am and AKA Healm sewxcas Sdn am (In: mxurursj The Respumenl ma non new Foliowmg for me non- vlymml by me Appauann ma Respondent filed n wnl man In auaun for ma sum sum. [10] Yhe lsamad counsel nu ma Appelanl auzuumaa Ihal en. cums var medical Inaalmont, semen and madvcauun we covered under the medical msurunes pello/wswidlrylha insurer: sne canlsndadlhal was based on nus ma: she had nroaeduo wan KM suraafy mmunenuad by Dv Luqman [111 II was alsn me Appellant‘: aummssnans man she nan urmergons ma surgeuy at me hoGpila\ nased on vepresenmons by Dr Luqman max me costs lor surgery, nreatnuam and hospi isabon were covered by msmance [12] Addinunafly. me Appenam was lnformsd lhal [here was no amoum outstanding when she was anscnargaa and an ms Vullw-up memcal enem- up Thorelore. u was suhmmed lhat me msumrs were esmppea horn us m nguauzawkckuqzwywfizrw mu. sum ...n.mn .. u... w my a. anmnmy mm: dun-mm vu mum v-max ourldum mat resumed m me Appellants delnmenl when the Rasponaant aatm-a tor tn: full amount [13] This Courl heard that me Appattant had mfllaled u Ihlm-pany pmosedwg against lhe Ptamtnrs doom: amt me ms«re¢s The Human phadod mat ma guaamaa lellers wave |ssued an 29 0.2020 and t2.w.202u However, the parltoular on twanan cyst neaaea further trwesugauon and notmau that may war. not guatamaamg any amount pending tnuesngamn. my Th mews‘ defence pleaded lhanhey an: um have any rewms at ovarian cyu In 2010 allhuugh tna Appellant had rscnvds M ectopic pmgnincy pmxatema tn 2009 ana 20:: ctauaas 7 and some Appellants mammt uuuunaa uxcluded claims mat resumed lrom actoptc prognnnw in 2019 The «mm; lad In a vajealm natmaauun by tn. Insumrs (a pflnlnul men 26 1| 2020 was -tcamaa tu lha Raaponaanrs aMt1avI| m vaply mm at the Magrslraws Conn [arms purposes 01 its apphcalion for a summary iutiulnenlj. r e mlms aatm [151 om 14 Rule 2 or the Rules of Com 2012 (R00) empowevs me wuns ho enlera summary mdgnuenlm a clatm where there Vs nodefenoe me «me law as law: down nytna Federal count in flunk Nqar: Malaysia vuond/smauc 0v.I[1992]1MLJ40D. */n an applmalmil um; on, we own has to be satisfied on a/mm awdanca ma: ma delence has not alwmlsed an tune, but also that the salt! ISSAII ls mama ma delsvmlnntfon ol vrhallvar an m flguauzawkckfluzvywfizm mu. mu In-vthnrwm a. u... w my u. mn.t-y mm: dun-mm VII urtum vlmxt Issue :s or rs noz Mable dapands nu ma rams nu ma /aw an'siIrv Imm each case as .1/so/osoum me amuswt Ivrdomao berm live now! A complete defence neednatbe shown. The defense set uplveed only show that were rs a tnab/2 issue Undel an on appncauon, me my afa M196 does ml and as soan as a lac! :s asseded by me party, and demon at mspmed by Ina other In an amaavrr. Where such asaemon, aema: or dispute .s unaqulvncal, or lauang m preenuon or rs rneorwslenl wnn unmspumd oonlampolary documenls or olher statements by me samo deponom, at rs Inna.-nwpmoama /n nsa/1, man ma/udga has a duty to reject such -sssmon or aonra/, lhnmbylendermg me 55:15 not Mable. Unleu Mrs pomupre a aansm m. a mac /5 m no posmon Ia sxomrss ma dlscmlaan/udlmally m an on sppllcahan - us} In axnasung ma Raapomanrs Jpphcifion. me Appeflant on\y mm In raise am mama wssua (saa smmom Collugl Bomnd 1/ ms Carper-flon Bum-d[2013]MLRHU1371).Ths naspamanrs mmshold m vess| ws ralamery Vow [South East Asia mm-m:n BM v Kora; an Malaysia [1993] 1 cu mm A phuswbla wenee ransea 15 sumuann Io dwsaflow an awlicatiun fur summary judgmwl — Nun Hyounv soak v Pecwira A!!!» Bank am mm] 2 MLJ 20: [171 rue Appenam had raised a few quesuons max ner learned cuunul man In Immere ms com to hold mem as mable. rney are aH Issues uecween Ihe Appeilam and ma ilwuvers — speomcauy wnelhe( me mcameraxaa lnclslorm nsma was a vesu||\11 eclnpic ptsgnanw m 2mg that was aeany excludld mm her med\ca\ msmanaa covmaga. ma: are lawns belwaan me Appellanlana me msuren. Imus: nolcanoel, riscmd 5 m nguanzawkckugzwywazm «ma. Snr1n\nnnhnrw\HI>e u... w may he anmnauly mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm or Innm her oolmxion and hatnm lhzl sne had undertaken wnn Iha Respondenl [15] The AppeHan| planed het swgnatuve on me Ammssion Lenev daled 7 9.2020 man she nan agreed to mmply mm me rules and regulauons at me Respondent anu undenook xn same m mu all hnsp1|a\ mus in the avenl her msums vauea (ode uu. Thare was anulaflun (presumably made by Dr Luqman) as In me costs mm medical pmceduras and Iraalmenls » wnnrn . range ol RMZ5.00U and RM30.DOfl Yha Appallanl n.-.4 MI kmzwtodps av In]: mm [191 The AppeHanl nu amen and expressed her agreement 01‘ my ohlvgaflon in me Mmissm Ream: Farm on 5.10 2020 were sh: guaranteed me payment ofnls mspnar servmes extended to her pm] The Appellant had a\su agreed lo and signed me 1enns am Candmnns 0! Serwes o1 Pamax Medical Cemre for |n4=auam on 5.1o.2n2n Clauses 2, 4 and 17 had clearly smea me financiat ohlsgalnn M me Awellam luv ma servrss randerad at me hcsohal In plain langunge. me Appeuam auraud m name ms amount nutslarmmg In an event (here ms 3 maul: av mm ma Insurer lallod In pny mg Respondent (or any relwn wmmmr. [211 Tne Issue of meme: me Appeilanl was ermfled |o be covered by me rnamcal msuranoe taken is a miller between ma Appellant and me insunars. The Supreme cmm m Mat Abu n/n Man v Medical Supednhndont, Gama: Hoxpital, Taiplny Peak L 07:‘ [1999] 1 MLJ 225 had (aken lhe view man a third-pany proceeding is dmmcl from Ihal bemsen a cxannann and respondent 3| pm 5 m ngnanzawkckuqzwywfizm «mu s.nn n-nhnrwm .. u... w may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dun-mm wa mum pm ‘We also do narlhink that a procaodrng under 016 oflhe Ruins of the High court man u inlandsd m be zmmsd nu ma same way as an acnan bsfwnn a dainlrflalld a Iielendam‘ rrmdparry pvocsedmg: Ior eanmnuuan smmd be Isgavded as independent niand separate Imm pmosadmgs by a plsmfilfsqainsr a daranaam. Mm: a delendanl u made Irable to the pratntim he men has ms nghl open against a lmrd pany la esuubflsh mar ma possesses a ngm Io mrltnmtbon a rndemnny Imn me mud pany nma should bsgm to run from ma dais me darandam rs held Mable ' [22] Thus, ma sduawa an msdlcal coverage Li a malm bmwoln ma Appellanl and me insurers. The Appaflanl 15 um legally bound In pay um um; ma sum outstanding for an madtcal urvicas unwed (mm me Rnpnndlnl ax agrsed. II \n Inc and, mu ocum find nu: ma Appcllanl wna anmlad |o be cowmd and guaranteed by «no Vmurels, we can be mimbulssd (arm expanses and DDSLS borne by her [231 The Appellant datmed that me Adnnsuon Lemar dalsd 7 a 2021: s1aIed man the Inasional nania was caused by In edema: pregnancy A reading dune dowment adduced did M11 s1a\elha1 NoneV.he\ess, ma mum had issued a Velterol guarantee on 29.9.2020 luv nuspnalisamn wnn an Inmal lvmil nl RM7.5D0 u was stated that me mmal [altar of guarantee was subjscled to me final guanannas letter. As was me msewanon or new ngms not In ndndur any payment no: wveced Dy me Vnsmance pohcy, zu nguauzawmckugzwywazm «um. smm ...m.mm .. u... m may he nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl VII .nuue Wm! (24) The qusvy w (M Imums was made an 15102020 alhr me Appauann had undergone Ihs mau.c.a| pmeedunes, nremam and had been msmarwed Thevefore, »-meme: lhe msurers had lonowea due pmeess or otherw\se1s dis1zncflmm Ihis claim bylhe Rewondem based on lhe aqreemenc manna Appeilam was bmmd la. The Ccull or Avpea\ New in Anthony Lawnnon scum 5 Ana: v am: am: BM [2019] 1 Mu cm at [.1120 where we mwuawe passage by LC Vomah J mam FC.lj1n|I1e case wheve ne saw ‘The mmary duly ola noun ollaw 15 In en/nme s pmrmse wmcn Ins pamss have mam and In upnom the sancmy oi nomads mla which (I19 pmre: haw an unransmr r/gm Io lnlorpmwdsd they am not opposud In public pnlnty or arm Iva rm by my pmwuon or the luv ol lhn lend . ' [25] Tna afidzvns wen mclosod (he reluvsnv document: mu sumclunuy aodrassad me grouse by ma Appellant men was no cunusahnenf M I391 by an Re-ipmIdarI| and 01 its donor. When me mm: surgery was pSI‘f0l'Med,|I’I9\I1S|.INF$ had yet mmfisd wins aecnna and Musal ca vay [26] When the Respondent was nohfisd by the msmels mat the AppsILant’smedIcal1nsuIanoa pancyam rm ecvsrme msdwal lmatmems and sarvmes on 2511 2020. me Resuonaem nae wonnau me Appellant on 271D.202D.This was then louowea war: we rnvoloes an 2.12 202a and remlndzrs 01115 12.2020, 22 122o2n and 5 1 2021. m ngnauzawkckuqzwywfizm mm. s.n.1 In-v1hnrwH\ .. LAIQ4 w my .. nflflhnflly mm: flan-mm VII mum v-mm [271 The summary iudgmam agamx rm Appeuam on mum was prnpsny grarm by me Magisnanss Caun. Fans are undispuled that me meduzl procedures had bcen performed and mat mam was no rssul. wnlest nr oomplamus co me perfotmanoes Ihsreaf am :\so me olher mama: and mspnal services See Farm! Medical Ccntn Sam and v Saniow Kumnr Veennxingam [2921] 1 LNS 535 [29] The Appeusm submmad mau whetherme incwswonal hernia suflema was caused by an ecwon: pregnancy or developed mm a scar due to a gummy dune via Ptannensneu sea! to remove her uvanan cyst was a mama Issue. Awarding la the Appenam. ms would delermme whalhar n was her 5! me Insurers man was Mable In the Resrnondenl nu ma mldk:a\ Inalmenis and can reealvod. (291 Thu case of Expomtmpan mm o! Mnlnyxh Blvd v arnnws amsm vu-mm Sdn Bhd c on man a cm 544 (saluted amamx facts - n uunoumad me p\a\nlM's clavm an me bank uummae Vacflw to the defendants which terms were not pleaded The High own, In that case‘ had also concerns when lIu| mentioned in me amaavns were me maxms by Jordan Kuwan Bank on ma sasd hank guaramee and me plalnmfs uaim vmmme nrscuevenaam merewas alsu anemzshmenlol RMI.000.I)0u security deposit and me ausvmsaal arm: uerenaanrs clam: an me Insurance poacy - all that codd nu! bedetemnned summstiy. no} The case of Pcmblnun Muthiah 5 Sons (M) Sdn BM 5 Ors v Swot Fnmlx Sin and I Anollnr 120221 1 ms as (acts are aso dmsfeul «mm ms ones here In man case, whether ma bnuman onnlant mmamea nu ma enmenl mtx supplied was a mama [sun to dalavmine 9 m ngnanzawkckugzwywfizm «ma smm ...m.mm a. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm whelher more was a lvaudulann nnsrepresemanlon There IS no auesnen man we meeuzl ploceduris and nneanmanns sannced no me Appellant had been axewled and had been exec-ned sannslaenonly [an] Tne Appellann nae submlnad nnal mere was a misrqxesallannn by Dr Luqman aslzwas nna poumavl olnne Anpellanl man than was a my of care |a lnhrm her wnlemer her -nsuranee woula cover one [Mal costs of me mad llrealmenz and semces name cawymg om the surgery [:2] mac was no aumamy In suppun mls submlunon by me Appellanl ms cauln I5 unable lo aocem mls senlannlan man Is Iamarrlmlnl In an axanoratlm M nne Appelnenrs eonlmnual ohllgahnns man she had agraed m This coun sees not accam me mnennm man n ma Dr Luqmarfs duty In advue me Apnsflanl an nan lrlsuranna pollcy and manage [331 A: n was me Appellant horn" who had llkln up and pad for her mealcal lntulancal sne would be In (he but poulnlon no know an even lmlmru and venfy dlrecfly lronl me lrlsumrs. [341 ll ls nnlplausnble Infirsl eonnena man Dr Luqman was unaera dutym advise ma on ner insurance mverage and nnm ln would amaunl la a repnesenvanion. man no allrlbule in no me Respeneenn on lne assumption nnan ma lenn ‘ncrwldependam aacnor means nnan ne was an employee an nne Respnmnenn. ln nne Resonnden1's subnlsslorlsn nnan nenn was compared no ‘lndependem donor Tms oeun cannon aeeapl sum oonnennlon In me absence nl any endence suppomng nnan esaumpnlon The Responaenn had eonnemae all me muse! man all meaeal oonsulnanla mzclisnrlg Mlh me Respanaenn were nelnnar na amplayees lmr agents ma ml was accaptad bylha Appellenn when ll agresd we clause Aalma in nu ngnauzawkckuqzwywfizm mu. s.n.l In-vlhnrwm s. u... m my n... nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII arlum v-man

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-11ANCvC-102-09/2022

PERAYU TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD RESPONDEN TEGUH AMANI SDN. BHD.

For the above reasons, this Court finds that the Notice of Appeal is defective and incompetent. The Notice of Appeal is not served within the time stipulated and id clearly out of time. In the absence and delay of an application to regularise the non-compliance render that this appeal is incompetent before this Court. In the premises, there is no appeal before this Court this Court allows the application by the Respondent with costs of RM10,000.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0e65e692-6cda-4393-a6b3-90a50fb32448&Inline=true

11/12/2023 12:54:37 WA-11ANCvC-102-09/2022 Kand. 29 S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N kuZlDtpsk0Oms5ClD7MkSA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—11mcvc—1o2—u9/2022 Kand. 29 11/12/2023 12; -37 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY. MALAYSIA CIVIL APPEAL No: WA-11ANCvC»l02479l20Z2 BETWEEN TELEKOM MALAYSIA EERHAD ....APPELLAN'r (Comp. Rug: mw|n1s1a:(12a74n.P) AND IEeuH AMANI snu am: . RESPONDENT (comp. Reg: 2no7o1ooexw1(7s4aoa-w) JUDGMENY Enc :: Yhe Responaem-s application to slrike out me Notice of Avpeal under Order 15 :19 and/or Order 55 r5(2) andlor Order 2 a and/or Order 9: rl Rules of Court 2012 (R05). 1 sm kuzIDlp«knums5c\D7M>£A nine smm ...m.mm .. .4... w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm lnlroducfion [1] The basls ldr lms appllcallon filed by me Respondent Is that me Appellant had only sewed lls Nollee ol Appeal on 2 9 21122 when the last date to We and serve suen noliee was 30 B 2022 ‘me Maglslrale had decided ld snixe am me Appellanfs clalm on 15 3 2022 [21 The conmmexion mmugn me ocurl syslem showed that me sald Notice 0! Appeal was «led on lne last dale due wnlen was an a 2022 at 5 151mm om d»: not sewe mm! 2 92022 Order55 lS12)RoC requlres me Appellant lo we AND serve me sild Nonee L71 Appeal on me Resoondenl Mthm me snbuleled lime — before or by an 5 m2 Anzlysls and Declslon [31 The Federal Court VI rang Lee Hwy: 3. Ann: v Malayan Banking End [1979] 1 MLRA 142 at p343 neld that a baby dune ssld Nmice ol Abpeal must be Med and served on the Respondent wnhln me supulated nnle penod ’On (ms lrlterpletatlurl, me Federal Court was at me oplrlrorl that where rlorlce nad not been served on me other slde wllhm Ilrms, the nnpenl had not been brougmbelare ll “ [41 The Iale servlce was done we emall In me Respondents scllcncrcn 2 9 2022 —ms coun mus cannot accent that me sad service vln me same mode could no: nave been done on the same dale cl filing wmcn was me last day. Theve wls no Elppllcallon men by me Appellanl to legulanse this unm sner lne Rescondenl had filed lms appuseuon Ia slrlke om Even 2 m kuZlDlvimDms5ClD7MISA “Nair Smnl nuvlhnrwm .. b... m my me mmun mm: dnuuvlml Vfl menu Wrul then‘ me Appeflanl ms: nu! me any amaaun m euppon Ia lend strength to «me apnlncaupn al [he came when r: was filed [51 Funnerrnere, me sad Notice or Apnea! rs derecuue Tnere rs no case numbev of me man in the lower courl slaked merern. nar was me Maq\slrite's name and the enemsure number mcmdsd «or completeness I! can be sand Ihat Ihls notice IS defective as there was numcumplvince with Form 111A as requrrea by Order 55 rs Rnc — Kok Kan sang (opeming a susiness Undu nre Nnme Ind Style or same Kak .4 Ca (Formerly Known as Kok & Co) cnmereu Accountants, Malaysia) v Vnslilut uraunzan Malaysia (20191 11 ML! 1 In mis Inslam. me non-comphance did make me said Notice of Appeal ambiguous. Tms cpun (oak cognisance of the fact that there were two Suns between the same pamea at the war court at are same urne. Tnus, all pxeaarngs and cause papers must be specific to ensure justice Is admlmsleved accordingly, respecuuely [6] This cpun apes not agree wun me aupmrserons that me rennaa or the lnmehne am also nomcomphance in are proper vprrn at the Nance or Appeal dud nm cause any pvewdxce to me Resnondenl The Mes and procedures are mere luv me very reaspn lo anarese ma rssue Comphance and strict adherence to me Rec waum ensure that no party re prejudiced Eepecrany those who had succeeded rn nrerr Imgatlun —\-mere me parly arssausvrea Is given arnpne urne to me and serve us appeal, lamng which man rrgm rs revoked To apnea! Is not as M ngnn — It rs a creature 01 me scaxune where smcl compliance must be rnaae, near mere wm ru kuzImpcmums5c\n7M|sA “Nana sum nmhnrwm r. u... a my r... mmnauly am. dnuumnl Vfl muNG war be no lustlce al all Feueral Court In Aulo Duni: Sdn Blvd 1/. Wang snl Fm 5 Dis [1995] 1 cu IE5, ruled that "n is an olnlnllry proposluon llul we com is . srsnure oi statute and tlul equally a right of appeal Is also a creature oi statute. so unless an agyrieved paw can bring ninrsell within are terms or a smulory provision enlbling him In sppul, no lppsal lies.- [7] In the case BNO Sdn and v Wuaw Trudinu Sdn Blvd 5. Anor (2017! 1 Ln: 1311, n was deemed at par: 29 that - andlifivants could avoid lachniculiliu iimty loo mnku us: or me muvisions undvl the Rules to avail umnsems. But why‘ liiignncs crime to ignore in Hull: nno dn norlrlng Ia being their use naclr on track, they do so at lhlir own peril. rne Rules does nor racounizl apolaaios as o sulaslixuu of compliance almandarolypmvisions and luilhnr do rnis court " [51 This court also took note oflhe conduct onne Appellant who had requested several extensions oi «me to file amdavns in reply and lnerearter riled appllcatlnn «or an exlenslon M «me to regularlse me Sald Notice cl Auneal but without any elfiaevn In support which is alll unexnlelned. As me claimant in the lower ooun had last and was now seemingly lmem on an appeal, It should have been more dlllgenl lo monnor lcs case IN kuzlDlpcmums5clD7M|5A mu. Smnl mmhnrwlll .. u... w my r... oflnlnnllly mm: dnuuvlnnl n. muno ml [9] As held by me Conn :1? Appeal WI Data valumalai @ M Ramalirlgam s/a v Muthusamy v Data Dr ran cnln mm (2011:) 1 MLRA 511Ihls Caun lakes me clrcumslanoes olmls case where the salu Notice al Appeal was evemually served mm the Respandenrs snllcilors vla e—mall wmcn could have been done ngm alter me fillng on so 8 2322 so «ms Cowl finds «ms appeal lncnmpevam. N p513r514 al the Sald luagmenr ‘As sralsd earner, an appeal is not zmluglll ru lms calm lllllll ma miles 0/ appeal ls mm Illsd am salvaa, ma one act wlmollr ma olhal lanuals ma appeal lncampalalll rnalalola, ma lallllra lo saw: the nollca o/ appeal on ma olrlal parry wlmm nma ls llal an lnaglllanly Illa! can be cured sea Ma/Its Psrzlandaran KBWQEI v Surllli navalallmallr clllpalalloll sun Ehd (20051 2 MLRA 331, [2006] s AM? 647. Tms ED965113 maralma lncompalanl and mus! be /locsssanly be and was ucwlngly dlsrnlsssd W‘ Conclu no} For me alme reasons‘ Ihis Court finds that Ihe Nvtice vfADPeal IS defecllve The Nance of Appeal IS ml sewed wnmn ma tlme sllpulaled and is clearly am of me In me absence and delay at an appllcsllon ca regularlse the nun-compllanue render man nus appeal IS mmmpelam before this Com. m kuZlDlpimDms5ElD7MISA “Nair ml nuvlhnrwm be .l.... M my l... nflilnnllly mm: glam. Vfl nFluNa Wm! [111 In me pmnmses, mere Is no appeal before «ms cum am «ms Conn allvwslheappllcallon bylhe Respondenlln Enc3wIlh cus1s ov RM10,DO0 DATED 14 FEERLIARV 2023 Roz MAWAR ROZAIN JUDVCIAL COMMISSVDNER HIGH COURT OF MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For the Aphe/Ianl. Nurul Nam/an bmli Abdul Kadar T/n Harmy vusons All: For me Respondent How Fsk Lean T/n um sun 1. Goormng sm kuz1mpcmums5c\n7M|5A m. smm ...m.mm .. .4... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-21NCvC-108-11/2020

PLAINTIF CHRISTINA CAROLINA GERARDA JOHANNA VERSTAPPEN DEFENDAN 1. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) ASP FAIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 3. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA 4. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

In the premises, this Court opines that there are serious questions to be argued and tried. The application is hereby dismissed with costs of RM5,000.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3fedc32b-f0dc-4298-975e-4e6df5a6c396&Inline=true

11/12/2023 14:15:08 WA-21NCvC-108-11/2020 Kand. 72 S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N K8PtP9zwmEKXXk5t9abDlg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal HA—21m:vc—1ns—11/2020 l<and. 72 ,1/12,20 IN THE HIGH COURT or MALAVA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN TKE FEDERAL tERRI1oRv.MALAvsIA CNIL surr NO: WA-21NCvC-108-11I2U1I1 BETWEEN CHRISTINA CAROLINA GERARDA JOHANNA VERSTAPPEN (Passport No: NvLcPHsH3) ....PLAlNT|FF AND 1. KETIJA POLIS NEGARA. MALAVSIA 2. ASP FAIZAL BIN ABDULLAH 3. MENTER| nALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA A. KERAJAAN MALAVSIA ....DEFENDANT-DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Em: 21: Avhllcntlon ca slrika out me Writ znd Statement at Clnim [1] The Fourth Deiendant, Kerajaan Malaysia. Ned an applicahnn m smxa am me F\ainlifi‘s wm and Statement at (Nam: under omer 15 Rule 1Q(I)(a)Ru\es ml Court 2012 (RUG) on me basis Ihs| lhe Plaintilfs daim ma nuldwsdose a reasonable cause damvon. Orlhambs struck am under sw KBP|P§zwmEKxxk5mabD\g 1 E‘ W; Sum M... M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; “Mm. VII mum Wm Order 19(1)(b] or (d) RaC on ma basis that ii is lnvuluus, vaxalious Of inwnvenient and aiaiudiciai, and an abuse of cuurl pmuess. In his aiiamaiwa, io seek a s1liki'ng um wf iha Piaininrs ciaim wiui wsls under Order 92 Rule A R120 R] The reasons Cited by me Founh ueiendani are: (i) No cause oi action disclosed in the Plainiiira claim: (II) Fremaiure as me maiier I! aim under iiwasngaiidh; (iii) Non-compliance wim Order 15 Rule 7 RaC, (lvj The F-iainciirs claim preiudloss Ihe mI—go'irIg invesligaliun: (V) The Piainmrs claim is vexaiious, frivulnus. abuse of Lxmrl process. [3] This CDUI1 had already decided in aiiaw ihe Plaihms appiicahon io amend her siaiemeni L71 ciaim, so reason on non-compliance would no: he enisnaihed here. This com win address ihe considerations for me other reasons cried by the Fourth Deiandani. TIII P|IinI|fFI claim [41 in ssserme‘ iha Piaimiii claims ihai ihe neiendahis had dreamed their siaiuidry duiies and/or were hagngsni in the discharge oi «heir slalulory duiias. This had anseh imm the iaiiawing lads: I?) On 7.12.2017 Ihe deceased, the Plainfiffs daughter was found dead an a nalodny of Unit 6-5 Cap square Kuala Lumpur she was ha: dmhed A sudden Death Report (sna) vms opened In look ma Ihis case but was donciuded on (he same day: (ii! on 912 2017 we Piaihim wha had naveued Vrom ma Neihenands had idemmed ihe deceased. She was ihiomiad by the Defendants that lhe deceased had nmmmmsd suidds and SN KBP|PizwmEKxXk5mmD\g 1 'NnI2 Sum IIIVVDIV M“ be has a mm a. aiiimii-y MVM5 dnunmnl ha .mm mm [221 The apniicaiion is hereby dismissed WM! oasis nf RM5,ucn. DATED 7 DECEMBER 2022 /fl,4/tat ROZ MAWAR ROZNN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HVGH COURT OF MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For me Plsinrilfl Molid Ania: iogazhar with Narfauzani bum Mohd Noni/n Auomay Gsnerafs Chambers a/Ma/aysia Forms oaranaanz: Sankara Naraya/van a/I Sankaran together W/II1 Phaan war Ken T/n S N Nair & Farmers sin KBP|PizwmEKxXk5mmDVg “ -was Sum ...m.. M“ be used m mm is. nvimruflly MIN; dun-mm VI] arium pm SIN KBP|PwzwmEKXXk5mmD\§ me SDR eonoiuded «na case as deaui caused by iiaiurai cause or suieid (III) The Piainiiir driconinncad and dissatisfied and wnii the assisiance lmm me omen sovernnieni nad managed lo nave in. case rehivestigaledl [MA soednd aucopsy was also condueied in me Nemeriands by Dr Frank Van Der com which riad ieiuiod in a slgnifimnl manner the findings DY the Initial autopsy conducted by Hospifiai Kuala Lumnur [HKL): |v) Pursuanl cnaieio, me Plalrilm wiin Lhe intervention by the Dawn Government requested for a burial inquest bsinna the Coroner dndsi S328-341 criininai Procedure Code (CPC)1o delervnine ins cause nfdaath or me deceased. (vi) On a.a.2a1ains lnquesloommenced and a total 0122 witnesses were caliedr (VH) On 33.2919 ins Coroner delivered ine verdict oiine inoassi as ‘misadvenlum'i (viinuissaiisned, me Pialnufl nad appoaiod co me to me Hicn Conn nl Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, (ix) on 22.11.2019 «ne Hign couri set aside zne Comnefs verdici and repiace i\ wiin iaeain by person or persons unknown“ and ordered the Anomey General io direct the Rdyai Maiaysian Police to begin iunnei invesiigaiicns; (X) on 27.11.2019 ins Piainiiu was inidnned that «no oeiendans nad idniied a task form In reiiivesiigaie me dei>eased’s deain as perms High Cnurl orderwnere the deeesseds dealh was re» siassiiied as murder inciiiding ine Second ueiendani To inis, there seenis 10 be no decision aroanclusion driai ioday. a wise s.ii.i IIIVVDIV M“ be used M mm as siiiii.ii-y MVM5 dnunvinnl wa nFiuNG Wm! [5] From me evidence in me Inquest, ine nneing arm emei 01012 High ceun mere men irrree years ago, the Pleiniru claimed met me Deienuanis had meaenea lheirsmlmory auuee and/orwere negiigani in ina execution inereeieiiing breaches orsianaam Operating Pmcedurvs (SOP)and eesi practices in police Invssligaimns The Flalnlifl pieaded he Ii-mkadaisical allrlude of me Defendants in respect oi me said High Courl order and detailed the allegsd Iaiimes and/Dr negligenoe pertaining the slalulury emiee carfied em by me Deienaenie including mallaasance and/ar misfeasanue andlor non—Veasam>e. The deieiis ei which are flipuiatsd in me Plainlifls Slatemenl vf cieirn para 37(5)-(no). Tn. uppliuliun to strlkc cm is] Trre Founh oeieneani submitted man there was no Izuse ul aeuon as investigalion by me Defendants was siiii unguing and thus in answer to the allegalicns by the Fiainliff would be plemahire and couid H0! subsist Reierence was made In ine Supreme cows decision In Govornmen! al Maieysia v Lirn Kl! Slang A Anorhnr Cass mu] 1 cu Rep 53 al ps7; “Whamierr is we meaning of ‘a cause a/aciionxv 9: cause ofacnbli’ VS 5 statement ollacls alleging that a p(amMI’s Iiglll, Either a! law or by statute, has, in some way or anmrrer, been adversely ervecied or plsjildrcsd by me act :1! a defendant in an aczrcn. Lord Dip/ock In Leieng V CoooeI[1955]1 on 232 521242 defined ‘a cause olaclion‘ In rnean a fanlual snuexron, ine exisience of which eniiuea ene person to obtain from the Cam? .3 remedy againsl another person’. in my view we factual eiiueiion spoken af by Lord Dfplock must consist of 9 statement alleging the! firs? the respondent/p/Eimmf has a ngni emier a1 /aw 11! by eianne and me: secondly such rigni has been affected or prejudiced by me eppei/enwe/endanrs ac: " sin KBP|PwzwmEKxxk5mmDVg ‘ -nae Sum ...na.. M“ be used m mm me niimruflly MVM5 dun-vinrrl vn .nnne we [71 on the premise «no: the Investigation lmo lne case was no| yen complete. Ihe Fourm Deienoanl conlanoeo that me ngnis oi the Flaimifl nao yel to become a realnylcryslallizeo. II was me lunner submissions at me Founn Delenaam that was wrung to assert the Deienaams. Whilst In me midst pl eonoueiing invesligaoun VICD this case, were negligent In carrying oul lnair «miss. The Fourlh Delenaanu mainlainao that man powers were oonlaneo by IN-! laws whele me conduct and ournplellun ul me Investigation were at their discreuon as long as N was wnducted pursuant tn me plescllbed laws and proosourea. The Fmlnh Defendant suornined that the Plniniills claim was prqudlclal as it would disrup| due pluuess pm)! In me conclusion oi the lnveshgallan [3] This com is bound by me law enunciated by me Federal Court In Now some: Tlmoa (Malaysia) and v Kurnpulan Konu Nlnya Sdn Bhd & Anor [19:51 1 ML] 225 that clearly some . ‘/11 an application to strike outpleadlllgs under oroar iarulo 19(1)(a) no evidence shall be admissible and ma coulf must callsidsr only me pleadings lor the purpose oldslsrmlnmg whslilal me Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause olaorion or the statement ofDelencs disclosed no defence. The zeal to his app/led is wnslhsr on the race of ma plaadlng, [he courv is prepared to say lhal ma cause oramron or the defence is obviously unsustainable" [91 we own nas scrullmxed all me plsadings by all parties in ms case and nplrles mac n is not me opparlulls case to be dismissed M summarily. The Plainciii had atgreallenglh scipulaledlhefacts upan mien her causes of acllan are pursued. The Delendallls on me other hand had defended its position and cclnlended immunity under the FOHDS Act 1967 whereby an KBP|PwzwmEKxXk5mmD\g ’ ‘Nata Sum ...n.. will as used m mm s. nllmluflly MVM5 dun-rlnlil VIA mulls WM! in unis case given the [acts and encumsianoes thereto must be tried and considered on evidence to be mamined at inai no] This cdun reiers in me Federai Cuurfs decision in Loh Holdings Sdn Bhd v Poglin Develaplnenl sdn Ehd mm) 2 ML! ms where I! neid at me: ‘It cannot be gainsaid mar under arms r19 pleadings wrii only be slruck out in plain and obvious cases. So long as ins Staiameril af Claim discloses some ground oi action, were mere fan mar me piainmv rs unlikely to succeed at me trial is np gmlmd Idr smking our " [11] me is nuts case wnere ii can be cieariy determined summaniylhal the Piaimnrs eiairns are unsustainable. Amer smdying ine pleadings. (his opun edneindee man there is a reasonable cause er aeuon againsi me Defendants as dafimyd by the spud oi Appeal In mrapnn Fermai Sdn and v Slbah Forsstlndustrlu sdn BIu:l[2D11] 2 MLJ192 at p200‘ “The expression reesonabie cause of aclmn’ means ‘simply a racmai srruazion the existence ai which enzrires one person to airinrn from me com a remedy against ano!haIpsrsL7n'. . . The resr in be applied is whether on me face a! me pleadings. me court is prepared to say that me cause o/amen is diwidusiy unsuslairrabl .' [12] This own is not prepared to mid so in this inscanee Tne nexl cdnsiderenan is whether the Fourth neiendani is abie to strike out me Plainuirs ciaim under 0rdar18 Ruie 19(1)(b) where ii can mwv consider the amdavii evidence or all panies In Halapan Penna! Sdn Bhd (supra) the Court amppeal described me word ‘scandsious' as unnecessary and IN KBP|PwzwmEKxXk5mmDig -we Sum ...ne.r MU he used m mm ea annr.u-y sun; dun-nun! vn .nnne WM! lnelevam. It IS clearly not so here. The Plalmm had pleaded all the lens and avams that had leken place that neoessnale her lnsmuling this suit. [13] There are oenelnly Issues to be tried The issues lnclude the Defendants’ claum ol imlnumly which cannot be deemed war: we slnkmg out anplicallon. Thus Conn agrees wnn lhe demsmrl in Zlklrll lzln Molmnui Eu vrmo Abdul Axiz bin Alunad 5 are (155512 MLJ 222 an p225 cited by me Responden . ‘The mailers raised by both parties In their amdal/Rs are mainly qussllbns of fad a be decided Bl lhs Mal. There are also pmpasmens uflaw raised by [he plslnlm whether ma pub/icalion in M9 newspapers on Mann 2, 1982 alleging his arrest is defamatory and wnemer lhs stoppage onus salary was dune bone Iide through the facts have been sdmlflsd. The deIerldents' claim to lmmun/ty lrom suns 7: else a serious quesrian oflaw which has lo be gone into 8! I//a/. / cannal 51 fhisjunclure usurp the luncllarl ofs lflsfludge and deal with mesa issues summarily. In my view. me pleserlt pleadlng read as a wnale and presuming all the ellegallons to be trues ls not a plain and abs/ilmx case to smka out as disc/Dsmg no reasonable cause a! action. Nor are may scandalous ar yexelmus man abuse cflha plocess ollne cannon lne gmunds aavanoeo by (he Learned SEND! Federal counsel The appllcallarl is msmlssed with costs. ' [14] Therefore, el lhls juncture it cannot be said that me Pleinlilrs elelm ls scandalous, lnvoloua nr vexafuus. Tms Courl has oonsmerecl me Founh Defendant's subm uns mat contended me Plalnmrs slalm is Improper because me am ol irwfingalion nae yet lo he oonolueeo as me sw KaP|PwzwmEKxxk5mmD\g 7 -use Sum IIIVVDIY MU as used a mm as snlmu-y MW; dun-mm VIZ .neae Wm proaaourea and lime laken to conduct and complete Invaatlgauon are at Ina oasorauon ov ma Defendanls. Hill (Apponnnr) v chm conszame or Welt Varkshim (Respondent) man) AC 5: was clled. In parllcular, Ine Fourth nerenoanl suornlneo on «he pan onne House at Lords’ decislurl Iouming D" the Wlde dlscrelion glven to the chief police uflicer when as to now me dunes are lo be exeouIao ano resources depluyedu [1 51 Hwvsver, Ina House or Lords vecugnized me wrlious liablllly 0! pence omoers alpsl-1: ‘There is rm quastion [hat a police omcer, like anyone else, may oa habls III Ion Ioa person who is injured as e um: rasuu oflvs aolor omtssians. so ne may oa liable In uarnagas ror asaaun, unlawrul arrasl, wrongful fnlplfsonmenl and msllclous pmssclttlorl, and also for negligence. Instances wnera Ilanlllly /or naglrgenca nae been eslab/Ishsd are K/vghrlsy v Johns [1932] 1 WLR 249 and Rlgby v Chief consraole of Northamptonsllinz [1995] 1 WLR 1242, Funhev, a pa/Ice owner may be guilty nfa crimmal orrenoa Me wlllfully falls to perform a duly whlch no is bound Io oenonn by common law or by stands’ saa Reg I/DylIIam[197§] GB 722 where a oonszaola was cunvicled of willful neg/eel or duty, oeoause, bsirlg prasanl aI the scene we wo/em assauu rasumng In Ina oaaln onna vlctlm, he no.1 liken no steps Io /nlsrvarls " [15] In mu (supra), ma cIaInI was against me pollce Io: Iamng Io aopnenena me murderer who was allegeu to have oonuniueo a series at muvdevs and attempted murders aver years prlor Io Ina oeoensews murder. and mus ll was alleged that me police were neglvgenz in prevenlmg the deceased‘: murder. Whether the duly 0! care awed by H19 police Iowama Ine oeoaasad was deliberaled and almougn mere existed SIN KaPlPuzwmEKxxk5mmDlg ‘ wane Sum ...na.. MU he used a mm no ollnlnnllly sun; dun-mm VIA .nnno WM! reasonable lereiteeability o pnlice did not promptly apprehend the murderer. there was ahserloe or ingredient or enaractenstic as iind liability on the pan ol the police. aly harm to such as me deceased it the [17] The case at hand is ditlerent. The Plainlill I3 nut claiming that the Detendants had la} in prevent 5 vanlcular crime from happening or negligent in preventing the deceased lrdrn such death, hut the Deferldams’ lailuie and/or negligence in the eteetitien cl lheir staiiutdry dutles as evident by the praeeedlngs hetore the Coroner and therealter the appeal at the High court [is] The facts in this case also dlfler horn those in Radhalrrishnan Alng-ml r L Anar V Muhammad zanirl whoth Kallmuthu is ors (20221 1 Llvs :in where the claim against the liral detendarii in that case pertained id statements dtwdrds that were allegedly uttered oulpuhllshed lhatmuld cause hatred against other religions in Malaysia As considered by the learned High cduit Judlnial cdrnrriissianer, such cause cl action is not -recognized urider Ma/ayslan /aw in any /orrri whatsoeven it was decided that there is rid tdrt Mblasphemy and had reiused to create a new held at ten. The cases a1 Atip Ali v Josuphlns pom Nlmls .4. Ann! mu} cu Rep 29: and orig Bonn nu. @ chm Perry 5. Anal v Kenjaan Mallysla 120101 3 cu 125 were relerred ta. it then (allowed thal the alleged failure by second delendant ltd the leurih deiendarita) to lake anion under the Police Act against me lirst delendant was sustainable. [ls] in the premises, this court does not ilnd that the Plairitilrs claim is an abuse ufwurl process. The ground underordar 15 Rule 19(1)(d) Rot: in KBP|PwzwmEKxXk5mabDl§ wane s.ri.i ...r..r will as used m mm Die nllnlrullly MIN; dun-vlnril VIA mtiiia Wml cannot succeed \n we Instance This Court Is minded that the pawsr In s1nke am eune should be exercised eperingwy. [20] The (ma law on slriklng an: al n:\a\ms .e em down by me Supreme Conn m the celebrated case M Elndlr Builder Sdn End if United MGIIYS/all Banking Corporation Ehd [1993] 3 MLJ 36 w is only rn warn and abwaus cases meneeauree mum be had to me summary process under we rule and me summary procedure can only be snowed when it can 9/ear/y be seen [hat 8 claim or answsr re an we face cl it ‘obviously unsustainable’ (see AS or Duchy nf Lancaster v L&NW R/y Co). It cannot be sxsmlssd by e minme exammarion oflhe documents and facts nflhs case in arder m eee whether we party has e cause ofsction or a defence. (see Wemock v Mo/oney .s 0(5) The sumormss Iulfhm show that iimers is a point ev law whrch requires ssnous dlscussian, an onjecuon should DE lakon on [he pleadings and the pom! set down /0! srgumsnl under 033 I3 [which 78 V7 psri malaria Wfih our 033 I? of me RHC)(sss Hubbuck A Sons Ltd V VI///kinson, Heywood 4 Clark Ltd) The Dam! must be selfsfed that there rs no reasonable cause of acfian or that me claim: are /rrvolous or vsxsliaus nr [hat me de/B/was reamed are not arguable." [21] In me prenuses. we Cmm opines that mere are senoue queeucne to he argued and med em KaP|PuzwmEKxxk5mmD\g ‘“ -we sum IHIVVDIY M“ be used m my ee nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm vn nF\uNG W

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1556-10/2020

PERAYU 1. ) YAP KIM HIN 2. ) LIM GEOK KIM RESPONDEN 1. ) CHUA BOON HOCK 2. ) CHUA YOK SIN 3. ) LIM KIEN HUAT

(a) whether the Court of Appeal (CA) - (i) is functus officio and cannot extend the time period to perform an earlier peremptory order made by the CA (Previous CA’s Order); or(ii) has a discretionary power under r 93 read with r 1A of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 (RCA) to extend the time period stipulated in the Previous CA’s Order; (b) can the CA vary the Previous CA’s Order pursuant to -(i) r 105 RCA; and(ii) s 69(4) and (5) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964?

11/12/2023

YA Datuk Wong Kian KheongKorumYA Dato' Lee Swee SengYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=99df3b8e-9642-413c-969a-fef9c17a8fdc&Inline=true

11/12/2023 10:09:52 W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1556-10/2020 Kand. 95 S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w—u2(m) (m:vc)—1s5s—1u/2020 Kand. 95 n/12/mu mzae-sz m we count or ADPiM. or muvsu wrmuas Junlanlcnom M APP w :4 1 «main aawszn I up KIM mu man: No. sunm.m.a:m) 2. uuGEoKKIM(NmCNo:a2o4:n-106524) .. APPELLANTS AND 1. cum soon nacxmmc ND:6m2nb1fl—Ml1) 2. mun vox sm wuc no: 501214-Incas) a um KIEN numumc ma; sunszsntsaas) xzsvcmneurs mm-H umlum r r.a.un.mm gm: 5 No w»2z~cvm9~.m@;q Between mm: soon How mmc No canine-vn43Ae7) 2 mm. m Sm (Nmc No swzwvnuais) 3 mm nu mm mm: Nu 690523055169) Pmrmrvs AMI Yap Km: Hm mm Na 59052149-szm 2 hm Gum: Km (NRVC No azmmmssm n.~.nuams1 memo voazmzk mm m me count or upm as muvsu wvznmz Jmusmcuany M: Arllzu u w an IEMEEN . ur Km nm was NO‘5iDl21-‘N241! 2. ma uzox Km man: no: szoamoasz» .. upmmvs mu 1 CNIIABOON Nockwnlc N0:0In1nb1n-W11) cum vok sw (Mme no. somumwz» um mm nunmmc no Ianszsnu-54m) REsPcNnENts . N uwmuKwPEGwnw75wX~1P:IA mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm hCauIInlMall (Kal In (F mYe Qw ; MNn WA-22Ng&(1E1gg_pg_u Eelwecn awn Ewan Huck(NRlC' Nu ssnzasmum 5 Guns Yuk Sm (mu: Nu 5912IA—IB»66DJ) a llm Km: HunI(NRIc Nn saoszsoawzw Ptamnr ma 4 Vlp mm Hm (me No snuszuoszw 5 mm cm mmmmc Nu szomuoaazoy Dehndants] coma: LEE swss was, ac: mnnnnuw svsn (sum. 4:4 mm Kw: xnzous, «ca JUDGMENT A. Background 1 For ease av reterenoe, we shall rs(er an pames as they were in the Hlgh own (He). Three Walnflfs (Flalntlfls) have med a am! in me He (Sui!) against Mo aetendams (Defendants) (or, among others, an order ov specmc performance 04 a Sa\e and Purchasa Agreement dated 24.2.2016 (SPA). Arm 9 to the SPA, among nmers, the Defendants as ea- pvupnelcrs at a maze ov land held under GranI£7136, Lot no. 4472, Mukwm Ulu Langal, Ulu Lsngal Dlslricl. Selangor (um), had sold Ihe Land at a pmze of RM2,s rmmon In five ea-purchasers, namewy. sw uvvmuKwPEGvvnw75wX~1P:IA ‘Nata smm ...m.mm be used m mm r.. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm Jainder Avnhcanarr (He), Paragraph (b) [CA': Order (25.a.2o21)] mum not «hereafter be invoked by (he Defendants lo slnke out the Sun! If omerwise, «his will deiear me Purpose [Paragraph (a)] and the sun wrn be struck out due In a mere Iechnicahiy. name!)/r me Plarmifis‘ laHure In abvain a Jomder Order wimin 14 days lrorrr the dais at cA's Older (251.2021); and (4; as decided in Nlwacus. me above inlerprstalmn wrn ‘give srrecr (0 every part at CA‘; Order (25.21.2021), namely. Paragraph (5) [CA’s Order (25 52021)] and Paragraph (la) [CA’s Order (25.8 2021)]. F. wrrunrcr CA can wag Pzragragh (I7) [cA's omr125.n.2n2I)1 25. To name Enc 19 |Delendants' 1“Appeal) and the Defendants’ 2"“ Appeal (CA). we have no hesrtallon to exercrse our drscreuorr |u vary Paragraph (I7) [CNS Order (2532021)) as vouaws - the Prarrmns shall me an apphcahun in the Hi? to jorrr aH relevanl pamas In the Sum wrmin 14 days iruru me da|e oi Ihe ordar of W: CA (1s.4.2a2:s) and r1 me Plamlrffs Vail in do so, [he sum shaH be slruck out (Variation [Paragraph (b)]) 26. our reasons for the Venetian [Paragraph (bjj are as lolkws: (1) as explained rn me above paragraph 24, the variarron [Paragraph (b)] gives eflecl to the CA‘: Older (25.s.2u21), espscrany Purpose [Paragraph [21]] and Purpose IPBHQFEWI M]: n srrr uvvrrruKwPEGwrw75rwXqP:IA rm! sum In-nhnv WW r. used m mm rr. nvVn\ruH|y mm; dun-mm VII murm wrur :2; rr the Vanaucn [Paragraph (5)1 Is not made, here will be in Imusllce re me Phmufls because - (3) the Plaintiffs’ Jarndernppucaciun (HG) was made wsH wnmrr me 14 Days Period [Paragraph am] but me Deverrdancs had ubjecled la the P\ain|ifis‘ Jcinder Apphcacrarr (HC) [Do rrd.rrrw Objection (Plalrrnu-' Jolndor Applluuorrn The Defendants‘ obpcuon qP|armr«s' Jarrraer Applwcalicn) was me 5019 reasnn why me previuus Paragraph (up [CA's Order (25 3 2021)] could not be Iumuea by me mainms; and (b) the Delendanls would be awe to s1nke om me Sm: wrmom a mal In other wards, ms Puarrrmr would be deprived annerr consurunorral rrgm olaooess lo jusnae without the Suil being Ined and deems?! by Ihe cnurl on W; mems. The CA has an mherenl powsr(as dedared by r 105 RCA) ‘to make any order as may be necessary In prsvarrz rnjusfics“. Anomdmg to r 105 RCA - r ms rrrn-rorrxpw-r. with: court For In. vofdlncl nl dullbl, n I: mnmv mu rruwny In mm [RCA] 5'1!’/bl dumnd to nrrrrr nrnlhct nr. irmuvvl pomrsnrrm Courrrumakt anyomulu In-ybc nlnssary to pm-rrr lniuxlia at In pmvsnl an ahuse arm. pvosess aim Cowl “ (emphasis added) The vanalion [Paragraph (ml is made by us HI the interest of jusuoe Dursuant lo cu inherent pawel; and (3) win regard In ma Defendants’ 2*-1 Appeal (CA), the CA is empowered by s 69(4) and 15) CJA in make me Variallon [Paragmph (bu. we reproduce balm: s 5914; and (5) CM - ‘a 59 Hunnq uflppuls. (4) nu ma uIAppMI may draw immim ol rm, and g/vs any luagmnl, and mm my ordw mien cum in rim bun ulvon or N160, and mm such rim.’ or other onion‘ as in. cm nquin: (5; rue pawn: nfwusa/:1 may be Ixllchud nanwllnmnalny inn the noflcu of appeal ruin» only no pm or can duclslon, and ill! powets may Ilsa b. Ixarclud In mm of .1: ol my al ma rvspondults or purl-s mnnugn in. responflenrs or um: um rml .pp..l..1 from or complained am. dnclslon ' (emphasis added); and (4; ms Variallnn [Paragraph 02)] does no| occasion any lnlustics lo we Defendants, The Defendants have me ngm to resist to me mil the Pleirlllfls‘ second appllcahan in the HC to join all ralevsrll names In Ihs Suit [PlalMNfs' 2'-i Jolndu Application (non lnhe Defendanls are dissatisfied wim Ihe nos decision in me P|ain|n1s‘2”‘Jolndel Appll4:al1an(HCj, they have a runner right to appeal In CA Ihereafler. 13 SN llvvmuKwPEGvww75wX~1P:IA 'Nnl2 Sum mm. will he HSQG M mm u. nllmrullly MIN; dun-mm VII .mm mm G. Qgn CA mulls variation [Parlnugh lb) wimeul guy g|ml'gl|on i_:r mpg-l by Plnlmlfm 27. riielly, lne above iimgmenl is given puieuanl lo lnia oaurfs aeci en in Eric. 19 (De1endanls‘ 1" Appeal) and Defendants‘ 2"“ Appeal 10:) in olher words, lrie cA is nal aeling an ils mm mo|i0rl in making me vanalien [Paiegi-apn lei]. 25. Secondly, as explained in lne above sub-paraglaph 25(2), ma CA IS enly axamlslng iis inhelerlt power lo make lna Variation [Paraglaph (h)] we are unable to find any case in Malaysia and me ceinnienwealui wnien naa decided tl1aH|1e men can only exercise ils inlieienl power when male is a specific applieaiicn or parllcular appeal wnieli nas hsen filed by a pany for me calm in invoke lla lnnaienl pawer. 2:: Lastly, in VIEW oflhe Delerldarlls‘ 2"" Appeal (CA; namllhslanding me can lnai ine Plainlms have ne| applied in appealed to CA. cA IS empowered under 5 59(4) and (5) CJA (0 make the Varlaflun [Paragraph (b)]. H-Em 30. ll is nol uiapinad lnal CA nae a wide aiscieliun up award coal: in all preoeedlngs before me CA pursuant lo 5 70 CJA read iagainer willi IT 54 and as RCA 31. we unhesilallrlgly order me Flalnllfls in pay in me nelenuania oasis iei Eric. 19 (Defsndanls' 1-‘ Appeal) and Defendants‘ 2m Appeal (CA) This Is because inna Plalnlifls had at me aeniinenaanienl pl u in immul<wPEGvww75wXqP:IA wane s.ii.i llnlflhll will he used a mm we nllnlrullly MIN; dnunvllnl via AFVLING Wflxl me sun mined Mr Sun and Ms um, mmer as cu-Dlulnmfs or 09* dslendanls lhe Detenaanw Smkmg om AppI>1:a(mn and a1! subsequem proceedmgs mersm wumd have been unnecessary. I. Cgnclullcn :2 Prermsed on ma above reasons, we make me vauowmg avdavs var Elm. 19 (De1endan|s‘ 1“ Appeal) and De{andan|s‘ zm Appual (cm (1) Elm. 19 (Delendants‘ vi Appell) N msnmea winn soaks M RM5‘UOD no lo be pm by me Plainmfs «a me Defendants (sumecuo aHoI:amNeej‘ (2) [he Waintifis sham me an apphcallmv to jam an velavanl panlas m Ina HG wnmn 14 days «om me da|e oi ms ordev 01 CA 413 A 2023) and upon such a tame‘ the sun shall be struck am. am: 13) me nerendancs 2"‘ Aapezx (CA) Is msmissed wnn cos: of RM5,nm7 on to be paw by me Plaunws «a ma Deoenaams (sumac: lo auocsmr fee) DAVE; I DECEMBER zuzs wane KIAN Susana Juage Conn av Appeak Malayswa u ‘yn uvvmuKwPEGvww15wxqPJA ‘Nuns smm ...n.mn be used m van; .. mn.u.y mm; dun-mm VII mum pans! For the Anne//ans Mr Justin Voon rmam Yu 5 Ms. Carolina Um seen Le (Messrs Justin voon chow‘ & Wmg) Fol ms Respondents: Mr. um Klen Huat .4 Ms. Kathy Wong Ker Smg (Messrs Les .4 Um) is sw uvvmuKwPEGwnw75wX~1P:IA -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm the F'|’iilrl|lWs, Mr. Soo Tack Lee (Mr. Son) and Ms Lirn Siew Klan (uir. Llm). Tne delence in me Sull had pleaded, among others mat lire SPA was a sham agreement because ine Land was actually used as e securiryidr certain pumriasee between irie parties The Delendenie filed an application in the HC to strike out the suit on me ground inai tne Plainms lied lailed to pm Mr. 500 and Ms. Llm as parlles in me suit 1Dof1ndInlI' Slrlklng our Application) The learned HC Judge drsiriiesed me Defendants‘ Sinking our Application wiiri casts [HUS nisrrirssai (bvfoiidlnlf Striking our Applli::llan)]. The Delerrdarrts appealed to the Calm al Appeal (GA) against the HC5 Dismissal (De1endari(s‘ sinking Out Applicahun) [DnfIndnnI:' 1" Appul (cA)] with regard to the Defendants‘ 1‘ Appeal (CA), me idiidiwrng order was made by CA on 25.8 2021 [CHI order (25.a.2n2I)], among diners- tr) (he De!endanls' 1“ Appeal (cm was dismissed iparsgrapn (I) [cm Ordnr (2s.a.2o21)l}: end (2) me HG‘: nisriirseai ir;eieiidams' Shlklng Dui Apptiearrerii was varied wherein rrie Plainmls were required re iein Mr S00 and Ms. Lim as ctrplairililfs er no-defendants in me Suil wnriiri 14 days rrarii me date ei CA’: Order (Z5.B.2l121)(H Buys Porlod [Fangraph (am and w ma P\a\nWs (all to an so‘ me Sm! shafl anana as slruck ow (Pnruurnph (b) [on om: (25.a.2o21))). 9. Pursuant (0 Paragraph (:7) [CA‘s Order (25 52021)], on 2.9 2021 me mamws mad an appncanon to join Mr. 300 and Ms. mm as parties In Ihe Sull [P|ainliffs' Joindur Application (HC)] Th: Flamm'ls' Jomder Apphcauon (HC) was supported by an affidavn purporledw amrmed on 2.9.2021 by the second walnlifl (2-= Plailltifl) belore a Commissioner far Oaths, VM Tengku Fanddudm bm Tengku Smalman (cm; 10. The Defendants nhiecled to me Pmnuffs‘ Jomder Appllwliun (HC) on the ground mat among others, the 2"“ Flainlnfs avfidavm had nol been amrrned bevore the CFO, 11 The learned HC Judge struck out the Plainmfs‘ Jamar Appucauon (HG) wm: - 11) no order as to costs; and (2; liberty to me a (rash F\alntifis' Jmnder Apphcation (HO) smnam lo 'dIrsI7fiL7n" (arahan) wmch may be oblamed by the Plawnlms mm the CA mm Iegard to the 14 Days Period [Paragraph can ((ime period «or the Plamhffs us .a.n Mr 500 and Ms. Lnm as names In the Salt) [HC's Ordar (PIaimi«s' Jolndlr Aupllclflonfl 12. The Defendants have filed an appeav tn CA agawnsl the Hos Order (F\aimflls’ Jmnder Applicalmn) [D-manna’ 2"‘ Appeal (cA)]. sw uvvmuKwPEGwnw75wXqP:IA ma s.nn In-uhnv M“ be used m mm s. nflmnnflly MW; flan-mm VII mum pm Proooedtngs ln cA 1:5. in the Detendahts' 1" Appear (CA), the Detendants med a notice ul motion in court enotosure no. 19 [Eric. tn (Dmndnntv 1" Appealt] tor the iollowirig orders trorri the CA, arnorig others. (1) an order to ehtoroe Paragraph (bl [CA‘s order (25.8 2021)], and (2; an order for the suit to be stmck an 14 The Dstendarits‘ 2'-1 Appeai (CA) has saught tor the cA to reverse the HC‘s order tPiaintitts' Joirlder Appiication) and tor the suit to be strucx out pursuant \o Paragraph (ta) [<:A'a order t25.a.2a21)] 15. As Em: 19 (De1eridents‘ 1-‘ Appeal) and the De1endanLs'2"‘ Appeai (CA) concerned the same facts and issues, we have decided to hear together Eric 19 (De1eridants' 1" Appeait and the Deteridants' 2" Appear (CA). lnuns 16. The tollowing three questions shait tie deuded in this judgment (1; whether the CA is rurictus uflrcic and cannot extend the t4 Days Period [Paragraph (b)] This issue discusses the cA's discretionary power under r 93 read with r 1A 0! the Rules at the court alAppea|1§94(RCA); 12) can the CA vary Paragraph (b) [cA's Order 125 B 2o2t)] and order the Fiaintiris to «Is an applicatiu in the HO |o idin an 5 SN tMmuKwPEGwrw7frwX~1P:IA Nate s.ii.i ...is.i M“ be used M mm s. siiiii.ii-y MVM5 flnunvilnl via nFiuNG WM! reVevanI pamss \n he Sum wrmir. 14 days lmm the date er me order a! (N3 CA an 15.4.2023 tmslread ol the lequlvamenl for me Flawnliffs to ubvam an ordor vmrrr me HC la rorrr Mr 500 and Ms. vn me sun): This concerns an rrrzerprenanrorr 0! me purpose or CA‘s Order (25.1: mm), and 13) whether the CA can vary Paragraph (b) [CA's Order (25.s.2o21)] pursuant to - 1a) r105RCA:and my 56914]and(5)afIhsCnurvsolJudu:alureAc119B41CJA); - wimnut any appeax or applicanoh by the marnuws to the CA. 17. we are not alfle to find any prewous Malaysian case whhzh has deuded on me above queshons. n whnhor CA is Igggms omclu with raga:-rs to gm; order 25 021 131 The firs| quesnon «o be ds|ermIned rs whether this CA » (1) has the arscrenronery power to extend H1: 14 Days Period [Peragraph1b)l:ar (2) rs barred by me Iurlclus alflcro aacmrre «mm revl Days Period [Paragraph (en. mg the M 19. The doctrine av /unclus ammo has been explained by Nelh Palhmanathan FCJ In Ihe Federal Ooun case 0! Stony World sun 5 sh uvvmuKwPEGvww75rwXqP:IA -we s.rr.r nu-nhnv wm re used m mm we mrrrmrr-y mm; dun-mm VII AFVLING Wm! and v Engansll (M) Sdn BM [2020] 12 MLJ 237. at [13]. as follows ‘[13] n 1. sound ma um anm . cam! nu wunaunm . n...: ma. n am not pants: 4». mnamy to II-opvn -rm. nrmnd -nd xunplemern the hull ardcr mfljuflgmem romlng In on dispute :1 has Idludlcpted upan. This mu, known 1: ma doctrlnu oliunrlut amen» stems Inn: 1!» pm.a:,,:. nillnllny n. Inlynion. finru rmuld pa amt Imcnrlnlmy and mm It courts wen pervnlnad tn ruvitw and ncvmldw final omurs nnd luflgmuntr ' (emphasis added). 2o. wa rspmduce bekaw rr1A and 93 RCA: ‘M r M Cour! auudgo shall nu raganv Ivjltsfloo In udmlnrslulnfl any orIRcA1 honln, tho com or .1 Judy: smll Inn ruglrd to nnajusuaa anna narflcular me and not only to uh: tmhnicnl mm-cnmplilnzl alany oI[RCA[ nmm r 9.7 Puwel ol com or ./nag. la anmga at lbridgo mm. Me com on Judge mu law pawur to enlarge or abridge ma nme appafntod by masa Rum, at {hr by an war Inlzryinq limu for dafng lny let M Inklng lny piucuding, upnn such mm: 1» any) as ma [nation of m. an my rvquiu, and any sum smargamsnt may be omsmd aflhaugh ma npahcalrnn /01 mo same rs nor mm unnl alter ma Jxkrralron anna mna appmntpd or alien/Pct’ Prm/mad max when me I/me rm aemnng any pleadmg 0! document 0! my any smdsvu, answer or dacurmlvt, or flumg any 50115 or has oaan mac or nnmaa by any ullhese Rules nr by any dwucnon an 0! under ma summons fur dwadmns u by an we: or ma Court or a 2 N uvvmuKwPEGvww75wX~1P:IA ma sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; flan-mm vn mum pm Judge ms cont: d/any appucarron In oxrvnd sum (we and or any ardlr mado mason mu be home by me many mlkmg sum app:/can/on.“ (emphasis addad) 21 We have no nasrxauon to deduce mat the CA has a discrmmnary power rd extend any nme peflod which has been prevlausly ordered by me CA. sucn a drscrarranary power rs clsarlram r as RCA (me CA -snan have paws! rd fix by an M16! enlarging urns, for dorng any 50! Dr Ialdng any ploceedmg, upon such Iemvs (if any) as me jusxfce dune case may rsqufmfi. Furthermore. by vmue 0! r 1A RCA, in ma applrcauan cl r 93 RCA, the CA -snau have regard to ma nraoca of ma pamculsr case and nor only la the lechmcal rmlh camplfancs 0! any uI[RCA] 22 The /umus olficfc dacmna rs provided by case law and cannot override wnnen law. Aceamlngw, [Ms CA is not lunctus offcio and ms in dracrerronary pawar under r 93 lead wnn r M RCA lo extend me 14 Days Period [Paragraph m] In rne Vnlerest of wstwoe In pavagraph 25 beluw. we provide aw reasnns In! extending me 14 Days Period [Paragraph (b)] as wan as an why Paragraph (b) [CA's Order (253.2021): shomd be varied by «ms ecun. E. Wha] via; Eurfigg 9: CK! Ordor 255.102! ? 23. wun regard to me eonscnmrm of CA‘: Order (25 3.202‘ ), we adapr ms Ionowing approach ward ddwn by Chang sraw Far CJ (sanan ar Sarawak) in me Federa\ Courl case of Nuwacm sun and v srl Mam Sun and [2000] 2 MLJ 353, an 374: an uwmuKwPEGwnw75wXqP:IA ‘Nuns s.n.r n-nhnrwm r. used m mm r.. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] mum Wm "n. R. Stnnd Music ran 50 m (was; .15 Boav 15:, so John Rnmilry we oburvld 4:: y 155) n.. amply mad: nlcnnstmlng my mm mummm I: m um mm to my Dart um um: M possrnn. -nu not in man out or nutmy on elm" in - dud, mm 1: b1 imporsfbll to mconclll u wm. lnaklmr mdrnon -xprvts clean in the sums ma rnougn mo mm cum: p-ssm mm-.1 ta a and, m. dacllndprincipln .pp:m, m my mw, oquuryzo. cnunon1Ir' (emphasws added). 24. We are av the consmered mew that Ihe purpose 0! CA‘: Order (25 6 mm Vs as (aHows* (1; by reason of Paragraph (a) [cA's Order 125.a.2a21)]‘ me CA had decided «mu nmwunscanamg (he P|ain| 5' non-‘cinder av M( 300 and Ms Lwm VI! the Sun (Plaintiffs Non-Jollldlr (Mr. sac and Ms. Llm)], the CA did nol strike out Ihe Suil H VS thsrefnre clear that me purpose o1 Paragraph (a) [cA‘s Order as a 2021;] is lor me man av the Sun m proceed aespue the Hamxirrs Nan-Jalndsr (Mr, 500 and Ms, um) (Purpose [Paragraph (an). The Purpose [Paragraph (a)] is in consnnanue mm o 15 r em M me Rules 0! com 2m2 which pruwdes as muoms - “A caun at mum mu not an durum by reason aims mtqamdlr or nun-1e:n¢.r or my wry. nu ma Caun my 1!! lny cum or mlflur d-hrmin: m. mm or qmuom in 9 sw uvvmuKwPEGwnw75wX~1P:IA -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm (2) (3) drama. in Br I: my arm: rm mama and lnnnsu arm- parsuns who In p-um to urn sum or rn-mu " (ernpnasrs added): Paragraph (up [CA's Drder(25.8.2021|] requrred rne Plainms to pm Mr. 500 and Ms. Lum In ma sun. The purpose 0! Paragraph (b) [CA‘s order 125 3.2021» rs up ensure nnamy m Imgaurm. namely‘ the oourfs fina\ deersrdn in me sun [courfl Flnal De n (Su1I)] shafl net nnly and ma Prarnnns and Deiendanls bul anau s\so brnd Mr. S00 and Ms. Llm (Furpnn [Paragraph (am If the ca drd not drder Paragraph (5) [CA‘s ordar (25.a.2o2n]. ML 500 and Ms. Lrrn may sunsaquenuy rrnpugn me val y at me Caurl’s Fina! Daersran (sum on the ground char Mr. S00 and Ms. Lrrn have not been afiordsd merr ngm of hearing In aeoardanca with me second rura of natural mslma. Paragraph (:2) [CA's order (25.3 2021)] we-supposed mat upon me mrng 0! We Plavnlms‘ Jomder Application (HC), me Delendams wdurd nnl amen merera and me HC wourd mamafier make an order In rain Mr. S00 and Ms Lrm as parties in We Suit (Joinder Order! Defendants were to cmecl la the PIBIHIWS‘ Jamder Applrcaliun (HG) for any raasarr (as had happened m nns case), are Plalnlms mum nn| be expects-1 to uhtarn E Joinder Order Wflhm 14 days rrdrn me dale or CA‘s Order(25.8.2021). Trns was because rl me In view 0! the above inlerprelanon of Paragraph (b) [CA‘s order (25.a.2n21)1r If ma Dslendants were rd object to me PIainM1s' no srn uvvmuKwPEGwnw75wX~1P:IA "Nuns s.n.r In-uhnv M“ be used a mm rs. arwmnauly MW; dun-mm VI] mum wnxr

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-12BNCvC-109-12/2021

PERAYU ENABLING ASIA TECH SDN BHD RESPONDEN MYPAY MOBILE SDN BHD

This Court found that there is no merit in this appeal.This appeal is dismissed with costs of RM10,000. The decision of the Session Court is hereby affirmed.

11/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=33cdcf76-fcca-4339-ad9e-486067b63486&Inline=true

11/12/2023 11:40:43 WA-12BNCvC-109-12/2021 Kand. 36 S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ds/NM8r8OUOtnkhgZ7Y0hg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—12am:vc—1o9—12/2021 Kand. 36 11/12/2023 11:An-u IN THE MIGH COIJRY IN MALAVA A1 KUALA LUMPUR IN ms FEDERAL rsnnlrokv, MALAYSIA cML APPEAL NO -wM2aNcvc.1an.u/2021 asrwszu ENABLING ASIA rscn sun arm ....ADPELLANY (coma Roe: mow-T) AND mm: mom: son arm ....RESFONDENT (Bump. Rafi: «mun-xy cnouuns or JLIDGMEN1 :al [1] ma Appellanl was dssahsfied with me uecwsscn ol Ihe Sesslnn Court on mm 2021 mm zwamed In the Respondent ns coun|erda\m m me amounl ol RMB04‘92D.3Q mm Vmamsl 015% pm annum and wsls nl RME,000. sw as/Nuauaauaxnnmzvvnnv -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [21 The Respondent in its eounteteteint med in tne run element that it had acted in good tetttt and mutual trust, and was tnntteeo to enterimo a Mobile vtnuai Network (MVNO) Agreement with the Aundlant Pursuant thereto, the Respondent tiad palfl the Said amount Htmevvtzn stnoe an ttte stm cards purchased from tne Aopeiient wera deiocltve vmareby me Apoeitent had refused and/or tattoo to rasarve me Said issue, he Respondent etetmeo tonne retum mine moneys paid. [3] In edoitton to me oietm M rntmpreeemetion by me Avpellent, me Reevonoent had eteo ndduccd musnoe I| mil to Ihvw tne Aweiiant had eixo braached Clams stmemerwim Annex 5) and Olauu14 Amerttte MVNO Aureement. [A1 Mler a full met, me Session Conn new that tne Rospemtem was entitieo Io ctetm the money: paid oureuent to tnezr agreement (IINNO Agreement) The Session Court fuum1Iha|me Responoent had entered inmlhe M\/N0 Agreement and paid the moneys base: on me Aopeiiertrs reureeentanone. it was eiso found lha| me SIM cards supplied by me Aapednnltothe Resoondsm were ddecnva em no| manzhartlsble Waltty‘ wnten ms in moon onne Mvuo Agreement l [51 The Aoueitartrs Memurandurrt oi Appeal stated‘ amonge1 athars, lhalme semen court was in ermr when it made a finding met there was s duly oi care and cunsideted me pm-oonltam negotiation in conduding Inn oi nsgltgsnoe epptteo in tnterorenng me MVNO Agreement. SIN e.mue.eeoetnmeznm “Nair smut I-vthnrwm be HIGH m my t... miinu-y mime dnunvinnl VII nFit.ING Wm! ABIZIIL RAZAK 5 ans v. AMANAN RAYA am: 5 ans (20191 5 cm 419, Feaeral Cour! veemprusuun mus pcsmon a! pm 25 “In this regani, we are mindmlmarmfs munin ran Gaol: Lan v. La Kuan /200412 cu cm [zoaojs Mu l65,Ivs:1vuIsI1lI-val: consent order rs -lk/n to a canvas! mm supomddofl command oune court. Thu:-, rtmuslbegivsn ns lulloarwaclual slfocl. In: In be mzarprerou m rm samn manrm as mo court would A eormnct. rns canons oi untarmmron In -5 llrm -r us my cnnon: ov conurucoon womd an to a legal pvmizionn rm: pivumounf aonsadevultun Is to ascertain one mlsrlfion ofme pa-rm lolne mnsonuuagnwnr Such mtomion 1: to be olwjsctfvfiy suesnd by the com, m Dfivfrcular by rewawrng the /anyuaw snwored m the con:en1IU¢9fnenf' [151 The rule or the courts in recording Consent Judgment mars as me telms are dsswssea between me nonserlflns Denies wmmnl any Invnflvemenl of the cams Depending an the oansenn and agreement of the panien pattuular lads and Issues agvesd m may be ocnmrnm: and embedded in Ihe Conuanl Judgmansn. This could on gum or Mammy nlmangh novmaHy omen: Judgments are umsrud ho avme my mu.» as such and In more at - rwulution more amlcablo to name: wnhaul incurring lurmor um, cost: me mwurcas shuuld me use mowed lo 6uIl— bkwm trial bslors Ihe calms [191 ms Cour! nzvers to me Caurl o1Appea|'s decismn In Abdul Ihnk snukn Mnhmood 5 Dr: V Amlnah Rlyl End 5 on ma mower appoal lzum] 5 cu 273 Ma! nelu. n sm as/Nuauaauaxnknflvvmv mm. smm ...m.mn .. LAIQ4 w may he nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pm ‘A mnsenf/‘uogrvlem rs only mowed when the mpecm Mrganls had synod m wnlmg as to how to reach»: a Iegar suit Once ma cansenuudgmem had bsen psliscisd, me pamss am buurrd by /I and the Court rs wry bound la onioree ms spread (arms of (be same. The com cannot wary any ame agmv (arms unless wnn me mum: consamollhepames, Hence. one can any that me Conn rs /uncm oflick: at m olhnl wads, me come Derek ouunsmcoon la enema/n my request In 59! was such judgmanl ' [20] so, premised an ma Consent Judumenl and Au worangs. (hi) Caurl dues um names: we Appauanrs submlssmns (nu! ma Rospondem had breau-ea Ina MVNO Awasvnarvl by [he nan-payment anfl mus wl showod man me cenninanon by me Anpsflantwas lawful This Ooun dues not agree Mm me Aopeuanrs subtmsstonmallha Responaenn had unneeded mm: fact and wmwomnssd by paying me Appellant RMao,ooo Instead of me RM146,524.96 dawmeu for,Tha1was not what was stained m me cmsenz Judgmanl wn-mu mo finlngnaonl n eoummannn was n m-mod at my gg Ivvld nu Mwa A_Lgu-mung gy glllmlnn unlmuunmnon Ind . mug. vi eumm [211 This cam now turns to the ewaenoe um Remnuem had ldduood to prove na oounlevclalm Based on me evidence, me Respondent rm depended on me Appellanfs representations uunng me negonameus whuch manenansea in the terms at me MVNO Agreement In me emering and axeclmcn ov me and sauna: mm me Appenanz sm as/Nuauaauaxnnmzvvmv mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm ml "16 Ann-eilam had failed to ruuzlvu «nu Issuailproblems mm ma SIM cards it had provided no me Resoonuenl Allliouun Ihe Aupeilam had umlenaken in pmvide asssumoe in 015 means on 10 s.2nla ml it had union in do 50 [23] This Conn does nm find any srmv in ma finding oi lads by me Seszion coun. Funnmnore, mu com is satisllea that the said amounl daimsd in me counterclaim were me moneys paid by Ihe Responoenl. [241 on a Miner no|e. lms Oourl found lhztme Ao;:e4lan| had unlmnuly lenninaieu ma MVNO Agreement wlln me Rasonmanl on 13.12 mm — wnmn waslhe same dale Ihauhs Anpellanlhnd roquaslea MCMC for ma oasaamn ours licensed aonwuas as a network servica pmmdav. i251 rm larmlnllicnwas rmllrl nlxordaneu wllh Clause 2| mm. MVND Anvaemenl, mad Inqclhev wnn claim 20 on me Duralwl 01 in. Aareemunl mam in. puma! mm oonlmcnially bound in ma oann lnai the M\/NO Auvaurrlenl wu lo be In lame and olnuing on them for inmal lsrrrl uflwu year: lion. 2 10 m7. There dlfirlllely was nu lxemlse aims vnncbls oi raimoss in namculir wnen ma limos renewal 01 cm Respunflenl was made nnly om momn prinnmmlo. us] This Court I satisfied max mam was a material mpissenmon on Ihe SIM cards me Respondan purchased lrom me AppeIlarl| mien were at no usa. The Respondent had incurred costs including having had la swap lo alhevlelcus When me aviaamial burden snlllea lo me Awellsnk met me Respondent had relied on ma laprasenlallon. n had lalleu in discharge ma same. The com nl Appeal‘; dsdslon in Slm nioog many 1) am as/Nuaiaaualnkngzvvlmy “Nair s.n.i ...n.mn .. LAIQ4 M may .. nflglnnllly mi. dun-mm VII aFluNG pans! Sdn may run Kim nag 1. Kim [2003] 3 MLJ «:50 VS hereby retema co rm Therefore. 0:: Respondenlwas enmted Io be compevsaced with me payments mane pursuant m entering me MVND Agreemem [25] This Oourl is guided by me Federm Cwrfs deasmn m Gan you cnInLAnorvLee1nqcnIn&a:s[2Do414cu Smoked nyme Respondent, max new at paw. - In delannfne wlvelhualnak me mul mart mm mm at It aeclsuan or mmg canacw on the bar: of me mevant law and/hi ma osmb/rsmd nvmance. /rv dcung so, me Court alAapaaI was porfaclly mum: to mum mu process ofsvalualmn ulovtdwce by the W mun . 5/udga who was mqmnd la adjadicals upon . magma mus! lmvu at my decrsion on In issue arm: by assessing. wmqhmg and, lb! wodrousuns, mm umpamg or mpctmq ma who/H auarly pin‘ 0/ the avvdencs placed below mm. m Caun‘ of A99!!! mm rsiruvalud the principal csnlri In appoome Inruwnnon re ma! a daemon arrmd at by 5 ml com mhaul/udictal appreciation allhe av/dcnce man! no selasrde on appeal “ [29] This Ccunfims lhamuztewas no masammmn by the Session Court The Session Coun had exerdssd ns mm to me pleadings and me issues to be men when n exarmnsd the evmenee addubed. Icwas a\so correc1 Vrl fimflng man man: was a miurepmswvanon under 518 and s19 Contracts Am 1950 The sessxan Conn was a|sc uurect in fad and m law man In: Appdlanl m lallmg tn msmve me SIM cards Issues man i| provided to me .4 sm as/Nmauaauaxnkngzvvmy mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 M mm .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! Reupunaonx upon vfiyfl|en|, had breached ns cnnlzalnual unlvganons unde( me MVNO Agreemenl [30] ms coun lound man mere »s In ment in «ms appeal [31 1 ms appeax Is dsmisssd with costs of RM1o,onu. The oeclson at Ihe Sgskm Coun *5 hevuby ammsa DATED 29 MARCH 202: R02 MAWAR ROZAIN JUDVCIAL COMMDSSIONER HIGH COURT >N MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For me Awel/an: Kenneth sodlrey Game: T/n Ssharudm Ommun s No For me Respondent Shnprra Ram Malakar T/n snows Ran! Ma/aka! 5 co. 1; sm nsmuauaauaxnkmzvvmv mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [6] The Appellant submmad that (here was a Consenl Judgment entered on the semnd day ohnal ma! had resolved lle clam: for now paymarll lur me MNVO servloes lhal were Dfavlded by In me Reeporluem. The Aanellanlsuzanmea manna Respolvderllhad breached me M‘/N0 Aaleanelll by me mmzaymenl and lnlls lne Consent Judgmem shamed mat one lennlnmn by (he Apnallenl was lamul The Appellam sulnnlnea me: me Rasperldunl had genomes and mmpmmlsad by paylng lne Appellant RME0,0fl0. In mhal wome. me Appellant suhmmad Dual me Respondent hnd agraad |u me Aupdlanfs an|lra elnlnl by luwldlnu lne Consent .ludgmen|. m The Appellant cnmerlded me: me Respunuenrs Duumaldaim was a mellm M Iiylng on am: lne MVNO Agreement by clalmlnq -nlerepleseulallon and a nnaaal el oennacl The Appellant oornplalnea that lne Session Cmlfl had called ‘In my appsclale lne ratheralsmerltay ammalon between 2. validity ol conlrsct mar can be vmaled fol Imsrepleserlmtlorl and me Illlelprelatloll ol contract mm me contradiction and mlarpielallarl 0/ me lsrms ol Ills oollkam wee In me actual meenlng ol whelhor a brunch cl comnct ma lenn pl-an lmnw-lelmnalconlraclaooe nol enemas me vamtlryoma eonlmclnul rlnalny mmpvuenlellon mlyllhmlhe v-II-tllynlaconlrecl. v-llwt/hm man: mo avoidance of a conml unaer mo slat:/Iovy mwteson of 519 Contracts Ac: 19511 ' [sq we Appellanrs appeal was prernlsed on me pulnl that once the Sesslm Court fuulld Ihat Iheve was a misrepIEsema|iolI, than ll was Incumbent upon ii to have dealt with actionable mislaplasaenlalion. Instead, the Session Cowl proceeded In consider and mereallel laund sm as/Nmauaaualnknflvvmv “Nair Smnl ...n.mll .. l... M may he nflmnnllly ml. dun-mm VII nFluNG pm mm mm was alsn a mam of coma an me pan of IN Awellsm It was submmed max me Sesuon com me mumrecten wsen [91 Upon the assessmenloflha svndsnoe In Ihis can and the avnhcaue Laws, mis ceun dismsyad Ina AvDeaL The bass Vs than were were no elven by me sass-on Cowl In nnumg mu there were mmeprusmaflons by the Aweuam mu had Induced me Relpomiem Inlo exeeuung Im MVNO Auraemenv ha} The Ivldmeo had slw mwn man em Awellant use bruachnd a lew (aims of me MVNO Agreement As such, was season to allow me R9spondsn|'s wulllerdaim 3 afirmsd Tllehmsvflhnuan [111 The cvidenea adduced uunng me mal Inr me Rsepomenrs cnunlardmm (turn me scrulmy ofllhe Appeal Recards by mu com are as fnlkrws: (a) Furwanlloa series nlnegeunnons‘ um MVNOAgIsamemwu antmad by mm names on or abnul 2.10 2017 Pursuanllo ma MVND Agmemem, me Rssmndent was cu nblaln mums balewmmunlcation services «mm Ihe Appeilanl co enable me Respermsm Io metals as an MVNO [Mews Vlmul Network oneaam The Aapeuam hem Hcenee unaa me Cnmmunllnns and Muumedla An 1995 In any on me nusmsss ol prcvmmg mnbfle Ielecomrnunmalmns services m A sm as/Nmauaauaxnnmzvvmv mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Melaysle, also known as e meblle v-nuel network agwegater (MVNAJ. la) The network facllllies and/or servloes was known as me Enabling Asia Netwm wn-en lne Respondem em uts subscrlbers weve gwen access undet tne MVNO Under me lenns ol tne MVNO Agreement, me Respemlemwas tn sell me pm-paid sum cards supollea lay the Appellant The Respaneent was to pmmolo tne MVNO services at me Appellant. The Rnspculdlm mndunlud (ha emmes nl me sales and pmmnlmrs bearlng lls mm msls Bfld expanses (C) Upnn Ihe atemnnn or me MVNO Agreement, me Respondent new to the Aanellent RM555,s5u to acnvate tne semaes plovlded bylhe Appellant smce me V8|'Yb99l!InIng,merE were pmblams and lssuss perlalnlng lo me netwetk and semoee. rne Respondent received eonlptelnts nun ns custanters as my were unable to nenem «on. me sennees that was uonhaclualy tn ee pmwded let by me Appellam purxuam le me MVNO Airuamunl (d) The Respondent ancourllered numerous oomplelnts hm Ils wslomen ll lnen wrote ssveml tlntes lo the Appellant let a resolmlen to the lssoii the stretnea oerrespnndences did not resolve any Issues At me Wwule. me Appellant contended that there were sums outsharvding that me Respmldentdld not lmnouv tneugn lne Appellant oanlended me Respondent was billed monthly. The Raspundem rafmed lha| tea as ll nee sm nsmuauaaualnknflwmv «mt. s.n.l n-vlhnrwm s. .l... m my t... nflnlnellly mm: dun-mm VII mune Wm! mavnx received any niiiing ilatemanl iram me Apoeiiani, nm was it rain: in ma ourrespondeneas between mam (2) on me pm at me Appeiianx. n ma nnl pmva man 1 served on me Respondent me mummy charges. in Desprla rapaalad nullficatlwls cl me mmpllinll oi me swi tzrds‘ ma Plainlm had mused andlov iaiiea no r-my Ind/or mmiva ma issues Thus. nuna «:4 ma sim cards Durchlud in in. Respondent from ma Aupeiiani «mi in Respandenl Iheraaflav said to in omlomen oeidd be use The Rusnundanfs cuslulllars mid not use me iniemei naruurk ai all, my in any avenL ma strained correspondences led In me Ierminalhw oi me MVNO by me Aweiiam on 13 I2.2D18 pursuant la Clause 222 MVNO Agreemem whereby me Raspondum was alleged in having failed mpay me ouisunuing mm at RM121,E3I.7D. (h) Unknown to me Raspom-m, on 11.12 2013 me Awoiiani had wrmen in u Mobile sun am in lalrvunaie me uranuamanl and anreemenl M n bang an awmoaiovwim u Mums Sdn End This had msulled in me Aopelanl having had slowed us licensed aaiviaes as cf31.I 2019 (1) The Avpsllanl and nut Inform me Responaenl oflhal Wf|I:l‘| ms anly aisomma by me Respundsnl an 5.a.2ui9 when n had sougm cianiioauon mum Malaysian Cnmllllmlcahofs And 5 am nsmuaiauuainuinzwmv Fr “um. s.n.i nuvihnrwm be mad M mm he mimii-y mm: dnuuvinnl VII nF\uNG p-mi M-mimama Cummisslun (MCMC) The Appallarvl had um pmmea refunds co me Respmldanl (er ms lhwgh MCMC was umenne bellehflal n was made [12] The Coun aha noted me documerway evidence — wn pallicmar Clause « :1! ma MVNO Agreement read Ingumsv mm Amex 5 man had maany supuxazaa ma ngma and mnganions mma Appauam— rapmduosd narawn Ior aasy reference: '4 1 Enlb/fng Asia sha//be Iaaponsfblo lor- (alEIvsuru that n assists MPay Mama to avq-ma ma nemsnry//mm and appmvn/sfrorn sxumoranyomu aumormes, rt apphoaue, lo eneb/e MP-ay Moms to carry om its MVNO busimzss upavauans as snwsaged in ms Agreement, (b)Pmvldmg, operatvng and mamlammg me relevant lalswmmuntcanons tnlrxstrucmla and platform to anaua me pmvmon of ma MVNO swim m MFny Mom and ms Sunset/bars. (cJPmcurVW. handling. managing and Plnfinflr -N maltors Deflarnrlv to the snw cam and for me pncmlnv. Mum: and alectroruc ruww wman she/I bu umque to me MVND Services‘ (d)ManagirIg an aspects ofllle relations wnh me Subscribers and shall be M», Iasponslbls my me Subsm‘bers' sen/foe management indurlmg tocnnicsl support and network Ubemtron nanlras. am as/Nuauaauaxnkmzvvmv «ma saw n-nhnrwm a. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm {e)Fwm'sII4'ng MPay Menu. wnn uanaam mparls in! me eunanv month not Ialsr man Meenm an day of sacn subsequent monzn A2 In addmon an M9 above, Enammg Am shall also be rasponsibls for rt: miss and raspons/Mares as hated out w Annex 5 Annex 5 Ram and Resnommlrlm ollhs Farms 1 Ennb/ma As-rs Rain 5. Responsmolmau‘ - (a)Srm Pmcurarmnt (wvaucnar pnnnnv (nlboglstics (d)lnveIm)ry Managsmsnr (e)F'nnI of Sale menace (0 MSISDN Pluvlsmnmg and wondlaw (g)RsI9s A Product Managemonl (h)Sul>acr/bar Mnnagemlnl (u Rea! nm mung A Raload g) Value mm Sorwceu M Call Cantu nna wm Sell Cars (1) Ram mm Rating 4 Roland fm) Value Ama Ssrvicas W05/Icenlor and Web Serfcare (o)Tecrm)caI Operations (wearer Management (q)Repnfl and seerremenv fl) Market Intel/rgence [s)FlnuncJalRepoIr1Ivy sm as/Nuauaauaxnuaflvvmv Fr “um. snnnw nuuhnrwm be mad M mm :2. nrW\ruU|Y mm: dnuumnl vu mum p-um (1) Pmmortans plannrw (uuomt ram P/amvmf (I/)JomI Puma Pranmnv" [131 We Respunaem had relwed an Gauss I4.4(s) 01 me MVNO AgIeemen|Ihal pmmdm ma1|haAppeIIan|was Hablelm me Voss incurrnd by me Respandem should n arose mu ovma Appeflanrs Icl er amwssmn '1llEa¢h Party shall be /rlbls to ma other In mspocl w my ronowmg mmni arising an! of any net or omission al the dsfiullmv P-fly. us servants, -mpraym and/or events" — [<4] The Respondent had made mevouowmg payments (as staled m me miss: or damavss cauafid by negnasnze or wmm ad or omission" wun|emIaImj In me Appeuanr W 127 137 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) (9) sun has at RM5G0.0oD on 210 2011. RMSBJSD var zsnoau sum cam: on 31 m 20:7; RMI5,90DVur1u‘000U sum cards: RMw,oon lo! mnawal clMCMC nuance on 13112013. RM1‘5a4 1a fov zooo Cas1el|pad<ing zdvamscmavlt on 13 m 2017; RM5374 ea forshnnk wrapping paper (to Mar: Pack Machineriss Sdn end), RMIO.685 for 25,mx: caueu pawn: advemsemenl; RM2,75a for 2a nieces mu up §ummg, and RM64,U5D lo! nlalrnename at man sum ms 9 sm nsmuauaauaxnkmzvvmv mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm mu coun mum [15] A Consent Judgmem was entered an 2s.a.zo19 lo resolve me Anpellanfs clam Forms Raspomsnrs ocunlzemlavm, me me! took seven day: — 29102019. 23.11.2019. 29.11.2019. 1612,2019, 17.122019. 1a1z.2o19anu1o2.2u2o Consem Jud m n 11 26 19 [151 As named 11: Kay mm names. ma Sassmn Cowl um roouvdld as Yollows: AKA AIJALAH mun mm m: nmnxuw sscmu FENGNAKIMAN PERSETUJIIAN bamiwa Dcfendan bersellllu untuk membayal kepada Ptammv sebagaf penyersman penuh dun muklamad lsrmssuk Iaodsh dan kc: sebanyak RMBD,DO0 (»?mgg11 Maraysu Lapen F'u/uh Rlbul sans» selepss kes/mm/an akmr dart kepnnusan perbrmraun temadap runman Salas Dofumian.“ U7] The Coal views a Ccnum Judnrnanl n a Iavm of salflemevvt balwsen mu Dania: to mom . Ilgal dwspula. Whdlmr mm is in rum’ ' n at‘ gum or 11a ivy demands an me «am eonnnhad In try me DinIes.Th1s makes comm Jmgme«11¢i1venn11mm me1-mmenxby me cauns alter the courts haw mm a «mum on me issues nu ma cases The wane: encompasses coM:\us4ons cl gum or Inabifify much me furmnx may m1 neoessanry indud: The Inner would emau me panms 11: mag by the terms ma1 the owns under The Oonsenl Judgement 1: a (mm or armcahls selflemem 1a pmvida a wiuwm smuauon between spuled Dames 1n solving Ihsir aisame. 11 1; acmuma :11 name. In KAMIL AZMAN an sw as/Nmauaauaxnkmzvvmv mm s.n.1...m.m111.. 1;... 1. mm 1.. 111111.11-y mm: dun-mm VII .m1c v-max

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1556-10/2020

PERAYU 1. ) YAP KIM HIN 2. ) LIM GEOK KIM RESPONDEN 1. ) CHUA BOON HOCK 2. ) CHUA YOK SIN 3. ) LIM KIEN HUAT

(a) whether the Court of Appeal (CA) - (i) is functus officio and cannot extend the time period to perform an earlier peremptory order made by the CA (Previous CA’s Order); or(ii) has a discretionary power under r 93 read with r 1A of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 (RCA) to extend the time period stipulated in the Previous CA’s Order; (b) can the CA vary the Previous CA’s Order pursuant to -(i) r 105 RCA; and(ii) s 69(4) and (5) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964?

11/12/2023

YA Datuk Wong Kian KheongKorumYA Dato' Lee Swee SengYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=99df3b8e-9642-413c-969a-fef9c17a8fdc&Inline=true

11/12/2023 10:09:52 W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1556-10/2020 Kand. 95 S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N jjvfmUKWPEGWmv75wXqP3A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w—u2(m) (m:vc)—1s5s—1u/2020 Kand. 95 n/12/mu mzae-sz m we count or ADPiM. or muvsu wrmuas Junlanlcnom M APP w :4 1 «main aawszn I up KIM mu man: No. sunm.m.a:m) 2. uuGEoKKIM(NmCNo:a2o4:n-106524) .. APPELLANTS AND 1. cum soon nacxmmc ND:6m2nb1fl—Ml1) 2. mun vox sm wuc no: 501214-Incas) a um KIEN numumc ma; sunszsntsaas) xzsvcmneurs mm-H umlum r r.a.un.mm gm: 5 No w»2z~cvm9~.m@;q Between mm: soon How mmc No canine-vn43Ae7) 2 mm. m Sm (Nmc No swzwvnuais) 3 mm nu mm mm: Nu 690523055169) Pmrmrvs AMI Yap Km: Hm mm Na 59052149-szm 2 hm Gum: Km (NRVC No azmmmssm n.~.nuams1 memo voazmzk mm m me count or upm as muvsu wvznmz Jmusmcuany M: Arllzu u w an IEMEEN . ur Km nm was NO‘5iDl21-‘N241! 2. ma uzox Km man: no: szoamoasz» .. upmmvs mu 1 CNIIABOON Nockwnlc N0:0In1nb1n-W11) cum vok sw (Mme no. somumwz» um mm nunmmc no Ianszsnu-54m) REsPcNnENts . N uwmuKwPEGwnw75wX~1P:IA mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm hCauIInlMall (Kal In (F mYe Qw ; MNn WA-22Ng&(1E1gg_pg_u Eelwecn awn Ewan Huck(NRlC' Nu ssnzasmum 5 Guns Yuk Sm (mu: Nu 5912IA—IB»66DJ) a llm Km: HunI(NRIc Nn saoszsoawzw Ptamnr ma 4 Vlp mm Hm (me No snuszuoszw 5 mm cm mmmmc Nu szomuoaazoy Dehndants] coma: LEE swss was, ac: mnnnnuw svsn (sum. 4:4 mm Kw: xnzous, «ca JUDGMENT A. Background 1 For ease av reterenoe, we shall rs(er an pames as they were in the Hlgh own (He). Three Walnflfs (Flalntlfls) have med a am! in me He (Sui!) against Mo aetendams (Defendants) (or, among others, an order ov specmc performance 04 a Sa\e and Purchasa Agreement dated 24.2.2016 (SPA). Arm 9 to the SPA, among nmers, the Defendants as ea- pvupnelcrs at a maze ov land held under GranI£7136, Lot no. 4472, Mukwm Ulu Langal, Ulu Lsngal Dlslricl. Selangor (um), had sold Ihe Land at a pmze of RM2,s rmmon In five ea-purchasers, namewy. sw uvvmuKwPEGvvnw75wX~1P:IA ‘Nata smm ...m.mm be used m mm r.. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm Jainder Avnhcanarr (He), Paragraph (b) [CA': Order (25.a.2o21)] mum not «hereafter be invoked by (he Defendants lo slnke out the Sun! If omerwise, «his will deiear me Purpose [Paragraph (a)] and the sun wrn be struck out due In a mere Iechnicahiy. name!)/r me Plarmifis‘ laHure In abvain a Jomder Order wimin 14 days lrorrr the dais at cA's Older (251.2021); and (4; as decided in Nlwacus. me above inlerprstalmn wrn ‘give srrecr (0 every part at CA‘; Order (25.21.2021), namely. Paragraph (5) [CA’s Order (25 52021)] and Paragraph (la) [CA’s Order (25.8 2021)]. F. wrrunrcr CA can wag Pzragragh (I7) [cA's omr125.n.2n2I)1 25. To name Enc 19 |Delendants' 1“Appeal) and the Defendants’ 2"“ Appeal (CA). we have no hesrtallon to exercrse our drscreuorr |u vary Paragraph (I7) [CNS Order (2532021)) as vouaws - the Prarrmns shall me an apphcahun in the Hi? to jorrr aH relevanl pamas In the Sum wrmin 14 days iruru me da|e oi Ihe ordar of W: CA (1s.4.2a2:s) and r1 me Plamlrffs Vail in do so, [he sum shaH be slruck out (Variation [Paragraph (b)]) 26. our reasons for the Venetian [Paragraph (bjj are as lolkws: (1) as explained rn me above paragraph 24, the variarron [Paragraph (b)] gives eflecl to the CA‘: Older (25.s.2u21), espscrany Purpose [Paragraph [21]] and Purpose IPBHQFEWI M]: n srrr uvvrrruKwPEGwrw75rwXqP:IA rm! sum In-nhnv WW r. used m mm rr. nvVn\ruH|y mm; dun-mm VII murm wrur :2; rr the Vanaucn [Paragraph (5)1 Is not made, here will be in Imusllce re me Phmufls because - (3) the Plaintiffs’ Jarndernppucaciun (HG) was made wsH wnmrr me 14 Days Period [Paragraph am] but me Deverrdancs had ubjecled la the P\ain|ifis‘ Jcinder Apphcacrarr (HC) [Do rrd.rrrw Objection (Plalrrnu-' Jolndor Applluuorrn The Defendants‘ obpcuon qP|armr«s' Jarrraer Applwcalicn) was me 5019 reasnn why me previuus Paragraph (up [CA's Order (25 3 2021)] could not be Iumuea by me mainms; and (b) the Delendanls would be awe to s1nke om me Sm: wrmom a mal In other wards, ms Puarrrmr would be deprived annerr consurunorral rrgm olaooess lo jusnae without the Suil being Ined and deems?! by Ihe cnurl on W; mems. The CA has an mherenl powsr(as dedared by r 105 RCA) ‘to make any order as may be necessary In prsvarrz rnjusfics“. Anomdmg to r 105 RCA - r ms rrrn-rorrxpw-r. with: court For In. vofdlncl nl dullbl, n I: mnmv mu rruwny In mm [RCA] 5'1!’/bl dumnd to nrrrrr nrnlhct nr. irmuvvl pomrsnrrm Courrrumakt anyomulu In-ybc nlnssary to pm-rrr lniuxlia at In pmvsnl an ahuse arm. pvosess aim Cowl “ (emphasis added) The vanalion [Paragraph (ml is made by us HI the interest of jusuoe Dursuant lo cu inherent pawel; and (3) win regard In ma Defendants’ 2*-1 Appeal (CA), the CA is empowered by s 69(4) and 15) CJA in make me Variallon [Paragmph (bu. we reproduce balm: s 5914; and (5) CM - ‘a 59 Hunnq uflppuls. (4) nu ma uIAppMI may draw immim ol rm, and g/vs any luagmnl, and mm my ordw mien cum in rim bun ulvon or N160, and mm such rim.’ or other onion‘ as in. cm nquin: (5; rue pawn: nfwusa/:1 may be Ixllchud nanwllnmnalny inn the noflcu of appeal ruin» only no pm or can duclslon, and ill! powets may Ilsa b. Ixarclud In mm of .1: ol my al ma rvspondults or purl-s mnnugn in. responflenrs or um: um rml .pp..l..1 from or complained am. dnclslon ' (emphasis added); and (4; ms Variallnn [Paragraph 02)] does no| occasion any lnlustics lo we Defendants, The Defendants have me ngm to resist to me mil the Pleirlllfls‘ second appllcahan in the HC to join all ralevsrll names In Ihs Suit [PlalMNfs' 2'-i Jolndu Application (non lnhe Defendanls are dissatisfied wim Ihe nos decision in me P|ain|n1s‘2”‘Jolndel Appll4:al1an(HCj, they have a runner right to appeal In CA Ihereafler. 13 SN llvvmuKwPEGvww75wX~1P:IA 'Nnl2 Sum mm. will he HSQG M mm u. nllmrullly MIN; dun-mm VII .mm mm G. Qgn CA mulls variation [Parlnugh lb) wimeul guy g|ml'gl|on i_:r mpg-l by Plnlmlfm 27. riielly, lne above iimgmenl is given puieuanl lo lnia oaurfs aeci en in Eric. 19 (De1endanls‘ 1" Appeal) and Defendants‘ 2"“ Appeal 10:) in olher words, lrie cA is nal aeling an ils mm mo|i0rl in making me vanalien [Paiegi-apn lei]. 25. Secondly, as explained in lne above sub-paraglaph 25(2), ma CA IS enly axamlslng iis inhelerlt power lo make lna Variation [Paraglaph (h)] we are unable to find any case in Malaysia and me ceinnienwealui wnien naa decided tl1aH|1e men can only exercise ils inlieienl power when male is a specific applieaiicn or parllcular appeal wnieli nas hsen filed by a pany for me calm in invoke lla lnnaienl pawer. 2:: Lastly, in VIEW oflhe Delerldarlls‘ 2"" Appeal (CA; namllhslanding me can lnai ine Plainlms have ne| applied in appealed to CA. cA IS empowered under 5 59(4) and (5) CJA (0 make the Varlaflun [Paragraph (b)]. H-Em 30. ll is nol uiapinad lnal CA nae a wide aiscieliun up award coal: in all preoeedlngs before me CA pursuant lo 5 70 CJA read iagainer willi IT 54 and as RCA 31. we unhesilallrlgly order me Flalnllfls in pay in me nelenuania oasis iei Eric. 19 (Defsndanls' 1-‘ Appeal) and Defendants‘ 2m Appeal (CA) This Is because inna Plalnlifls had at me aeniinenaanienl pl u in immul<wPEGvww75wXqP:IA wane s.ii.i llnlflhll will he used a mm we nllnlrullly MIN; dnunvllnl via AFVLING Wflxl me sun mined Mr Sun and Ms um, mmer as cu-Dlulnmfs or 09* dslendanls lhe Detenaanw Smkmg om AppI>1:a(mn and a1! subsequem proceedmgs mersm wumd have been unnecessary. I. Cgnclullcn :2 Prermsed on ma above reasons, we make me vauowmg avdavs var Elm. 19 (De1endan|s‘ 1“ Appeal) and De{andan|s‘ zm Appual (cm (1) Elm. 19 (Delendants‘ vi Appell) N msnmea winn soaks M RM5‘UOD no lo be pm by me Plainmfs «a me Defendants (sumecuo aHoI:amNeej‘ (2) [he Waintifis sham me an apphcallmv to jam an velavanl panlas m Ina HG wnmn 14 days «om me da|e oi ms ordev 01 CA 413 A 2023) and upon such a tame‘ the sun shall be struck am. am: 13) me nerendancs 2"‘ Aapezx (CA) Is msmissed wnn cos: of RM5,nm7 on to be paw by me Plaunws «a ma Deoenaams (sumac: lo auocsmr fee) DAVE; I DECEMBER zuzs wane KIAN Susana Juage Conn av Appeak Malayswa u ‘yn uvvmuKwPEGvww15wxqPJA ‘Nuns smm ...n.mn be used m van; .. mn.u.y mm; dun-mm VII mum pans! For the Anne//ans Mr Justin Voon rmam Yu 5 Ms. Carolina Um seen Le (Messrs Justin voon chow‘ & Wmg) Fol ms Respondents: Mr. um Klen Huat .4 Ms. Kathy Wong Ker Smg (Messrs Les .4 Um) is sw uvvmuKwPEGwnw75wX~1P:IA -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm the F'|’iilrl|lWs, Mr. Soo Tack Lee (Mr. Son) and Ms Lirn Siew Klan (uir. Llm). Tne delence in me Sull had pleaded, among others mat lire SPA was a sham agreement because ine Land was actually used as e securiryidr certain pumriasee between irie parties The Delendenie filed an application in the HC to strike out the suit on me ground inai tne Plainms lied lailed to pm Mr. 500 and Ms. Llm as parlles in me suit 1Dof1ndInlI' Slrlklng our Application) The learned HC Judge drsiriiesed me Defendants‘ Sinking our Application wiiri casts [HUS nisrrirssai (bvfoiidlnlf Striking our Applli::llan)]. The Delerrdarrts appealed to the Calm al Appeal (GA) against the HC5 Dismissal (De1endari(s‘ sinking Out Applicahun) [DnfIndnnI:' 1" Appul (cA)] with regard to the Defendants‘ 1‘ Appeal (CA), me idiidiwrng order was made by CA on 25.8 2021 [CHI order (25.a.2n2I)], among diners- tr) (he De!endanls' 1“ Appeal (cm was dismissed iparsgrapn (I) [cm Ordnr (2s.a.2o21)l}: end (2) me HG‘: nisriirseai ir;eieiidams' Shlklng Dui Apptiearrerii was varied wherein rrie Plainmls were required re iein Mr S00 and Ms. Lim as ctrplairililfs er no-defendants in me Suil wnriiri 14 days rrarii me date ei CA’: Order (Z5.B.2l121)(H Buys Porlod [Fangraph (am and w ma P\a\nWs (all to an so‘ me Sm! shafl anana as slruck ow (Pnruurnph (b) [on om: (25.a.2o21))). 9. Pursuant (0 Paragraph (:7) [CA‘s Order (25 52021)], on 2.9 2021 me mamws mad an appncanon to join Mr. 300 and Ms. mm as parties In Ihe Sull [P|ainliffs' Joindur Application (HC)] Th: Flamm'ls' Jomder Apphcauon (HC) was supported by an affidavn purporledw amrmed on 2.9.2021 by the second walnlifl (2-= Plailltifl) belore a Commissioner far Oaths, VM Tengku Fanddudm bm Tengku Smalman (cm; 10. The Defendants nhiecled to me Pmnuffs‘ Jomder Appllwliun (HC) on the ground mat among others, the 2"“ Flainlnfs avfidavm had nol been amrrned bevore the CFO, 11 The learned HC Judge struck out the Plainmfs‘ Jamar Appucauon (HG) wm: - 11) no order as to costs; and (2; liberty to me a (rash F\alntifis' Jmnder Apphcation (HO) smnam lo 'dIrsI7fiL7n" (arahan) wmch may be oblamed by the Plawnlms mm the CA mm Iegard to the 14 Days Period [Paragraph can ((ime period «or the Plamhffs us .a.n Mr 500 and Ms. Lnm as names In the Salt) [HC's Ordar (PIaimi«s' Jolndlr Aupllclflonfl 12. The Defendants have filed an appeav tn CA agawnsl the Hos Order (F\aimflls’ Jmnder Applicalmn) [D-manna’ 2"‘ Appeal (cA)]. sw uvvmuKwPEGwnw75wXqP:IA ma s.nn In-uhnv M“ be used m mm s. nflmnnflly MW; flan-mm VII mum pm Proooedtngs ln cA 1:5. in the Detendahts' 1" Appear (CA), the Detendants med a notice ul motion in court enotosure no. 19 [Eric. tn (Dmndnntv 1" Appealt] tor the iollowirig orders trorri the CA, arnorig others. (1) an order to ehtoroe Paragraph (bl [CA‘s order (25.8 2021)], and (2; an order for the suit to be stmck an 14 The Dstendarits‘ 2'-1 Appeai (CA) has saught tor the cA to reverse the HC‘s order tPiaintitts' Joirlder Appiication) and tor the suit to be strucx out pursuant \o Paragraph (ta) [<:A'a order t25.a.2a21)] 15. As Em: 19 (De1eridents‘ 1-‘ Appeal) and the De1endanLs'2"‘ Appeai (CA) concerned the same facts and issues, we have decided to hear together Eric 19 (De1eridants' 1" Appeait and the Deteridants' 2" Appear (CA). lnuns 16. The tollowing three questions shait tie deuded in this judgment (1; whether the CA is rurictus uflrcic and cannot extend the t4 Days Period [Paragraph (b)] This issue discusses the cA's discretionary power under r 93 read with r 1A 0! the Rules at the court alAppea|1§94(RCA); 12) can the CA vary Paragraph (b) [cA's Order 125 B 2o2t)] and order the Fiaintiris to «Is an applicatiu in the HO |o idin an 5 SN tMmuKwPEGwrw7frwX~1P:IA Nate s.ii.i ...is.i M“ be used M mm s. siiiii.ii-y MVM5 flnunvilnl via nFiuNG WM! reVevanI pamss \n he Sum wrmir. 14 days lmm the date er me order a! (N3 CA an 15.4.2023 tmslread ol the lequlvamenl for me Flawnliffs to ubvam an ordor vmrrr me HC la rorrr Mr 500 and Ms. vn me sun): This concerns an rrrzerprenanrorr 0! me purpose or CA‘s Order (25.1: mm), and 13) whether the CA can vary Paragraph (b) [CA's Order (25.s.2o21)] pursuant to - 1a) r105RCA:and my 56914]and(5)afIhsCnurvsolJudu:alureAc119B41CJA); - wimnut any appeax or applicanoh by the marnuws to the CA. 17. we are not alfle to find any prewous Malaysian case whhzh has deuded on me above queshons. n whnhor CA is Igggms omclu with raga:-rs to gm; order 25 021 131 The firs| quesnon «o be ds|ermIned rs whether this CA » (1) has the arscrenronery power to extend H1: 14 Days Period [Peragraph1b)l:ar (2) rs barred by me Iurlclus alflcro aacmrre «mm revl Days Period [Paragraph (en. mg the M 19. The doctrine av /unclus ammo has been explained by Nelh Palhmanathan FCJ In Ihe Federal Ooun case 0! Stony World sun 5 sh uvvmuKwPEGvww75rwXqP:IA -we s.rr.r nu-nhnv wm re used m mm we mrrrmrr-y mm; dun-mm VII AFVLING Wm! and v Engansll (M) Sdn BM [2020] 12 MLJ 237. at [13]. as follows ‘[13] n 1. sound ma um anm . cam! nu wunaunm . n...: ma. n am not pants: 4». mnamy to II-opvn -rm. nrmnd -nd xunplemern the hull ardcr mfljuflgmem romlng In on dispute :1 has Idludlcpted upan. This mu, known 1: ma doctrlnu oliunrlut amen» stems Inn: 1!» pm.a:,,:. nillnllny n. Inlynion. finru rmuld pa amt Imcnrlnlmy and mm It courts wen pervnlnad tn ruvitw and ncvmldw final omurs nnd luflgmuntr ' (emphasis added). 2o. wa rspmduce bekaw rr1A and 93 RCA: ‘M r M Cour! auudgo shall nu raganv Ivjltsfloo In udmlnrslulnfl any orIRcA1 honln, tho com or .1 Judy: smll Inn ruglrd to nnajusuaa anna narflcular me and not only to uh: tmhnicnl mm-cnmplilnzl alany oI[RCA[ nmm r 9.7 Puwel ol com or ./nag. la anmga at lbridgo mm. Me com on Judge mu law pawur to enlarge or abridge ma nme appafntod by masa Rum, at {hr by an war Inlzryinq limu for dafng lny let M Inklng lny piucuding, upnn such mm: 1» any) as ma [nation of m. an my rvquiu, and any sum smargamsnt may be omsmd aflhaugh ma npahcalrnn /01 mo same rs nor mm unnl alter ma Jxkrralron anna mna appmntpd or alien/Pct’ Prm/mad max when me I/me rm aemnng any pleadmg 0! document 0! my any smdsvu, answer or dacurmlvt, or flumg any 50115 or has oaan mac or nnmaa by any ullhese Rules nr by any dwucnon an 0! under ma summons fur dwadmns u by an we: or ma Court or a 2 N uvvmuKwPEGvww75wX~1P:IA ma sum In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; flan-mm vn mum pm Judge ms cont: d/any appucarron In oxrvnd sum (we and or any ardlr mado mason mu be home by me many mlkmg sum app:/can/on.“ (emphasis addad) 21 We have no nasrxauon to deduce mat the CA has a discrmmnary power rd extend any nme peflod which has been prevlausly ordered by me CA. sucn a drscrarranary power rs clsarlram r as RCA (me CA -snan have paws! rd fix by an M16! enlarging urns, for dorng any 50! Dr Ialdng any ploceedmg, upon such Iemvs (if any) as me jusxfce dune case may rsqufmfi. Furthermore. by vmue 0! r 1A RCA, in ma applrcauan cl r 93 RCA, the CA -snau have regard to ma nraoca of ma pamculsr case and nor only la the lechmcal rmlh camplfancs 0! any uI[RCA] 22 The /umus olficfc dacmna rs provided by case law and cannot override wnnen law. Aceamlngw, [Ms CA is not lunctus offcio and ms in dracrerronary pawar under r 93 lead wnn r M RCA lo extend me 14 Days Period [Paragraph m] In rne Vnlerest of wstwoe In pavagraph 25 beluw. we provide aw reasnns In! extending me 14 Days Period [Paragraph (b)] as wan as an why Paragraph (b) [CA's Order (253.2021): shomd be varied by «ms ecun. E. Wha] via; Eurfigg 9: CK! Ordor 255.102! ? 23. wun regard to me eonscnmrm of CA‘: Order (25 3.202‘ ), we adapr ms Ionowing approach ward ddwn by Chang sraw Far CJ (sanan ar Sarawak) in me Federa\ Courl case of Nuwacm sun and v srl Mam Sun and [2000] 2 MLJ 353, an 374: an uwmuKwPEGwnw75wXqP:IA ‘Nuns s.n.r n-nhnrwm r. used m mm r.. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] mum Wm "n. R. Stnnd Music ran 50 m (was; .15 Boav 15:, so John Rnmilry we oburvld 4:: y 155) n.. amply mad: nlcnnstmlng my mm mummm I: m um mm to my Dart um um: M possrnn. -nu not in man out or nutmy on elm" in - dud, mm 1: b1 imporsfbll to mconclll u wm. lnaklmr mdrnon -xprvts clean in the sums ma rnougn mo mm cum: p-ssm mm-.1 ta a and, m. dacllndprincipln .pp:m, m my mw, oquuryzo. cnunon1Ir' (emphasws added). 24. We are av the consmered mew that Ihe purpose 0! CA‘: Order (25 6 mm Vs as (aHows* (1; by reason of Paragraph (a) [cA's Order 125.a.2a21)]‘ me CA had decided «mu nmwunscanamg (he P|ain| 5' non-‘cinder av M( 300 and Ms Lwm VI! the Sun (Plaintiffs Non-Jollldlr (Mr. sac and Ms. Llm)], the CA did nol strike out Ihe Suil H VS thsrefnre clear that me purpose o1 Paragraph (a) [cA‘s Order as a 2021;] is lor me man av the Sun m proceed aespue the Hamxirrs Nan-Jalndsr (Mr, 500 and Ms, um) (Purpose [Paragraph (an). The Purpose [Paragraph (a)] is in consnnanue mm o 15 r em M me Rules 0! com 2m2 which pruwdes as muoms - “A caun at mum mu not an durum by reason aims mtqamdlr or nun-1e:n¢.r or my wry. nu ma Caun my 1!! lny cum or mlflur d-hrmin: m. mm or qmuom in 9 sw uvvmuKwPEGwnw75wX~1P:IA -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm (2) (3) drama. in Br I: my arm: rm mama and lnnnsu arm- parsuns who In p-um to urn sum or rn-mu " (ernpnasrs added): Paragraph (up [CA's Drder(25.8.2021|] requrred rne Plainms to pm Mr. 500 and Ms. Lum In ma sun. The purpose 0! Paragraph (b) [CA‘s order 125 3.2021» rs up ensure nnamy m Imgaurm. namely‘ the oourfs fina\ deersrdn in me sun [courfl Flnal De n (Su1I)] shafl net nnly and ma Prarnnns and Deiendanls bul anau s\so brnd Mr. S00 and Ms. Llm (Furpnn [Paragraph (am If the ca drd not drder Paragraph (5) [CA‘s ordar (25.a.2o2n]. ML 500 and Ms. Lrrn may sunsaquenuy rrnpugn me val y at me Caurl’s Fina! Daersran (sum on the ground char Mr. S00 and Ms. Lrrn have not been afiordsd merr ngm of hearing In aeoardanca with me second rura of natural mslma. Paragraph (:2) [CA's order (25.3 2021)] we-supposed mat upon me mrng 0! We Plavnlms‘ Jomder Application (HC), me Delendams wdurd nnl amen merera and me HC wourd mamafier make an order In rain Mr. S00 and Ms Lrm as parties in We Suit (Joinder Order! Defendants were to cmecl la the PIBIHIWS‘ Jamder Applrcaliun (HG) for any raasarr (as had happened m nns case), are Plalnlms mum nn| be expects-1 to uhtarn E Joinder Order Wflhm 14 days rrdrn me dale or CA‘s Order(25.8.2021). Trns was because rl me In view 0! the above inlerprelanon of Paragraph (b) [CA‘s order (25.a.2n21)1r If ma Dslendants were rd object to me PIainM1s' no srn uvvmuKwPEGwnw75wX~1P:IA "Nuns s.n.r In-uhnv M“ be used a mm rs. arwmnauly MW; dun-mm VI] mum wnxr

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

KB-45A-24-04/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHAMAD EZZUDIN BIN ABDUL WAHAB

Undang-undang Jenayah— Dadah Berbahaya— Tertuduh dituduh dengan pertuduhan di bawah sek 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 — Sama suatu pendakwaan telah membuktikan suatu kes prima facie — Sama ada pembelaan Tertuduh menimbulkan keraguan munasabah ke atas kes pendakwaan — Hukuman setimpal bagi kesalahan pemilikan dadah — Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023

10/12/2023

YA Puan Narkunavathy Sundareson

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ac8a4249-f5d6-407d-a0da-1011ff52d1a0&Inline=true

10/12/2023 12:02:20 KB-45A-24-04/2021 Kand. 63 S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N SUKKrNb1fUCg2hAR/1LRoA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal KB-15A-21-0|/2021 Kand. 63 10/12/2023 12:c2:2a DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI SUNGAI PETANI DALAM NEGERI KEDAH DARUL AMAN, MALAYSIA NO KES: Ka—4sA-24-04/2021 PENDAKWA RAVA LAWAN MOHAMAD EZZUDIN am ABDUL WANAB ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN (di akhir ks: pendakwnn] Pong-nalan 1 Tenumm, Mohamad Ezzudln hm Abdul Wahab [Tertuduh] Ie\ah m hadapkan an Mahkamah mas panuduhan benkm — “Bahawa kamu, pads 25 9 me, ‘am wenm kuvang 11 so maram, dw hadapan sebuah mmah pm 44, Kampung Pays Kercm, Tnkam Batu, mason Sungai Pefam, av dalam daerah Kuala Muaa, an dalam Negen Kedah Dam! Aman‘ telah maapau mengedar dadah berbahaya wauu Methamphelamme seberat58 23 gram. O\eh yang aamman, Kamu te\ah mawakukan salu kesalahan ax bawah seksyen 3QB(1)(a) Akla Dadah samanaya 1952 dan Ixfleh dlhukum m bawah seksyen 395(2) Akla yang sama “ [Penuduhan] [Eksmil B] Kn pomlnkwnn 2 Benkul adalah kelevangan pendakwaan Pada 28 9 2020 ‘am a on ma\am,D/KDH715G9 Mend Abd Hady hm Mazxan, pengadu (SP4), darn pasukannya neran menjalankan Iugasan rondaan ops Tapws m kawasan mam Batu menggunakan karma pasukan fanpa logs PDRM 3 Jam Isbm Kurang 11 30 mahm. semasa memnda dl kawasan Kampung Paya Kercul. Tlkam Batu‘ SP4 telah melmal seovang |e\ak\ menunggang molwkal dakam keadaan mencungakan 4 SP4 ta\ah membual pememalian pergerakan motosxkal lerselzul sehmgga matuswkm um bemenll ax hadapan rumah Pk)! 44, Kampung Faye Kercuz, Tikam Batu, nseoo Sungax Pelam [Rumah] Lampu mar Rumah lersebul menyala 5. spa (unm darn Kereia pasukan nan menghampln \e\ak\ Iersebm. yang pada ketxka mu maslh dudux alas mmL7s\ka\nya Enjin motaswkal masih hump dan kuncx maloslkm maslh pada molos\ka\ lersebut s Apama spa mengenalkan um sebsgax psgawav pans, nem- tersebut bemndak agresi! dan bsriaku pergemtan um Cuba melankan am «exam benaya mcanan spa «em. mengena\pas1I Tenuduh sabagaw Velskl yang duduk d1 alas malosikal d1 hadapan Rumah lersabm m suKKvMtmucgznAR/1LRn« Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm 40. semasa pemenksaan bales, Terluduh menyacakan an lelah beryanji unluk mmpa Eolak berkenaan mmyak Mam 10 hen sebemm kcajadlan me\alui percakapan (eleven 41 Anna max maklumkan perkara W kepada 5:24 semasa mgkapan lalapi ads maklumkan SP7 42 Pembexaan juga telah memeriksa balas SP5 unluk mendapalkan pengesahan berkenasn penggunaan MnIus\ka\ tersebul pada nan kejadwan Huiahall di akhir ken Ringkaun hujahnn pcndnkw In 43 Pemiakwaan menghujahkan meveka lehh beuaya membukukan sualu kes melampauv keraguan munasabah Mereka memjuk Mahkamah semula kepada mupam Ferluduhan dan menyomc kelemngan Saks:-saksx pendakwaan khasnya sm‘ SP7 dan SP3 44 Pendakwaan herhlqah pembelaan Terluduh max mempemkawkan mupam ‘ems dan Deva! dadah mahupun langgapan staluton di bawah seksyen 3'/(da) ADE Pemnexaan Tertuduh lenumpu Kepada mnpau mmkan flan pengelahuan dadah 45 Terluduh menankan pengetahuan berkenaan balang kes dadah dawn cove(sel Malosikal lersehut dan membangkukan Isu penggunaan Motus\Ka\ mu aleh nrang lam Terluduh jugs (elah membenkan alasan unluk kehadlrannya m Rumih «ersebuc 1 1 m suKxvMMwcgznAn/«Lana Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be uud In mm m. mwgmuly MW; anumgnl VI muus wvm As Wa\au bagalmanapun‘ naram‘ pembelaan max dlkemukakan kepada saksw-saksl pendakwaan khasnya sm. sps, Mohd Rash bin SaHah, penyewa Rumah tevsebul (spa) dan SP7 (Noomag Ambmss Anthony y PP 1995 1 cm 705 m headnate 1 was 1 MLJ 209). 41 Pendakwaan bemwah pembeban Terluduh barcanggah dengan dengan halatuju soalanvsoalan pemenksaan saksisaksl pendakwaan 48. IN yekas menunjukkan pembelaan Tenuduh sualu yang dmklrkan kemudlan (aflenhoughl) darn dlreka hanya se\epas ma mpanggu membeh diri Rfngkasan hujnh-n pembelnn 49 Pemnexaan Ie\ah bemwah bsrkenaan behan dan uihap pembukuan dan elemen-elemen Perluduhan lersebuf so Fembelaan menquk kepada kelerangan SP4 dan SP5 berkenaan penggunaan dan akses Motusaxal «emsbut oxen mangmang selam Terluduh yang mungkm lekah memakkan barang kes dadnh dalam cnrversef Molaslkal tsrsebm 51 Khasnya‘ pembelaan menekankan kalerangan SP5 nenkm— -s Ealang kes yang duumpax .1. hawah Iempat duduk moumkax Au karau kspunyaan kamu, kamu pun um beraru mengaku pada pahs dan pada MaI1kamah’7 1 IN suxxvmmucnimw/1LRaA 2 W. W IHIHDEY wm be u5« w may he ..w.y WW; mm. _ mm PM]! J semu say: lldak akan mengaku sebab say: (ahu kesalahan dan hukuman " 52 Pembelaan juga memjuk Mahkamah Kepada Has undang-undang belikul — my cnan We! Luun v PP and another aQgeal|2D21 5 MLRA232 dl headnote 5 ‘ (ii) Abduuah Zawawl bun Vusul v. PP 1993 4 CLJ 1 :11 headrmle 1 & 2 5.5. (ml Maw PP 1953 29 MLJ263. (IV) FPV cma Leong Fm 2000 4CLJ649‘ dan (v) PP v Lemhumanan mm) 4 CLJ eas Penllalan dan dapatan Mzllkamah di akhir ku 53 seksyen 162 KTJ mempemnmkkan — ‘Pmcedmi a lha wnduuun Mme luau (1) A! we memsmn M the mm lhe ca-m shafl wnsmev an we evmence aaaucm move n and demde wmne. we pmsscuhun has puma us an bayund vsaionabls aoum m suxxvmmucnimw/1LRa« *3 Wale W IHIVVDIV wm ». um law may m. ..w., cum mm... m mm W 121 11 1he c1111 1.111. 11.1 1... .1.111.e11.111.1 has waved .11 use 1111111111 voasonahle 111111111, me cm 1111111111111. .ee.11e111111111ya..11 he .1111. be 11111111111111 11111 131 .111. Conn 1111. 11:1 1.111 pmser/1Almr1 has 11111 11.1-1.e11 11. one 11.1.1111 1e..111.1.1. 11111111, 11.1ce1.11 1.1111 .ee1.1 11.1 was! 11 nequ1I1a1 - 54. Dalam kes Mahamad Ra11r11g111 Yaakobv PP 1991 1cL.I Reg 311111315 1991 gg gun 1991 3ML.||69.MnmiAzm1HMA menevangkan— 1 ~11 1. 1 wen ..1111111s11e11 pnnmple 111 Malaysmn 111111.111 1111,. 111.1 (I12 general burdsu at 1111111 1111: 11.111111»... me 11111111111111 pruse:al1m1|a pmve beyond 1ea1e11e111e 111111111» 1111111 1111.11 accused 111.111. oflanoa w11.. wmnh he 3 charged 11111.11 11 .111 s1m|1av bumeu placed 11.. 11.. unused 111 prove me 1.1n11em. H5 1. wssumod 111.111.1e111 11111.1 pmven gmlly 111 2-m .11 .eq.111111. 11.3 111.11, 1. merely 111 all . Iuuunama 11.1.11111.1111e pmsecuflen use 1.111. cnurse 11 the Drcsecul1or1 me, 111. pvuslcuuon may 111 amuse 11141 111. avallama 112111111111 1»ee11..1p11e.1s 11 We we 11. 1.11.11 1.1 In: ewemml 1r1gved1snls 171015 111.19. w11e.1 ma. uncurs, 111e e.111e11.1 burden 111 11.1.1111. , oppmed .11 me geneml 1.11.11. e..111e 111 me delecme 1.1 1e11.11 my. nmsumplmvus on me n.1e1.ee 1111.111. 1111. 111:1. 1.11..11..e 11e1e.1ee 11111.1 111 vlsw 1; 1111:1111. man we .111.11e11 alcnsmg nrnmnzhln 11111111, .1111 1l1ic:na1nPy 1111...e..11.n111e 1111.111... 1111.111 pruiscuhnn 111 111111e beyond veusunalfla 111111171 111 enm ..1 .e1111-111.1 111 me am 111 the use 11111» nmaecuxinn 1.11.1. 17:11: .115 1111» e1111e c1.1..1.1.1 Pmcedura Cada.lt1e 1:11.111 mus| be snbsfied me. no case e.1e..1s1 the amused 1111; been 11.1.1 11111 which 1 unmbulled 1.1111111 1:11:11 I115 111.111.1111.. 1Munusamy V »1=1111as; 1 ms 32 11 111.111.1111 11 csfled, me 111., 11111111 Ibcusad .1 11.1. 111 ees1 a reamname 11.111111 1.. ma 1 pmsen:u|1o11 case He 11 1.11 131111.111 .11 111111111 .111 1..111ee11ee beyand 1 reasonable doml 111 um an aaqunlzl, 11.1. 12111111 may not he cmwinced 111 11.9 mm M 111e 11e1e1ee .11., 11. 111.111.. Rmsmg a veasomahle 1111.111 1.. (he 1_111111o1me accused WIN sumo: 111. 111, hawevan 11.11.11 111111.e calm to 11e cnrwmcod em e11m1.1.ue11z.1.1111111e1 “ -.1... s.11.11.....1e111e. M e «.111 1.1. 111111.111. 911.1. 1.e..... .. 1.11.5 1.11.1 om ma aeoanos vamun ws (me. m wma. case the cam must mdev In ncqumnl m appmpnua um n a awsa nul wrong I01 me Ooun to condude lhal lhe aamaa slmy a lnlse a. m| wnvmmng‘ bu| m that mslznoe. me cam must run convm urml u asks a Yur\beffi\5e:|mn1h.Ilev:n «ma Cuun does ml awevl or name (he uavanea exmanatmn, due ve-sunnbb mum Is in nu gum u u 9:» ma veawu mm m dealing mm ma aamaa story or awllnlmn, ma majanly :11 Judges nanny male! in mm slraluhl away me Ieqauy esxahhshed “neasnnibls duubf‘ lest tamer man |o mm m we -benevanue and oonvwnclng“ lest name ippflymg lhn "reawnama dnuht“ 15:1 ' uaawachanuran (supra) @ Gunaxan (supra) d\ 365 2204 4 MLJ Q s Md Zalrudm Rauan v. PP 2013 3 MLJ 773 an 793 2012 MLJU 314 [2013 4cLJ 21- [2013 SAMRABO) ' nevertheless, u‘ a a 55. Mahkamah rm le\ah merwnbang dan menganansa kesemua kelerangan yang dlkemukakan dmam perbuzarsan Ierhadap Terluduh unluk memunuskan sama ads plhak pendakwaan lelah membuknkan kes mereka meuampam Keraguan munasabah 55 Untuk mupah mwllkarl dan pengelahuan berkenaan dadah, keterangan pendakwaan menuruukkan dadah duumpal dawn coversel mc|osIka\ yang dmmggang aleh Temlduh Apabila Tanuduh dllshan, ma aargam dan cuha mawankan am 57 Pembelaan Terluduh bahawa barang kes dadah nu bukan mmknya kerana vamai orang menggunakan Motas\Ka\ Iersebm Iermasuk SP5‘ adwknya darn sepupunya am suKK:MwucnZhAw/1LRn« '5 -ma. W rumhnv M“ a. um a may he ..a..m, mm am... m muns W 59 Pembelaan akses kepada Motuslka dak pemah dibangknkan kapada SP7 mahupun lnspekrol Hashkah binn Hassan yang merakam percakapan beramavannya. so Eegilu wga dengan kelerangan Tertuduh bevkenaan alasannya pargl ks Rumah Iersebm pada malam kejadlan Naram urusan memual heh mmyak mam lidak mcaaangxan Kepada SP5 semasa ma member? keferangan e1 Pads parmangan Mahkamah, my meruums kspada sua|u penmexaan penaflaan semaxa-mm dan pemlkuran kemudlan (anermougm) av pmak Terluduh lm merueulskan kebolehpercayaan keterangan Terluduh 52 Dapalan wu selaras dengan penghskmlan dakam kes Slew Vuke Kenn PP 2013 3MLJ 630d 4 2013 ACLJ us 2013 3 AMR 202 di mans Ahmad Maamp‘ HMP memumskan — ‘Nlhuugh hihna an m. pan M the dedemae |c pm .u cue m We mmsnal pmsecuI\nn’s wnnm an never by my: renew: the pmsemlmn of us duly m prove me charge agamsnhe accused beyond vaaionable doubt wnanlarn v mu: Prusecu|ov). such «same by me de4em:e an 71:14: ssnous vmphcamn an m: =A:w55d's ovndwbmly and me weum to he wasted m M: zwdencs The neeesswy A71 pulmng ma arsnsnos M ms case In the mnleml pvma<:n\ivn‘s wanes; ws um . mere Iechnktm mus Msvkiancs nu a rule oressenlnm mm In Farm Froseeumr v Dalo'SenAnwarhmlhva)um1Na 3; may} 2 mm 1 al pp 193.19: Augustine Pam J (as he then was) we The ruhne uflm defence u m be ascenamed not amy «mm he ewdence om: accused himsell mu aka ham ms mm onne omssoexammilmn on me pmsecunm wwnesses and «mm In: avgumenls 01 (ha nausea‘: counsel at ms dew OHM mal Ase: nun E Or: .4 Emplrur NR man can 15 sm suxxvubnucuzmw/1LRn« -W. sum rumhnv wm ». um law may m. .m.u-y mm unaumnl «. muus mm 442; n . nmavm Impollim lov me accused |o pal Ms essenml mud mataevlm case In um praseculmn wiuwsui m cvoes—ex.amma|\nn Tms \s a prmclwe Messermalmstsce nnd w-I! nalfly namt by Mukhm J m A25 Caviplel V AV DsvdananAIR1961 cm 3.59 m the Mlawing lama: The law a dear an the sub1ec| Wherevev me opponent n.. mum m m mmsafl Uflha cppullumly In pm ms essermm and malenal case m ¢mmm..aun.., u muil fmkwt that up named mat the Iewnmony given emu-1 na| be m.pm.a .: a\| n .; wrong to am that m merely 2 taedumnav ml: of Mame n .3 . Mu at sneaks‘ Wm. u lawn «a prevem surprise .n mm and rmsmmnge at ,..me, buclusu m gives rum»: to me ulhel me at me actual case thal ‘s gnmg m be mid: Man the mm o« the party on whom man me cmssexnmmalmn .. bmng made comes |o gws Ind wan evidence by Dloducm wnnesses Mus been same on hwgh mmy mm House 0! Lords max (ms much 3 nomuel a; mum la an when emu-eumlmng mm M must pm to each at his oppmnrs wwlnesses m m, sn much ufmsmmcase at ounourns max vamwlarwnnasi av m mm. lhmwnnexs hm xny shire WM asks nu qusslnn wnlh regard to «ms, men he must be mm m amem Ihe pl.mnmN‘s aoomml \n n. enmeiy Such vaume leads Co rmscamape M msuce, um hy spmlgwng surplus upon Ins party when n. hat fiminad ma zvmenee at M: whnessen xnd when he hu rIulIIr\htsrchIII>a1Dm69|(M mwcase made man was nevnr pm and secondly, because such subsequent leshmony has no shame afbemg lasted mu mnnbavalod. In Wang Swen Chm V Publm Fruseaularhsai] < MLA 212.. V213. the seam Conn sad A Ema smIemen| al me law u that «am of the deflerme In em... examme Ihe pmsecuhnn wwlnesses an m. malter marmy goes to the usd\bv\IIyul1MIvms11m<x|y. to m, lheM::|mey6uund ms ammumhon m the avpe\|Inl"xlruuberpu<:ke(s vemams unshaken ommx pcinlwa med emy fly mere _ a geneml ml: ma filluve m massrexamlne a wllness on aaunlal panohhe M53 wwllsmnunltoan awavlanoemthe witness‘: mummy‘ sm suxxmxmucnimw/1LRaA " mu. sum mm wm ». um In «My like .m.u-y mm; nan-nl «. AFVLING Wm 63 Mihkamah mermapatl pembelaan Terluduh semasa kes psrmakwaan berheza dan pembehannya sslelah mpanggfl membeladm l 54 Semasa pemenksaan balas SP4, Tenuduh mencadangkan soenarm dx mana SP6 nrang Ierakhlv menaxkx Molwkal lsrsehut — s Arihan dan anikguam saya aualan sehenarnya pernmk mman tersebut yang terakhlr sekall menavki molosrkm mu J’ Tmak Semju S. Pemillk mman (ersabut aaaxan dupanggu dengan name panggllan Bctak Ialah arang yang tevakhlr rnenam moluswkal nu J Txdak setuju s Says katakan ssmasa temmuh dllahan Eolzk pun ada m swu J max seluyu" akses ramau orang ke alas Motasnkal cersenm Pembexaan jug: 65 D. pe gkal kes penmemn pma, Tenudun memuangman Isu ‘ mencadangkan kemungkunan harang kes dadah nu mlllk sws 1 1 sendnn 56. Dawn komeks kes im, dapalan lakta ada\ah bahawa — (I) psmhsxaan herkanaan aksvs ramen orang kepsda Motaslkal lersebul mak ainengkmxan dx peringkal «erawax semasa rakaman pemakapan beramaran Terluduh. 18 m suKK:MbIwcgznAR/1LRa« Wale sum IHIHDIV wm be um law may m. mm.“-y Wm anuumnl m mm Mn (u) psmhe\aan nu mgalldak aibangmkan semasa pemenksaan balas sakswsaksl pendakwaan khasnya SP7 uan SP6‘ nu) keterangan Tanudun bahawa ma pergl ke Rumah fersebul umuk bmcang ma! beh minyak dengan SPE lldak mhangknkan semasa pemeriksain bales SP6; dan (M kelerangan Tenuduh bahawa ma kelakulan dan gememar ksrana melmal semang lelakl memegang pxslol max mkemukakan semasa pemenksaan SP4. 67. Kesemua lam wru memmbulkan syak wasangka Iemadap kesahman dan kebelehpercayaan keterangan Tenuduh 68 Pada hemal Mahkamah VIM pembeman Terluduh hahawa ramai urang mempunyaw akses kepada Mcmslkal lersehul dan bahawa barang kes dadah yang mmpas dan cnverset Molostkal |ersebuK jelas suatu penanan sema(a»maIa darn suam yang difiklrkan Kemuman 69 Pembexaan Tenuduh ndak mampu memalahkan dapatan vakxa pemmkan dan pengecanuan atas imbangan kebarangkahan atau mswmudkan suatu keraguan munasabah dalam kes pendakwaan m suxxvumwcnimw/1LRa« "’ W. W IHIHDEV M“ N um In new m. mV§\nIH|Y WW: 3..."... _ muws PM]! Kuimpulan 70 S2le\ah membual penilainn makslma dan memmhang keseluruhan keterangan pmak pendakwaan nan pembelaan Tenuduh, dengan mengambllkva kredvbmtl saksmaksy kedua pihak, Mahkaman ml mem1zpaA|— m kes pendakwaan lemadap Terluduh adawl kukuh dan among aleh Kelerangan saksx-saksl pendakwaan: (u) pembelaan Terluduh gaga\ memaiahkan dapalan fakla pemmkan den psngemuan alas mmangan kebarangkalian, (nu) pemhe\aan Yertuduh gagal mematahkan langgapan statutun pengedaran dadah dv bawah seksyen 3‘/(dz) ADE a(as wnbangan kebarangkahan, av) Mahkamah um mak mempercayai pembelaan Tsnuduh yang bempa pembelaan yang difikirkan ssmula: Iv) pemnsxaan Tenuduh gagal memmbwkan sebaring keraguan munasabah lerhadap kes pendakwaan mengikul pnnswp yang dmyalakan da\am kes Matv PP (supra); dan (vv) pendakwaan (elah benaya memnukukan kes |emadap Tsnuduh unluk penuduhan dw bawah seksyen 39B(l)(a) ADE mewampam keraguan munasabah m suxxvumwcnimw/1LRa« 2” W. W IHIHDEV M“ N um In new m. mV§\nIH|Y WW: 3..."... _ muws PM]! 7 SP4 merumankan pemenksaan flzlkal ke alas Tenuduhls1apv|Idak meruumpax apa—apa harang yang ynenyaxanz unuangmndang s Kemuman, dalam kenaanan Tenuduh dan 2 wing anggma pasukannya‘ SP4 lelah memenksa mI.7los\ka\ Vamaha VISRZ dengan no pendaflaran FKE 5466 (Moloslkalj [Eksnbn P16] Dengan menggunakzn kunu yang berada m bahaglan lengkok Molusxkal lersebul [EkSrD\l FE]‘ SP4 helah membuka “S639 MOIDSWKBI lersebm. 9 D. bahaglan ruang km coverset an bawah lempal duduk Mozosikal cersehm, SP4 menjumpal 1 Deg plasllk berwrak “Iove' wama huau [Eksibn P12] yang mengandungv 2 pakel p\as(ik Msinar bensv bahan yang msyam dadah jams Syabu [Ekslbn P13A(1) flan (2)1 10 SP4 merampas Mntoslkal [Eksmn P18], kuncn Mmusikar [Eksmm PB], beg Masuk bsrearak “wove” warna huau [Exsmin P12] flan barang kes dadah [Eksmn P13A(1) dan 12)]. 11 Pada zsazazo, jam Iebm kurang 120 pagl. SP4 Iemh menyerahkan Tenuduh, kssemua barang kes dan dokumen bsrkanan kspada lnspektur (324569 Sums bvrm Annual, psgawaw penyuasal (SP7) untuk slasatan. m suKKvMmwcgznAw/1LRa« Wale s.nn rumba! Mu be um In new m. mV§\nIHIY Wm anumenl VI muus wvm 71 Dengan nu,Ter1uduh duiapau bersalah alas Psnuduhan (srsebut Mmgasi Tenudnm 72 OKT mengemukakan Vaklnflaktor mmgasi bahawa dla bsrumur 25 camm pada masa kajaman lm kesalahan perlamanya on pohon agar mak mxenaxan hukuman gamung Fmo: pembenlan 73 Pendakwaan bevmuah kepenlingan awam perm dlulamakan dawn merualuhkan hukuman untuk kevs dadah yang bevupa musuh No 1 Negara 74 Eerdasarkan kelerangan dalam K33 Irv, Tenuduh terhbat dalam am» Dengedaran dadah dan hukuman yang dwkenakan hams mencerrmnkan pnlusl dan usaha Negava menbanlers geja\a dadah 75 Pendakwaan memohon agar Mahkamah msngambfl pengwkflralan kehakunan Liumcual name) bahawa kes dadah man beflemas walaupun kssawahan Iersebut membawa hukuman mali mandalan sehsmm Akla Pemansuhan Hukuman Man Mandalun 2023 (Akla 646) berkuatkuasa 75 Pendakwaan lelsh msru;-Jx Mahkamah kepada nas undang- urmsng unluk menumukkan [rend hukuman m bawah seksyen 3SA(2)ADE m suxxmmwcgznan/1LRoA am. sum runny Mu be uud In mm m. nngmuly Wm anumgnl VI muus wvm 77 Pandakwaan memuhon hukuman man dlkenakan ks alas Terluduh Hukuman 7a. Dengan berkualkuasanya Akca us mulav 47.2023, Mahkamah km: mempunyai bumbicara sepenuhnya unluk same aaa mengenakan hukuman gantung sampaw mam afau hukuman pamara seumur hwdup flan sehatan lldak kurarlg dan 12 sebalan untuk Perluduhan Perlama 79 Da\am kes PF’ V Umapalm Ganesan 2023 9 CLJ 325 Muhd Wadi! Abdul Hamm J (elah membincangkan pmdaan Iersebm dengan memetxk sebahagwan ucapan Tvmbalan Menlen Undang- Undang semasa bacaan kedua dan kelvga Rang Undang-Undang lersebuf Behau iuga Ielah meruiuk kepada pengnaklman mlnunln Nauim Palhmanaman HMF (imam kes Letma Busman v PP e. other Aggeaxs 2020 B CLJ 147 g 2;5 2020 5 MLJ 277 dan memuluskan an 535 — “Takmn (hose mews unto mnanmanon tn: mh ul . cum/I:1ed wound .n In: spedvum anrammng aclrvmes nname mmgalmg mawnsfarmem must now be ounmdevad by the coun m delermmmg whether lhe passmg M 3 death sentence rs cummumumle with ‘n. type of ad 0! lvamckmg as defined unders 2 al Ihe om mm «.1 an tannm new be taken at aI\r snwmpamng and one mac fits all In addmon In mm, (M weight or vomme M Ihe dangerous drug: lmmd n. ma palsessmn av mg unmlichd accused wm be anamer Key oonsmemlmn A dnsnmxan snmm now be mid: bemoan case: where the amoums av damlevous drugs Invowed barely mean the rmmmum thresluzld car a 22 sm su><K:MxmucuznAw/1LRaA -W. sum ruvmnv Mu ». um law may m. .ngn.u-y mm unanmnl «. muus mm wersumpllon M Hifickavg uuuurs Cmda) or me pm and (hose mm are grealiy m exuess mm mmum An Immml mu barely mm ma minimum mveshohi or (hereahoms shnmd ml m mm mm. av any hsavy agqvivamg canon Wm: «acne lilslmesme ueam sevulence Yhus‘ having wnmdsrad an ms pnvwme apgravawlg and mmgamng imam mu keepmg m mwvd ma !wlI| mu mm mm Am sas. m (ms caurfs wow, me dealh senlenue should nnly be reserved in! uxosuuonauy seuour cases where the seamen accused u; wrvud a mam vale nu me an! al mmcxmg (me Lelma Bmman (sum!) Mahamid Faun mama s Anew PP [zoom 1 cu 47a,[2ms12 MLJ15), an «mmcxea m was amuuu mummy Mdangzruui drugs urgmuy m 1 exoeei ov me minimum threshold far the pvesumpllml av uamcxm undsvs 37(da)vHha DDA|i:e Una Anchuanv PP[1E£K‘I]1 ms 15141934) 1 MU an, Muhammad Lukman Mohamad v PF [M21] 7 cu 524‘ [2021] Muu 1m5,PP u Smlulliwmzzm Ma| Naw v PP [mu 1 ms um. [mm 5 MLJ 265). AM) was cauqm m me an av Druueesmsl av manu73c1uv\ng dangerous drugs {ins cm. wm Lounv up &Anulhev Avveal (202116 on E23‘ mm] 4 ML! see). my Ammcked amemus drugs lhamere laund Indwlduafly padmd m mu: amaunli. ma: mm the mvmnoe may were menm «or seflwng av aumouuuu {sou PF v Mom‘! Faulan Md Khuzeh [2m5] 9 CL: 221, [24:15] a mu sea), on was caugm m the an of selhng large xmuuuu no dangemus dmgt my had m ms puswssmn Vavge quannly M pamumun. «cu the p-cu-ssuug‘ rnanu!at:1ulIn9 av admmlsuauon M dnngemu: drugs (19: sumuum Mxl Naswr (supra), M; was caught gwmg mslmctmnx m now, u. pamomarmmors‘ m the 51:1 av puooessm manulamuung, senmg ardmllbulilvn dangcmus dmgi. Mu) uisd sopmsucalad malhods to ommeau rune arlmnspnrl dlngemus dmgs (wee Wghm Ongmm u FE guys 2 cu 724-[2006] 5 MN 415‘ Bebnu Akgc Baumma Mr! P? up 1 ms 511 [2017] Muu mp: 2: sm suKKm:mucuznAw/tmun -mu. sum I-mxhnv Mu u. um In mu m ..uu.uy mm; uaammnl «. muws Wm my Immcked m Vavge quirlnnsi oi nhamscafly mamas dangerous dmg: ov desmnev drugs (see Khmnl Anwzr Abdul Ramm (supva): Obwgun Emmanuel Chukwunanu v PP ma 4 ms wm [may MLRHU em pa rum m In: pnuarulun Magal arm: ovweapanswhen he was caughl, my (oak Me-lmulenmg meuuvssiu mm: mm mu had multiple pnorcMvr:1\ans,.nnd)nr mu; sand m canons mm oorrupl members 01 any enlmcernam agency Yhma llulms are msraly exammes M exnepuanal aggvavnlmg laclnls that may‘ m mu omm‘: mew‘ puxhfytha aum ismanne I|would be up lame mm In deliaevale an um wemh (hem . Amt an mlugatmg mums gmded ny esvzbhsmdlaws ansemenmmsee Bhnnduhnindg m mm 55 um ‘ 1 mg as [19182] 1 MLJ 337 PP v Ramaknslunun smmm.m,m g 9,; [2912 9 cm 44: [N13]! ML! 549, 53 v. Ans Mom Nor ygms 1 ms 1555 up u Lm C)-man an 1976 1 ms mz [ms] 2 MLJ‘ and PF’ v smmumzwan Adanan 5 Ana! ma 2 cu ass [2013] a mm 10; and In find w any one av ham or a oommnahun ov any number cl these (mars justfiy ma cuun‘s exam cl mmexmn m pass me «am iemenae’ an Bsmasarkan keferangan yang dikemukakan dalam kss -. Tertuduh hdak memalnkan pevanin yang besardalam pengedaran dadah alau didapilv meruual axau memproses dadah dalam kuanliu yang bssar. Dakam keadaan Im. Mahkamah berpendapal ‘ liada faklonlaktnr pemheratan yang mewa;arksn Tenumm dwkenakan hukuman ganlung sampal man 51 Wmau bagaimanapun, Mahkamah ml herpendapaf apa-apa hukuman yang mkenakan ke alas Tzrluduh hams mennermmkan kesenusan pertuduhanrpenuduhan yang dlkenakan ke alasnya dan member: keulamaan kepada kapermngan swam sm suxxmxmucnimw/1LRaA 1‘ "Mule W IHIVVDIV wm ». um In my m. ..w., mm; mm... .. mums W a2. Eerdasarkan malduman yang dxbetikan o\eh Timbalan Kelua Pengarah (Operas!) Agensx Ann Dadah Kebangsaan‘ pada 1922023, Negen Kedm maekoden Jumlah kes penyalargunaan dadah temnggw di Niagara pads Hum 2021 as Setelah menlmbang sega\a lam kes ml lermasuk mmgasn Terluduh dan faklur pemberalan hukuman pendakwaan dan berpandukan nas undangmnuang damnuan. Mahkamah W memuluskan Temm-m msamckan kesalahan unluk Penuduhan tersebul clan dlkenakan hukuman penjara seumur mdup dan sebatan 15 sebalan Eerlankh 6 Dxsembev 2023 Narkun Sun r sun Pesurumaya Kemmman Mahkamah Tmggl Makaya dw Sungau Pelam Bagi plhak Pendakwnn TPR Nabfla Huda blnll Muhammad Nazlm Twmbalan Pendakwa Raye Feiaba! Penasmal Undang-Undang Negen Kedah Aras 4, B\ok c‘ Wisma Dam! Amen Ja\an Tunku Bendahara 05503 Ala? Sedan Kedah 2 IN SUKKvNbIfiLlCflZhAR/1LRnA 5 W. W IHIHDEY wm be us« I» may he ..w.y MW; mm. _ mm PM]! Eaql plhak Pembelaan Prayveen Ra} Tetuan Naran Smgh a. Ca 39, First Floor, Market Street, P O Bax 710, 30000 Ipnh Pelak‘ Daml Rldzuan m suxxvumwcgznmi/1LRoA W. sum lhlhhfl MU .. wed In mm m. mwgmuly MW; anumgnl VI muus wvm 25 12 Encik Yalhmdra a/1 Mlnmulnu, ahh kimla Kemaan (SP3), lelah member: keiarangan bahawa hasil analvsi behau ks atas Ekswbm PI3A(1) dan (2) menuruukkan barang Kes dadah Iersebul mengandunw 55 25 gum methamphefamme Has1I analvsa spa dlnyatakan dalam Vaporan klmla behau benankh 1412.202!) [EksIbil PI 11 Kepulusan di akhir kes pendakwun 13 14 Tugas Mahkamah 111 akhlr kes pendakwaan ialih unluk melakukan penuaian maksrma ke acas keselumhan kelerangan pendakwaan den memuluskan sama ada pendakwaan 1e1an beuays membuklrkan sualu kes pnma lame Ierhadap Terluduh sspem dlpevunlukkan d1 bawah seksyen mom Kanun Acara Jenayah Dalam memksanakan zugasan 1m, Mahkamah Ielah herpandukan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes P_P 1:. Mohd Radzibln Abu Bakar Zgfij 1 CLJ 457 :11 457 2005 6 MLJ 393 :11 400’ 12004 2 MLRA 547 2005 1 AMR 321 [Mia Dalo‘SerIAn1warb1nlbvahim[Nu 3 1999 2 MLJ 1 at63,Lgo1Korw Qhgl Q Anor v PF 2003 1 cm 734 at 152. amachandran v. PP 2005 2 ML! am at 315 a Magendran Mohan v PP [2011 1 cu 805111624) saranan m suKKvMbI1ucgznAR/1LRn« «.1. S:H|Hh1v1h:vwH\b¢ um In new m. mV§\nIH|Y Wm 11..."... VI muus wvm Elummjmis d-clan am hem dadan 15 16 17 13 19 Eeluau Aelah menganahsa kandungan Ekslbrt P13A(1) flan (2) dan mendapali wanya mengandungw 59 23 gram melhamphelamlne yang meruadl hal perkara Penuduhan terhadap Tenudnm spa man memben ke4erangan dengan 1e\as Memamuhetamme disenaraxkan sebagaw dadah berbahaya da\am Jadual Panama ADB Berpandukan pengnakvuan Augusline Paul HMR (kelxka nu) dalam kes Bmachandran v PP (supra) @, Mahkamah mi menenma kelerangan SP3 pada nllalzahimya sebagm kelerangan yang boleh mpercaya. Munusamy vengaaasaram v. PP 1957 1 MLJ 492‘ PP v Lam San 1991 3 ML! 426 a. Knee H1 Cmang v PP19G4 2cLJ151h Sakst-saksl pendakwaan ielah mengemukikan kmerangan berkenaan penemuan dan pergerakin baring kss dadah dsngan Kesemua saksl lelah barang kes dadah jelas Ianpa sebarang peninggalan mengenalpssu barang kes khasnya berdasarkan (andaan masmgmasmg Mahkamah mi bevpuas hafi bahawa EksIb1l»Eks|h1l P12 dan P13A(1) darn (2) yang dirampas m bahagxan mang km wversel av bawah temps! duduk Motosukax lersebut an |empa| kejaman da\am kehamran Tertuduh ada\ah barang kes yang sama yang dukemukakan d1 Mahkamah Rangkamn kelerangan herkenaan barang kes Iidak \erpulus. m suKKvMtmucgznAR/1LRn« Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm 20 Berdnsarkan alisan-masan W, Mahkamah pendakwaan te\a7I membuklvkan dadah berbihaya yang memam hawerkara Perluduhan wakah methamphetamine seberat 55 2e mendapatv gram Dengan vn elemen jams nan beral dadah terbubm. Elamen mlllknn um pengetahuan dadah 21 Unluk elemen vm, Mahkamah inl berpandukan amalan Thomson J diflam kes Chan Pesn Lean v PP 1956 1 MLJ 237 .11 235 Penghakxman tersebul felall dlnuuk Lian dlendas o\eh Mahkamah Persekueuan da\am kesku PP v Abdul Rahman bun Am 2007 5 P‘ PP v Demsh Madhavan 2009 2 MLJ 134 w Vnke Keong v PP 2013 3 MLJ 630. Ghasem Hoxoun Hassan v PP [guts 5 MLJ 231 & Chan Wei Loan v PP and anmhsr aggal 2021 A MLJ ssu 22 Da\am kes Parlen Dadeh (supra), Augustme Pan! FCJ merumuskan d\ 741 ‘The waw u agar and wan salted mom knmuledge is vuvy am a mine! :11 Infevenue m malarial mm which we Inletenne ac knwwiedga can be drawn vanes ham cu: m use In wuuld be sumuem my the vmaeculmn m mom ms rmm wmm :1 com be pmpefly mm Ina! me accused had the nacnsaly Kmwledue - Mudtaba Hnssemzadeh Ma'Idv PP and another sggem 2015 2 ML) 234 Q goo s Guna\an a/I Ramacnandran 5. on v PP 2004 4 MLJ 459 31506) m suxxvmmucnimw/1LRa« ‘ Wale sum IHIHDIV wm be um law may m. mwgmuly mm anuumnl m mm wvm ‘ 23 24 25 2s 27 Bardasarkan matnks lakla kes IN. SP4 |e\ah member! kexerangan secara afimam bahawa kah perlama belisu Ielah mellhat Tertuduh menunggang Mo(usika\ lersebul damn keadaan mencungakan Terluduh kehhalsn meneleh ke km flan ke kanan Terluduh kemumannya mengnenmkan Muluswkal Iersebul an hadapan Rumah lersehut Kelvka spa mengenalkin din sebagal pegawal pulls, Terluduh bemndak agvesli darn Cuba me\ankan din Selepas sualu nergemtan‘ Tenuduh bsnaya dltahan Eksnhrt P12 duumpal dl bahagian ruang kin oavemet an bawah Iempal duduk Molos\ka\ tersebux caversex mu hanya baleh dvhuka dengan menggunikan kunol Malaslkal Iersebut [Eksibit PB] Wa\aupun sm dIsua\ ha\as uenurmum bevkenaan temps! m mana barang kes dadah duumpal. behau le\ah manafikan catiangaw cadangan pembexaan din konswsten dalam keterangan bellau Kredlbllm bshau Udak lergugal Mmasxkal nu rmhk Abdul Wahab hm Mal Idns, bapa Tertuduh (SP5) Kelerangannya adalah bahawa Tenuduh |e\ah menggunakan Ma(os\ka\ terssbul seknar 7 on — 7 so malam harv kqaman umuk kemar jumpa kawan Mahkamah menerima kelevangan SP5 bahawa Tenumm nrang Ierakmr menggunakan MoIos\ka\ lersebut SP5 menafikan barang kes didah yang duumpax an hahaglan mang kin coversel dx bawah lempat duduk Mutusukal Iersebm adalah mlhknya. m suKKvMtmucgznAR/1LRn« Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be um In new m. mwgmuly mm 3..."... VI muus wvm 25 29 30 31 32 Kelerangan SP5 semasa pemenksaan b:\as lldak konsxsten dengan Kelerangan pemeriksaan ulamanya waraupun ma eelan mehhal anggma polls menggunakan kunca [Exsmn P3] unluk mernbuka caversex MolosIka\ tersebul. ma memberi kmerangan » -s Adakah wm kuncw muloswkal Iersebufi .1 Rasanya bukan yang rm Sebab kunm saya ada Ianda ram- Mahkamah mendapatn keterangan ini max mgux Begum juga dengan keterangannya hahawa sepupu dan bebetapa kawan Yertuduh ada menggunakan MoIos\ka\ (ersebul dan kemungkman mereka memegang kuncw pendua masmgrmasmg. Danpada kelerangan pendakwaan bevhubung Iempat ax mama harang kes dadah |Eksi '« P13A(1) mm (2)1 duumpax, Mahkamah ilv membual dauatan nusmv barang kevs dadah ada\ah da\am kawalan den Jagaan Temmuh Pengelahuan berkenaan dadah lersabut boleh dlbuat mferens herdasarkan ke\akuan Terluduh yang bemrmak agresfl sehmgga berliku pergemtan den cubaan melankan dm se\epas spa mengenalkan dun sehagau pegawai pohs Dengan kelerangan yang ada, Mahkaman berpuas ham Tenuduh mempunyai mmkan darn pengelahuan berkenaan dadah Ievsebul Dengan mu a\emsn mmkan nan pengetahuan zemuxn m suKxvMMwcgznAn/«Lana Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be uud In mm m. mwgmuly MW; anumgnl VI muus wvm Elemen pengedann dust: as u. bawah seksyen 37(da)(xv\), saseorang Ilu ada\ah dlanggap mengedar dadah yekwranya mdapall a. dalam mmknya ida so gram atau Veblh dadah jems methamphetamine, 34 Memandangkan berm methamphetamme sebanyak 55 25 gram yang mpemxeni flan Eksimc PI3A(1) dan (2) melemm had smulon nwumum, Ianggapan pengedaran an bawah seksyen 37(da) ADE lerpakan Dengan tanggapan vm, elemen psngedaran dadah Ievbukli Keumpunn 35 Berdasarkan human dx mas, Mahkamah telah membuat pemrman maksima ke alas kelerangan saksrsaksx pendakwaan din berpuas hat: pendakwaaan |e\ah berjaya membuknkan suam kes pnma lame zemaaap Tenuauh bagi Penuduhan cerssbm 36 Terluduh mpanggu membehi dun umuk Penuduhan tersebul Pembolaan Tenuduh 31, Mahkamah melaxm Aulubahasa lelah menerangkan plllharvplllhan membuat pembavaan kepada Term-m dan Terluduh memllih umuk memuen kelerangan bersumpah dan kandang saksl Mahkamah juga le\ah membenarkan permohnnan Pemhexaan unluk memanggfl semma SP5 m suKxvMMwcgznAn/«Lana Wale sum lhlhhfl wm be uud In mm m. mwgmuly MW; anumgnl VI muus wvm as Terluduh Ie\ah mengemukakan pemyalaan benulus an bawah seksyen 4025 KTJ benankh 8 5.2023 [PSD-1] 39 Kecerangannya buleh dinngkaskan sepem benkut— (1) Ma(osIks\ (erssbut [Eksmm P18] adalih mxllk SP5, on pada larikh xejaman SP5 dan amknya ada menggunakan I Motoswkal lersebuh (m) Temmuh hanya menggunakan Motuslkal tersehul mulal jam 10 an ma\am unluk pergr ke mmah Eotak d\ No 44, Kampung Paya Kemuc, Kuala Muda‘ uv) dis Ks mmah Botak unluk unluk burak-borak can ]ua\ befi mmyak Mam‘ (V) ma bevgemc semasa tangkapan kerana 2 ilau 3 \e\akI Melayu (elah menyerhu ks arahnya dan silah seorang \e\ak| telsehut msmegang pwsluk (vi) an berasa takul Gan gemenlar kerana melihal Velakl yang memegang pIs1ol dan mgatkan mereka hendak menyarmmnya, dan my barang kes dadah yang dljumpal Motoslkal lersebut bukan mfllknya u bahaglan coversee ‘ 1a m suKK:MtmucgznAR/1LRnA Wale sum IHIHDIV wm be um law may m. mwgmuly mm anuumnl m mm wvm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

JA-25-2-01/2022

PEMOHON RAMESH SHANKAR A/L RAJA RAM RESPONDEN TONG-CARRIAGE (M) SDN. BHD.

Judicial review – to quash the Industrial Court decision where it dismissed the Applicant’s claim that his dismissal by the Respondent was wrongful, void and inoperative – whether the Applicant in this application has to appeal to the high court under new s. 33C of the Industrial Relations Act – whether the Applicant has to be presumed as a confirmed employee despite the non-confirmation of employment by the Respondent – whether an employee continues to be in service as a probationer if no action is taken by the employer either by way of confirmation or by way of termination – what are the methods to measure whether a probationer is justified for dismissal

10/12/2023

YA Dato' Sri Shamsulbahri bin Haji Ibrahim

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4dbae6ba-6148-49fe-b64e-c97fc1636ac4&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - GOJ RAMESH JR INDUSTRIAL COURT PROBATION JA-25-2-01-2022.docx 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI JOHOR BAHRU DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO.: JA-25-2-01/2022 Dalam perkara mengenai permohonan untuk perintah Certiorari berhubung dengan Award Mahkamah Perusahaan No. 1535 Tahun 2021 DAN Dalam perkara berhubung dengan Jadual 1 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dan Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA RAMESH SHANKAR A/L RAJA RAM ...Pemohon DAN TONG-CARRIAGE (M) SDN. BHD ...Responden GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an application for judicial review to quash the Industrial Court decision dated 18.10.2021 where it dismissed the Applicant’s claim that his dismissal by the Respondent was wrongful, void and inoperative. 10/12/2023 07:53:44 JA-25-2-01/2022 Kand. 28 S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [2] As a brief background of facts, in the Respondent’s statement of reply filed at the Industrial Court, the Respondent pleaded that the Applicant approached Mr. Seet Huk Tong, one of the Respondent’s directors out of blue in 2017 asking for a job. Both of them are acquaintance who had some business relation in some 20 years back but lost contact thereafter. In that informal meeting between them, the Applicant verbally promised to Mr. Seet Huk Tong that he could bring in RM20,000.00 worth of profits for the Respondent and requested for a job of Senior Sales Manager with monthly salary of RM6,000.00. Mr. Seet Huk Tong agreed to give the Applicant a try as the latter had experience in logistics and was doing freight forwarding in his last job. This, in his mind would bring more sales and profits to the Respondent. [3] By a letter of appointment (“LA”) dated 7.3.2017 issued by the Respondent, the Applicant was appointed as the Respondent’s Senior Sales Manager with effect from 3.4.2017 and with a basic monthly salary of RM6,000.00 as requested by the latter. The terms and conditions of the LA are as follows, inter alia: (a) the Applicant was on probation for 3 months which may be extended at the sole discretion of the Respondent; (b) the Applicant’s performance would be reviewed periodically and the Respondent may make any adjustment to the applicant’s salary as it sees fit; (c) the Applicant was required to work during office hours but the Respondent may require the Applicant to work beyond office S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 hours to discharge the Applicant’s duties at the sole discretion of the Respondent; and (d) the Respondent reserved the right not to give any reason for any termination. [4] According the Respondent, after the probation period, the Applicant failed to achieve the sales as promised. The Respondent further alleged that despite the Applicant’s poor performance, it had continuously assisted the latter to meet the target, but all were in vain. [5] On 1.3.2019 i.e some 23 months after the issuance of the LA and after a number of insists by the Applicant, the Respondent issued a letter of confirmation (“LC”). However, the Applicant rejected the LC as he discovered that certain terms and conditions in the LC were different from what were in the LA. The Applicant averred that the Respondent had unilaterally changed the said terms and conditions in the Applicant’s LA to set out a new provision on the monthly profit target which must be achieved by the Applicant failing which the Applicant’s basic salary will be reduced for the following month. [6] Despite the Applicant rejected the LC, the Respondent continued the former’s employment. The Applicant admitted receiving several emails from the Respondent via one Ms. Calista Seet Pei Wein (“Calista Seet”) on his failure to meet the specified targets. The last email received by the Applicant was on 19.8.2019 in which Ms. Calista Seet informed him that the Respondent was not satisfied with the company’s sale performance conducted by the Applicant and stated that as such the Applicant’s salary would be deducted to RM3,000.00. S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [7] The Applicant did not agree with the Respondent’s proposal. Instead, the Applicant replied the email on 3.10.2019 explaining that he himself took the initiative to set up a few new services especially telemarketing and shipments to Thailand as to beef up the Respondent’s sales. At the same time, the Applicant averred that the poor performance of the Respondent’s revenue was due to its own weaknesses including the failure of the company to renew the bonded and DG licences for trucks, lack of manpower and delay in making payments to vendors which led the Respondent losing supports from its customers. [8] Since the Applicant did not sign the LC, the Respondent issued a termination notice dated 31.10.2019 to the Applicant mentioning that the Applicant’s last day of service would be on 30.11.2019. The Respondent’s preliminary objection [9] During the hearing of this application, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the Applicant should have appealed to the high court against the industrial court decision under s. 33C of the Industrial Relations Act 1976 (“IRA”) and should not have filed this application by way of judicial review. The section reads – Appeal against an award to the High Court 33C. (1) If any person is dissatisfied with an award of the Court made under section 30 such person may appeal to the High Court within fourteen days from the date of receipt of the award. (2) The procedure in an appeal to the High Court shall be the procedure in the Rules of Court 2012 [P.U. (A)205/2012] for an appeal from a Sessions Court with such modifications as the circumstances may require. S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (3) In dealing with such appeals, the High Court shall have like powers as if the appeal is from the Sessions Court. [10] On this objection, I agree with learned counsel for the Applicant that the new s. 33C of the IRA is not applicable in the present case as the proceedings before the Industrial Court was commenced on 5.1.2020 that was before the new provision come into effect on 1.1.2021. This is fortified by the explanation in the saving and transitional provision of s. 35(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2021 which states that the amendment Act is not applicable to all cases referred to the industrial court before the commencement date of the amendment Act. The subsection states – Saving and transitional provisions 35. (1) Complaints made under section 8, disputes referred under subsection 9(1a), claims for recognition made under section 9, representations for reinstatement made under section 20 of the principal Act, and all proceedings commenced or awards made before the Industrial Court in relation to a reference under subsection 8(2a), subsection 20(3) and section 26 before the coming into operation of this Act shall proceed and have effect as if the principal Act had not been amended by this Act. [11] In the upshot, based on the above provision, the Respondent’s preliminary objection is untenable and dismissed. The Applicant’s preliminary objection [12] The Applicant also raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the Respondent’s affidavit in reply affirmed by Ms. Calista Seet should be S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 disregarded as she has no authority to affirm such affidavit on behalf of the Respondent. [13] Nevertheless, the Applicant did not adduce any cogent evidence to support his averment except he alleged that Calista Seet was the Human Resource Manager at Tong Carriage Pte Ltd in Singapore. As such, according to the Applicant, Ms. Calista Seet did not hold any official position in the Respondent company at the material time and all affidavits affirmed by her must be expunged and rejected. [14] On this issue, I find that there is a letter dated 2.1.2020 signed by Ahmad bin Hashim, a director of the Respondent authorising Ms. Calista Seet to represent the Respondent in the court proceedings in relation to the Applicant’s matter. In view of this letter, it is no doubt that Ms. Calista Seet was duly authorised to represent the Respondent. In light of this, I find that the Applicant’s preliminary objection is groundless and dismissed. Functions of the industrial court [15] Before this court deals with the merit of this application, it is important to highlight the role of industrial court which had been explained in a plethora of cases including the case of Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd. [1981] 1 LNS 30; [1981] 1 MLJ 129 where Raja Azlan Shah CJM (as His Royal Highness then was) lucidly expounded as follows: Where representations are made and are referred to the Industrial Court for enquiry, it is the duty of the Court to determine whether the termination or dismissal is with or without just cause or excuse. If the employer chooses to S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 give a reason or excuse for the action taken by him, the duty of the Industrial Court will be to enquire whether that reason or excuse has or has not been made out. If it finds as a fact that it has not been proven, then the inevitable conclusion must be that the termination or dismissal was without just cause or excuse. The proper enquiry of the Court is the reason advanced by the employer, and that court or the High Court cannot go into another reason not relied on by the employer, or find one for him. [16] As such the functions of the industrial court in dismissal cases on a reference under s. 20 of the IRA are – (a) to determine whether the misconduct complained of by the employer has been established, and (b) to determine whether the proven misconduct constitutes just cause or excuse for the dismissal. (see also K A Sanduran Nehru Ratnam v. I-Berhad [2007] 1 CLJ 347 (FC), Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seh Yen [1995] 4 CLJ 449 (FC) and Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [1995] 3 CLJ 344; [1995] 2 MLJ 753 (FC)). [17] In this regard, the Respondent being the employer has the burden to satisfy the court that the dismissal in question was done with just cause or excuse (see Weltex Knitwear Industries Sdn Bhd v. Law Kar Toy & Anor [1998] 1 LNS 258 and Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara v. Krishnan Kutty Sanguni Nair & Anor [2002] 3 CLJ 314). S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Argument by the Applicant [18] The Applicant mounted the following issues as grounds for the judicial review, inter alia: (a) the Industrial Court failed to make correct evaluations of the evidence before it especially on the issues of the Applicant’s poor performance; (b) the Industrial Court failed to consider that the Applicant has to be presumed as a confirmed employee despite the non- confirmation of employment by the Respondent; (c) the Industrial Court failed to assess important facts contributing to the declining of the Respondent’s sales and profits; (d) the Industrial Court considered irrelevant matters including the cutting of the Applicant’s salary as an indication that the Respondent was not happy with the Applicant’s work performance; and (e) the Industrial Court failed to consider that the Respondent failed to prove the Applicant’s poor work performance. Status of the applicant [19] The Applicant averred that he has to be presumed as a confirmed employee despite the non-confirmation of employment by the Respondent. The Applicant referred to the High Court decision in Paari Perumal v. Abdul Majid Hj Nazar din & Ors [2000] 4 CLJ 127 where it was decided that if an employee is not confirmed or his services are not S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 terminated at the end of his probationary period, he should be deemed to be a confirmed employee. [20] Nevertheless, the above authority is flagrantly perverse and contrary to the Federal Court decision in KC Mathews v. Kumpulan Guthrie Sdn. Bhd. [1981] CLJ 40B (Rep) 62, wherein Raja Azlan Shah CJM had agreed with Das Gupta J in Express Newspapers Ltd v. Labour Court & Anor [1964] AIR SC 806 which held that if no action is taken by the employer either by way of confirmation or by way of termination, the employee continues to be in service as a probationer. [21] It is also a cardinal principle that a probationer holds no lien to his employment. The concept of probation in a service contract is the test of the character and capabilities of the person on the employer's side as well as the test of the conditions of service on the employee’s part. The appointment of a person on probation is therefore tentative and dependent on the employer's satisfaction as to his suitability. [22] In the present case, the Applicant clearly rejected the LC offered by the Respondent. In the absence of any letter from the Respondent or any other cogent evidence recognising the Applicant as a confirmed employee, I agree with the industrial court that the Applicant was still a probationer at the time of his dismissal despite the letter of appointment stated that he would be on a probation for 3 months. S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Merit of dismissal [23] On the ground for dismissal, the Respondent in its statement of reply in the industrial court stated that the Applicant’s dismissal was due to his poor work performance. The Respondent averred that, before the dismissal, it had sent a series of emails to the Applicant informing the latter on his under-achieved performance and asking him to improve. [24] Nevertheless, the Applicant averred that the Respondent failed to prove his poor work performance. Instead, the Applicant submitted that the alleged lack of performance was mainly contributed by the Respondent’s lack of management and shortcomings. [25] Based on the arguments by both parties, the question before the court is whether the ground of the Applicant’s dismissal is justified or otherwise. [26] It is my view that one of the best methods to measure whether a probationer is justified for dismissal is by way of thorough assessment of his performance during the entire probation. At this juncture, I find instructive the case of Robert John Reeves v. Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & Anor [2000] 1 CLJ 180, where it is was stated by Faiza Thamby Chik J on the right of employer to terminate a probationer upon evaluation of his service as follows: Therefore in the instant case at the end of the applicant's probationary period, it was open to the 2nd respondent to either continue or discontinue the services of the applicant. The applicant, by virtue of being a probationer, had no say in the matter and the 2nd respondent, as the employer, was fully entitled to S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 terminate his services upon their evaluation that he did not perform his job functions satisfactorily. If it were otherwise, there would be no distinction between probationary employment and permanent employment. [27] In Bennet Subash Peter v. Bon Ton Sdn Bhd (Bon Ton Resort Langkawi) [2019] 4 CLJ 150; [2019] 1 MLJ 326, the Court of Appeal referred to the book entitled the Industrial disputes Law in Malaysia, 2nd edn at p. 111 where its author C.P. Mills observes – The Industrial Court has held that employment of a person on probation does not give the employer a right to terminate the contract at his absolute discretion. Even at common law the employer's right to determine the contract during the probationary period depended on the employer being reasonably satisfied as to the unsuitability of the employee. That is to say, the employer's decision should be made bona fide, not arbitrarily or capriciously. [28] Looking at the emails sent by the Respondent to the Applicant, it clearly shows that the latter’s performance was closely monitored and supervised by Ms. Calista Sheet and Ms. Lynn. When the Respondent was not satisfied with the Applicant’s works by enumerating his poor performance including below-achieved sale targets as promised and some outstanding bills which were not cleared even after 6 months, I find that the Respondent had properly evaluated the Applicant works before deciding to dismiss him. Thus, there is no doubt that the decision to dismiss the Applicant was justified and made bone fide after full assessment on his works. [29] On the issue raised by the Applicant that he was not reminded or issued with any warning of his poor performance, I find that the series of emails and the conduct of the Respondent reducing the Applicant’s salary S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 are sufficient to serve as warnings and reminders to the Applicant of his unsatisfactory works. At the same time, I find that the Applicant was given a reasonable time by the Respondent to improve his work performance. [30] Further, I find that the periodical reports and the monthly targets of the Applicant’s sales which were discussed in detail by the Respondent with the former can be taken as a notification of his overall performance. In Hartalega Sdn Bhd v. Shamsul Hisham Mohd Aini [2004] 3 CLJ 257, Wan Arfah J held that – (v) To my mind, I subscribe to the concept/principle that there should be a distinction between the two categories of workman. I verily believe that merely bringing the probationer within the ambit of s. 20 of the Act does not automatically imply that the probationer is elevated to the status of a confirmed employee as this was not the intention of the legislature in enacting s. 20(3) of the IRA 1967. (vi) To my mind it was wrong for the Chairman of the IC to adopt the principles in Ireka and Rooftech which only refer to confirmed employees. My opinion is that the rigid test as expounded in the said case should not be applied to employees on probation, especially with regard to requiring a written warning. To me, the monthly appraisal report produced by the applicant and which was communicated and discussed with the respondent was sufficient for reason of dismissal. [31] In light of the above, I find that the Applicant was given ample warnings and notifications on his performance for him to improve before the dismissal took place. S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Conclusion [32] As the conclusion, having considered the facts and the circumstances of the present application, I find that the learned industrial court chairman was correct on the basis of the relevant law and the established evidence that the Applicant’s dismissal was done with just cause and excuse. Thus, I dismiss the Applicant’s application for judicial review with costs. Dated: 7.12.2023 -SIGNED- (SHAMSULBAHRI BIN HAJI IBRAHIM) Judge, High Court of Malaya, Johor Bahru Counsels: For the Applicant – Mathew George; Messrs Mathew George & Co For the Respondent – Saw Mei Kee; Messrs Teo, Saw & Partners Cases referred to:  Bennet Subash Peter v. Bon Ton Sdn Bhd (Bon Ton Resort Langkawi) [2019] 4 CLJ 150; [2019] 1 MLJ 326  Goon Kwee Phoy v. J & P Coats (M) Bhd. [1981] 1 LNS 30; [1981] 1 MLJ 129  Hartalega Sdn Bhd v. Shamsul Hisham Mohd Aini [2004] 3 CLJ 257  K A Sanduran Nehru Ratnam v. I-Berhad [2007] 1 CLJ 347,  KC Mathews v. Kumpulan Guthrie Sdn. Bhd. [1981] CLJ 40B (Rep) 62  Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v. Wong Seh Yen [1995] 4 CLJ 449 (FC)  Paari Perumal v. Abdul Majid Hj Nazar din & Ors [2000] 4 CLJ 127 S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14  Robert John Reeves v. Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & Anor [2000] 1 CLJ 180,  Telekom Malaysia Kawasan Utara v. Krishnan Kutty Sanguni Nair & Anor [2002] 3 CLJ 314  Weltex Knitwear Industries Sdn Bhd v. Law Kar Toy & Anor [1998] 1 LNS 258  Wong Yuen Hock v. Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [1995] 3 CLJ 344; [1995] 2 MLJ 753 Legislations referred to:  Industrial Relations Act 1967 – s. 33C  Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2021 - s. 35(1) Literatures referred to:  Industrial disputes Law in Malaysia, 2nd edn S/N uua6TUhh/km2Tsl/wWNqxA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

DA-21NCvC-6-05/2020

PLAINTIF 1. ) SEMERAK SHIPYARD & MARITIME ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) TRIGSTATION SDN BHD DEFENDAN KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

“Kemungkiran Kontrak – sama ada penamatan perjanjian adalah pra matang dan mewajarkan ganti rugi diawardkan – sama ada Plaintif telah menahan secara salah barang-barang milik Defendan”

10/12/2023

YA Datuk Mohamad Abazafree bin Mohd Abbas

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0616a9fb-35d6-4cec-9449-314c1d49bb80&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-21NCvC-6-05/2020 ANTARA 1. SEMERAK SHIPYARD & MARITIME ENGINEERING SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 728092-P) 2. TRIGSTATION SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 949432-D) … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN KERAJAAN MALAYSIA … DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Kes ini meibatkan satu tuntutan oleh Plaintif ke atas Defendan iaitu Kerajaan Malaysia yang melibatkan penamatan kontrak oleh Defendan berkaitan kerja-kerja Melaksanakan Perkhidmatan Mereka Bentuk, Membina, Menguji dan Mentauliah Sebuah Kapal Penyelidikan Perikanan 30 meter Untuk Jabatan Perikanan Malaysia. 10/12/2023 16:29:33 DA-21NCvC-6-05/2020 Kand. 55 S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [2] Plaintif telah membuat tuntutan ke atas Defendan dan di dalam masa yang sama Defendan turut memfailkan tuntutan balas. Fakta kes yang dipersetujui [3] Secara ringkasnya fakta yang dipersetujui adalah seperti berikut: (a) melalui Surat Setuju Terima bertarikh 21/12/2016 [Ekshibit D4], Defendan telah melantik Plaintif Pertama Untuk melaksanakan Perkhidmatan Mereka Bentuk, Membina, Menguji dan Mentauliah Sebuah Kapal Penyelidikan Perikanan 30 Meter Untuk Jabatan Perikanan Malaysia (“perkhidmatan tersebut”); (b) selanjutnya satu Perjanjian Mereka Bentuk, Membina, Menguji dan Mentauliah Sebuah Kapal Penyelidikan Perikanan 30 Meter Untuk Jabatan Perikanan Malaysia Defendan dan Plaintif Pertama pada 25/10/2017 telah ditandatangani antara Plaintif Pertama dan Defendan bagi Perkhidmatan tersebut (“Perjanjian Asal”) [Ekshibit P1]; (c) Perjanjian Asal tersebut hanya ditandatangani pada 25/10/2017 kerana telah berlaku kelewatan di dalam memuktamadkan draf Perjanjian. Tempoh Perjanjian bagi Perkhidmatan tersebut adalah selama 18 bulan bermula dari 28/12/2016 dan tamat pada 27/6/2018; S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (d) berdasarkan kemajuan kerja yang dinilai melalui lawatan tapak dan mesyuarat berkala, Defendan mendapati bahawa kerja-kerja di tapak projek telah terlewat dari jangkaan yang sepatutnya dan Plaintif Pertama telah diberikan teguran atas kelewatan menyiapkan Perkhidmatan tersebut [rujuk; Ekshibit D10, D11, D14 dan D36]; (e) Plaintif Pertama melalui surat bertarikh 22/3/2018 telah memohon kepada Defendan untuk perlanjutan tempoh masa sehingga 27/8/2019 di mana Plaintif Pertama telah diberikan lanjutan tempoh kontrak selama 11 bulan untuk menyiapkan baki kerja yang tertunggak sehingga 27/5/2019; (f) Plaintif Pertama dan Defendan telah selanjutnya menandatangani satu Perjanjian Tambahan bertarikh 15/10/2018 bagi tujuan lanjutan tempoh masa tersebut (“Perjanjian Tambahan”); (g) namun Plaintif masih lagi lewat di dalam melaksanakan perkhidmatan tersebut sebagaimana yang dinyatakan di dalam Carta Perbatuan yang ditetapkan di dalam Perjanjian Tambahan. Malahan melalui Mesyuarat Pemantauan Projek bulan Disember 2018 Bil.2, kemajuan semasa (kemajuan kerja pada 13/2/2018) adalah sebanyak 31.67% berbanding kemajuan jadual sebanyak 66.03% dan prestasi kemajuan Perkhidmatan tersebut adalah negatif sebanyak 35.36%; S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (h) sehubungan itu, Defendan telah mengeluarkan Notis Kemungkiran bertarikh 28/1/2019 supaya Plaintif Pertama meremedikan kegagalan dengan menyiapkan baki kerja Perkhidmatan tersebut; (i) pada 21/5/2019 Defendan telah mengeluarkan surat penamatan kerana Plaintif Pertama telah gagal meremedikan kegagalan dalam tempoh 30 hari dari tarikh penerimaan Notis Kemungkiraan pada 28/1/2019 dan gagal melaksanakan Perkhidmatan tersebut sebagaimana yang dipersetujui di dalam Perjanjian Asal dan Perjanjian Tambahan; dan (j) bayaran-bayaran yang telah dibuat oleh Defendan adalah sebanyak RM8,711,040.00 kepada Plaintif Pertama bagi kerja-kerja yang dilakukan oleh Plaintif Pertama mengikut Jadual Pembayaran yang dilampirkan di dalam Perjanjian Asal tersebut seperti berikut: (i) 8% daripada nilai Perjanjian yang berjumlah RM2,367,616.00 apabila menandatangani Perjanjian dan kelulusan lukisan am; (ii) 12% daripada nilai Perjanjian yang berjumlah RM 3,551,424.00 apabila siap ‘Keep Laying’; dan S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (iii) 10% daripada nilai Perjanjian yang berjumlah RM2,792,000.00 apabila enjin utama dan ‘gear box’ tiba di tapak pembinaan. Isu-isu untuk dibicarakan [4] Pihak-pihak telah bersetuju bahawa isu-isu yang perlu diputuskan oleh Mahkamah ini adalah seperti berikut: (a) sama ada penamatan Perjanjian Tambahan bertarikh 15/10/2018 adalah pramatang (premature) dan tidak sah; (b) jika penamatan Perjanjian Tambahan bertarikh 15/10/2018 tersebut adalah pramatang dan tidak sah, jumlah ganti rugi yang boleh diawardkan kepada Plaintif; dan (c) jika penamatan Perjanjian Tambahan bertarikh 15/10/2018 tersebut adalah sah, sama ada penahanan enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan adalah ditahan secara salah oleh Plaintif dan perlu dikembalikan kepada Defendan. Analisis dan dapatan Mahkamah Isu (a); sama ada penamatan Perjanjian Tambahan bertarikh 15/10/2018 adalah pramatang (premature) dan tidak sah S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [5] Teras kepada isu ini adalah sama ada penamatan Perjanjian Tambahan tersebut adalah sah memandangkan Perjanjian Tambahan di P2 masih lagi berkuatkuasa sehingga 27/5/2019. Peguam Plaintif berpendirian bahawa Notis Penamatan adalah bercanggah dan melanggari perenggan 3 P2. [6] Para 3 P2 tersebut menyatakan; “Perjanjian Tambahan ini hendaklah disifatkan berkuat kuasa pada 28 Jun 2018 hingga 27 Mei 2019 tertakluk kepada pindaan kepada fasal 3 Perjanjian Prinsipal.” [7] Peguam Plaintif menegaskan bahawa Plaintif telah diberikan tempoh lanjutan dari 28/6/2018 sehingga 27/5/2019 untuk menyiapkan perkhidmatan tersebut. Namun apabila Notis Penamatan di P3 menyatakan “Penamatan serta merta” bermakna Defendan telah menamatkan Perjanjian tersebut pada 21/5/2019 yang tidak mengikut tarikh di dalam P2. [8] Di dalam menafsirkan sesuatu Perjanjian, secara amnya, terdapat 2 prinsip iaitu: (a) apabila pihak-pihak telah menandatangani sesuatu dokumen yang mengandungi terma-terma kontrak yang menentukan hubungan antara mereka, pihak-pihak tersebut adalah terikat dengan kesemua terma-terma tersebut; dan S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (rujuk; Smallholders Corp Sdn Bhd & Ors v Utusan Transport Sdn Bhd [1995] 4 MLJ 587 dan Wan Salimah Wan Jaffar v Mahmood Omar; Anim Abdul Aziz (Intervener) [1998] 1 CLJ 480). (b) apabila terma-terma dalam sesuatu kontrak itu nyata dan jelas, Mahkamah hendaklah menguatkuasakan terma-terma berkenaan dan tidak boleh menulis semula terma-terma berkenaan bagi pihak-pihak. (rujuk; Chan Whye & Sons Contractors (suing as a firm) v Sarawak Shell Bhd [2003] 5 MLJ 68 dan Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd v Lim Kok Hoe & Anor and other appeals [2009] 6 MLJ 839). [9] Hubungan antara Plaintif Pertama dengan Defendan adalah secara jelas merupakan satu hubungan kontraktual (purely contractual) yang mana segala urusan dan transaksi di antara Plaintif Pertama dan Defendan adalah tertakluk kepada terma-terma di dalam kedua-dua perjanjian tersebut. Ia adalah bagi projek yang telah dipersetujui dan ditandatangani oleh kedua-dua pihak. [10] Apabila ia melibatkan penamatan kontrak sepertimana di dalam kes ini, maka tugas Mahkamah ini adalah untuk memberi tafsiran ke atas terma berkaitan penamatan secara berhati-hati dengan mengambilkira fakta matriks ke atas perjalanan perjanjian di antara S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 mereka. Mahkamah berpandukan apa yang telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Catajaya Sdn Bhd v. Shoppoint Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 3 CLJ 159; [2021] 2 MLJ 374 di mana Hakim Hasnah Hashim HMP menyatakan: "[65] In interpreting a clause in an agreement it is pertinent to take into consideration the context of the agreement as a whole, to examine the relevant clauses in detail and to consider the relevant factual matrix to give guidance as to the true intent of the parties. When one has to choose between two rival interpretations, the one which made more commercial sense should be preferred if the natural meaning of the words were unclear..." [11] Berdasarkan kepada keterangan melalui SP1 dan SD1 serta keterangan-keterangan dokumen yang telah dikemukakan, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa keterangan dengan jelas menunjukkan: (a) merujuk kepada Fasal 12 di bawah Perjanjian Tambahan [Ekshibit P2] dan Klausa 30 di bawah Perjanjian Asal [Ekshibit P1] masa hendaklah menjadi intipati di bawah Perjanjian Asal dan Perjanjian Tambahan tersebut; (b) pihak Defendan telah memberikan pelbagai amaran dan peringatan secara bertulis dan lisan dalam mesyuarat tapak kepada Plaintif Pertama untuk mengingatkan Plaintif Pertama S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 tentang tanggungjawabnya memastikan menyiapkan projek dalam tempoh yang ditetapkan. Ini kerana kemajuan kerja fizikal di tapak bagi Perjanjian tersebut telah membelakangi jadual yang ditetapkan dan dikhuatiri tidak dapat disiapkan sepenuhnya pada tarikh siap yang ditetapkan; (c) terdapat kelewatan di dalam menjalankan ujian ‘Towing Tank Test’ bersandarkan kepada keterangan SD1 dalam jawapan bagi soalan 25 dalam PS-SD1. Ini menyebabkan pembinaan kapal sebenar tidak dapat dimulakan sehingga ujian tersebut dibuat dan bagi meluluskan model kapal sebenar; (d) malahan SP1 sendiri mengakui semasa pemeriksaan balas bahawa kelewatan di dalam membuat ‘Towing Tank Test’ menjejaskan keseluruhan kemajuan Projek tersebut. Sehingga tarikh mesyuarat bertarikh 5/12/2017, Plaintif Pertama masih gagal memaklumkan secara bertulis mengenai ‘Towing Tank Test’ dan SP1 sendiri mengakui bahawa Plaintif Pertama telah gagal mematuhi carta perbatuan yang ditetapkan dan telah mengambil masa selama 10 bulan untuk melakukan ‘Towing Tank Test’ tersebut; (e) Kerja-kerja di tapak telah digantung apabila pihak Defendan telah mendapati tiada kerja di tapak sejak Lawatan Kerja KSU Kementerian Pertanian dan Industri Asas Tani pada 19/5/2017 sehingga surat amaran bertarikh 7/8/2017; S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (f) keterangan SD1 di dalam jawapan bagi soalan 32 di PS-SD1 turut menyatakan bahawa penggantungan kerja oleh Plaintif Pertama boleh dilihat menerusi ‘S Curve’ yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif Pertama sendiri melalui Laporan Kemajuan Projek No.8 bertarikh 15/1/2018 di mana kemajuan sebenar yang dicapai di tapak iaitu 1.29% adalah statik mulai hujung bulan April 2017 hingga hujung November 2017; (g) Plaintif Pertama masih gagal membuat tempahan untuk enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan. Ini boleh dilihat dari minit Mesyuarat Pemantauan Bulan Disember Bil. 1 bertarikh 5/2/2017 di mana Plaintif Pertama telah berjanji akan membuat tempahan enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan selewatnya pada 7/12/2017 [Ekshibit D52] dan surat pihak Defendan bertarikh 8/12/2017 [Ekshibit D13] di mana Plaintif Pertama masih tidak membuat bayaran bagi tempahan tersebut; (h) tiada pekerja di tapak di mana ini dapat dinilai melalui surat bertarikh 30/5/2018 [Ekshibit D18] iaitu melalui pemantauan oleh Jawatankuasa Pemantauan Projek yang mendapati tiada pekerja di tapak serta emel pihak Defendan bertarikh 7/12/2018 [rujuk muka surat 379, Ekshibit D27]. Semasa pemantauan pada 4/12/2018 adalah didapati tiada pekerja dan aktiviti di tapak pembinaan dan pasukan pemantauan memaklumkan pekerja dan aktiviti pembinaan tidak berjalan S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 sehingga 6/12/2018. Ia turut diakui oleh SP1 semasa diperiksa balas; dan (i) Plaintif Pertama adalah menghadapi masalah kewangan yang dapat dirujuk melalui Minit Mesyuarat Pemantauan Bulan Mei 2018 Bil. 01 bertarikh 6/5/2018 [rujuk muka surat 467, Ekshibit D54] di mana Plaintif Pertama telah menyatakan ia menghadapi ‘financial issues’ dan permasalahan ‘cash flow’. Namun, Pengerusi menyatakan ia adalah masalah dalaman Plaintif Pertama sendiri dan keterangan SP1 semasa diperiksa balas apabila SP1 mengakui Plaintif mengalami masalah kewangan ‘cash flow’. [12] Selanjutnya Mahkamah merujuk kepada jawapan SD1 bagi soalan 40 di PS-SD1. Walaupun surat amaran demi surat amaran dikeluarkan dan lanjutan masa yang secukupnya diberikan kepada Plaintif Pertama, namun kemajuan kerja-kerja bagi projek tersebut masih menunjukkan kelewatan yang ketara sepertimana yang dinyatakan dalam surat-surat amaran kemungkiran kontraktor yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan. [13] Ia juga dipersetujui oleh SP1 sendiri semasa diperiksa balas yang menyatakan bahawa Plaintif Pertama telah menunjukkan kelewatan dari segi kemajuan kerja dan tidak mengambil apa-apa tindakan sejak surat amaran dikeluarkan oleh Defendan. S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [14] Merujuk kepada Fasal 14.1 P1, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa apabila wujud kemungkiran di pihak Plaintif, maka Defendan berhak untuk menamatkan Perjanjian tersebut sekiranya Plaintif gagal meremedikan apa-apa kemungkiran yang disebut dalam Fasal 14.1.1 (a) hingga (f) selepas diserahkan satu Notis Kemungkiran. [15] Dalam kes ini, satu Notis Kemungkiran bertarikh 24.1.2019 [Ekshibit D28] telah dikeluarkan terhadap Plaintif selaras dengan Klausa 14.1.1 (c) di P1 kerana Defendan telah mendapati bahawa Plaintif Pertama telah gagal melaksanakan dan/atau menyiapkan projek tersebut serta telah secara berterusan cuai menjalankan tanggungjawabnya di bawah kedua-dua Perjanjian tersebut walaupun diberikan surat-surat amaran dan teguran di dalam Mesyuarat Pemantauan dan Kemajuan Projek. [16] Ini dapat dibuktikan melalui keterangan SD1 yang telah menyatakan bahawa kemajuan kerja oleh Plaintif Pertama adalah tidak memberangsangkan dan Plaintif Pertama didapati tidak melaksanakan semua kerja yang sepatutnya telah dilaksanakan sebagaimana carta perbatuan yang telah dipersetujui sepertimana di dalam Lampiran 9 di P1. Kemajuan Projek yang dicapai oleh Plaintif Pertama setakat 24/1/2019 adalah hanya 31.98% berbanding 82.3% mengikut jadual di mana kelewatan adalah sehingga 50.32%. [17] Bagi Mahkamah, kedudukan ini menyebabkan ianya wajar bagi Defendan mengkhuatiri Plaintif Pertama tidak dapat menyiapkan S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 Projek tersebut mengikut tarikh siap yang dilanjutkan iaitu pada 27/5/2019. Maka, selaras dengan Klausa 14.1.1, Plaintif Pertama telah diberikan notis untuk meremedikan kemungkiran berkenaan dalam tempoh 30 hari dari tarikh penerimaan Notis Kemungkiran tersebut. [18] Selanjutnya di dalam keterangannya, SD1 mendapati Plaintif Pertama telah gagal untuk meremedikan kegagalannya dalam tempoh remedi walaupun diberikan Notis Kemungkiran dan masih gagal untuk melaksanakan atau menyiapkan Projek tersebut menurut Perjanjian tersebut. SD1 menjangka Plaintif Pertama tidak dapat menyiapkan Projek tersebut dalam tempoh yang ditentukan. Kemajuan yang dicapai oleh Plaintif bagi kerja-kerja Projek tersebut hanyalah 41.82% setakat 5/5/2019 berbanding jadual yang sepatutnya mencapai 97.35%. Maka, selaras dengan Fasal 14.1.2, Defendan telah menamatkan Perjanjian tersebut dengan serta- merta dengan memberikan Notis Penamatan bertarikh 21/5/2019. [19] Keterangan SP1 sendiri semasa diperiksa balas telah bersetuju bahawa Defendan secara konsistennya telah memberikan amaran kepada Plaintif Pertama mengenai kesan terhadap perjanjian jika Plaintif gagal melaksanakan tanggungjawabnya mengikut syarat- syarat perjanjian serta perjanjian akan ditamatkan lebih awal. [20] Mahkamah berpandangan dan mendapati bahawa Klausa 12 di P1 dan Klausa 30 di P2 adalah selari dengan seksyen 56 Akta Kontrak 1950 (Akta 136) dimana ia memberikan hak kepada pihak yang terkilan dalam sesuatu kontrak untuk menamatkannya jika kontrak S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 tersebut tidak dilaksanakan mengikut tempoh masa yang dipersetujui (rujuk; Tan Ah Kian v. Hj Hasnan (1962) MLJ 400). [21] Sehubungan itu, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa tindakan Defendan untuk menamatkan Perjanjian tersebut dengan Plaintif Pertama adalah teratur dan sah. Ia dibuat selaras dengan syarat- syarat di dalam kedua-dua Perjanjian tersebut selepas segala kehendak prosedur yang ditetapkan dalam kedua-dua Perjanjian tersebut telah dipatuhi oleh Defendan. Perjanjian telah ditamatkan selepas Defendan berpuashati bahawa kelewatan di pihak Plaintif Pertama telah mencapai suatu tahap yang mewujudkan suatu keadaan yang tidak munasabah untuk Defendan terus berharap yang Plaintif boleh menyiapkan projek ini pada tarikh yang ditetapkan. [22] Ini selaras dengan apa yang dinyatakan sebagai prinsip kemungkiran terjangka (anticipatory breach) sepertimana yang diulas oleh Hakim Lee Swee Seng HMT (pada ketika itu) di dalam kes Kerajaan Malaysia v. Ven-Coal Rescources Sdn Bhd [2014] 5 CLJ 186 seperti berikut: “[103] There is nothing preventing an Employer from terminating a Contractor after having issued the Certificate of Non-Completion (CNC) for the grounds for a valid termination under the Contract could always be deployed by the Employer in the event that the Contractor has fallen behind the schedule of completion to such a level that the Employer could not realistically expect the Contractor to complete the Works beyond a reasonable time after the Completion Date or S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Extended Completion Date as the case may be. [104] An Employer is not required to bear with an agonizingly slow progress of a Contractor that is consistently falling behind the Schedule of Works whether by use of the CPM or the Sistem Kawal & Lapor ("SKALA") method of measuring progress in the works. Neither can a Contractor buy unlimited time for completion by stating that the Employer has elected to impose LAD. A frustrating delay with no remedial steps taken to accelerate the progress of the Works may go to the root of the Contract that would justify a termination on ground of failure to proceed with the Works regularly and diligently.” [23] Berdasarkan kepada peratusan kesiapan, Mahkamah turut bersetuju dengan Peguam Persekutuan bahawa adalah mustahil bagi Plaintif untuk menyiapkan Projek tersebut di dalam tempoh. Ia turut disokong oleh keterangan SP1 yang mengakui adalah mustahil untuk mencapai 100% peratusan kesiapan dalam tempoh 3 minggu tersebut. [24] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Plaintif Pertama hanya ada 6 hari untuk mencapai Tarikh Siap Baharu iaitu pada 27/5/2019 di mana Plaintif Pertama sejak awal lagi gagal mengekalkan kadar kemajuan yang munasabah sepanjang tempoh perjanjian tersebut. Tambahan pula, SP1 sendiri telah mengakui semasa diperiksa balas bahawa Plaintif Pertama secara konsistennya telah gagal dan cuai dalam melaksanakan Projek tersebut. [25] Prinsip berkaitan kemungkiran terjangka telah dibincangkan di dalam buku Law and Practice of Construction Contracts, Fourth S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Edition, Thomas Reuters, di mana penulisnya Chow Kok Fong telah menyatakan; "As noted earlier, most modern construction contracts contain provisions which enable an employer to terminate the contract where there are sufficient indications to suggest that the original contractor is unlikely to complete the works within an acceptable time frame. This recourse is premised on the existence of an obligation on the part of the contractor to sustain a reasonable rate of progress with the works, an obligation which is distinguishable from the more obvious obligation of completing the works on time. The learned editor of the Hudson 12th Ed considering that such an obligation must, if necessary, be implied. He suggested that it would be absurd if the owner was to be without remedy until perhaps after a distant completion date, and then only for the perhaps inadequate damages resulting from late completion simpliciter. It was further pointed out that, by that time, a failing contractor might well be in liquidation. The learned editor considered that, at any rate, in situations where the works are to be completed within a reasonable time, the period to be allowed for the completion of the works can only be established on the assumption that the contractor does proceed with due diligence." [26] Berlandaskan kepada segala perkara yang disebutkan di atas, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Defendan berhak menamatkan Perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut dan oleh itu Notis Penamatan yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan adalah diputuskan sebagai teratur dan sah. S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Isu (b); jika penamatan Perjanjian Tambahan bertarikh 15/10/2018 tersebut adalah pramatang dan tidak sah, jumlah ganti rugi yang boleh diawardkan kepada Plaintif [27] Bagi isu yang kedua, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa ia sudah menjadi tidak relevan apabila Mahkamah ini telah memutuskan bahawa penamatan kedua-dua Perjanjian tersebut adalah sah. [28] Di dalam apa jua keadaan, Mahkamah turut berpandangan Plaintif turut gagal membuktikan tuntutannya berkaitan ganti rugi. Ini berpaksikan ke atas kegagalan Plaintif membuktikan perkara- perkara berikut: (a) sama ada tanggungjawab Plaintif telah dilaksanakan secara sempurna oleh Plaintif Pertama mengikut syarat-syarat Perjanjian; (b) rujukan klausa-klausa di dalam kedua-dua perjanjian tersebut yang disandar oleh Plaintif Pertama untuk melayakkan Plaintif Pertama menuntut tuntutan tersebut; (c) mengemukakan apa-apa dokumen sokongan bagi menyokong tuntutannya; dan S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 (d) bagaimana Plaintif Pertama mendapat jumlah tuntutan sebanyak RM10,940,956.92. [29] Apatah lagi, SP1 mengakui dalam keterangannya semasa diperiksa balas seperti berikut: (a) bayaran untuk Projek tersebut telah dibuat mengikut jadual bayaran seperti yang terkandung dalam Lampiran 5; (b) setiap kali mencapai progres sepertimana di Lampiran 5, Defendan akan membuat pembayaran kepada Plaintif Pertama; (c) sebanyak 3 bayaran telah dibuat kepada Plaintif; (d) mesin peralatan elektrikal dan ‘auxilliary engine’ tidak sampai di tapak pembinaan dan ia tidak melayakkan Plaintif Pertama untuk menerima bayaran; (e) sehingga tarikh penamatan projek tersebut, ‘hull and super structure’ tidak siap dan ia tidak melayakkan pembayaran untuk Plaintif Pertama; (f) pemasangan, pengujian, pentauliahan kesemua peralatan termasuk jentera, sistem dan yang berkaitan tidak disiapkan S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 sepenuhnya dan ia tidak melayakkan Plaintif Pertama untuk menerima bayaran; (g) tiada bayaran dibuat untuk ‘Delivery and after Acceptance’ di tempat tambatan kerana tidak selesai semasa tarikh penamatan projek tersebut; (h) Defendan tidak pernah gagal untuk membuat bayaran selaras dengan syarat-syarat perjanjian; dan (i) bayaran telah dibuat selaras dengan syarat-syarat perjanjian. [30] Sehubungan dengan itu, Mahkamah memutuskan Plaintif adalah tidak layak untuk menuntut apa-apa jumlah ganti rugi. Isu (c); jika penamatan Perjanjian Tambahan bertarikh 15/10/2018 tersebut adalah sah, sama ada penahanan enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan adalah ditahan secara salah oleh Plaintif dan perlu dikembalikan kepada Defendan [31] Bagi isu ini, Peguam Persekutuan telah merujuk perhatian Mahkamah ini kepada seksyen 74 Akta 136 yang menyatakan; “When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by the breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from the breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.” [32] Di dalam kes Hamdan Johan & Ors v. Felcra Bhd Ors and Another Case [2010] 3 CLJ 474, Mahkamah telah membincangkan seksyen 74 tersebut seperti berikut: “In short, the common law rule in the assessment of damages consists of two limbs. The first limb concerns damages flowing naturally, ie, in the normal course of things from the breach. The second limb concerns the damages that the parties at the time of the making of the contract may reasonably be supposed to have contemplated, as the probable result of the breach. This court is also mindful that in the assessment of damages for breach of contract, the general rule is that the aggrieved party be put in the same position as if the contract had been performed; so that normally he is entitled to recover from the contract breaker his loss of profits, or the benefit of the bargain, as it is often called.” [33] Merujuk kepada prinsip perundangan yang dinyatakan di atas, Defendan berhak untuk menuntut kerugian sebagai ‘aggrieved party’ daripada Plaintif Pertama di atas kemungkiran yang dilakukan oleh Plaintif Pertama di mana Defendan diletakkan dalam dalam satu posisi jika Perjanjian tersebut disempurnakan sepenuhnya. [34] Berdasarkan kepada tuntutan balas dan keterangan yang dikemukakan, Defendan telah menuntut kembali enjin utama, ‘gear S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 box’ dan peralatan berkaitan daripada Plaintif Pertama sebelum kes ini difailkan di Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini. Namun, Plaintif Pertama enggan memberikan enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan walaupun dituntut oleh Defendan. [35] Ianya telah dituntut melalui surat Defendan bertarikh 31/5/2019 [Ekshibit D31] yang ditandatangani oleh Dato’ Haji Munir bin Haji Mohd Nawi, Ketua Pengarah Perikanan Jabatan Perikanan Malaysia kepada Plaintif Pertama. Menurut SD1 tujuan utama surat tersebut dikeluarkan adalah untuk menuntut barang-barang yang merupakan hak milik Defendan kerana Defendan telah membuat bayaran sebanyak RM2,792,000.00 melalui bayaran ketiga [Ekshibit D37] selaras dengan syarat-syarat perjanjian. [36] Plaintif Pertama sebaliknya menyatakan bahawa Plaintif Pertama tidak dapat memberikan kebenaran untuk mengambil enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan daripada limbungan sepertimana yang dituntut oleh pihak Defendan. Plaintif turut menyatakan bahawa pengambilan peralatan tersebut hanya akan dibenarkan jika Defendan membuat bayaran akhir tuntutan Plaintif Pertama bagi kerja-kerja yang telah dilakukan berserta kos. [3]7 Semasa diperiksa balas, SP1 telah mengakui perkara-perkara berikut yang menyokong tuntutan balas Defendan : (a) Plaintif Pertama masih sehingga ke hari ini menyimpan enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan; S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 (b) enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan telah dibayar oleh Defendan; (c) enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan adalah merupakan hak milik Defendan; dan (d) Plaintif Pertama secara salah menahan enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan yang merupakan hak milik Defendan walaupun dituntut oleh Defendan. [38] Oleh itu, Mahkamah memutuskan bahwa Defendan adalah berhak untuk mendapatkan enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan yang merupakan hak milik Defendan dari tahanan Plaintif Pertama. Ia kerana bayaran yang telah dibuat oeh Defendan kepada Plaintif. [39] Isu selanjutnya adalah berkaitan ganti rugi iaitu sama ada selain mendaptkan semula enjin utama, “gear box” dan peralatan berkaitan, Defendan layak dipampas. [40] Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa secara amnya, ganti rugi seperti ini bukan merupakan relif yang sesuai di dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan perjanjian. Ini berdasarkan apa yang telah disentuh oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v Public Bank Berhad [2023] 1 LNS 1802 seperti berikut; S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 “[119] And as for whether aggravated and exemplary damages are claimable in a breach of contract case, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Lee Swee Seng Judicial Commissioner (as he then was – now JCA) in Ang Beng Choo v. RHB Insurance Berhad [2013] 1 LNS 382 (HC) where the Learned Judge said: Damages Whether aggravated and exemplary damages are claimable for breach of contract The basis for assessment of damages in a breach of contract is to put the Plaintiff, the non-defaulting party, in the position as if the contract has not been wrongfully terminated. It is compensatory in nature. As such aggravated damages is generally not awarded for a breach of contract simpliciter………. [120] In PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v. Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd and another appeal [2017] SGCA 26; [2017] 2 SLR 129 the Singapore Court of Appeal (per Justice Andrew Phang) unequivocally enunciated that punitive damages are not claimable in breach of contract claims. The learned Judge gave a number of reasons why punitive damages are not claimable in a breach of contract situation. They may be stated as follows: (f) In so far as the issue relating to the possible award of punitive damages in a purely contractual context was concerned (and considering, first, the arguments against the S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 award of such damages), allowing the courts to punish a party who had breached a contract sat uneasily with the concept of a contract as an obligation arising from a voluntary and binding agreement. The courts ought to have but a minimal role in regulating the contracting parties' conduct without regard to their agreement. It would be anomalous or even inappropriate for the court to regulate the contracting parties' conduct by imposing an award of punitive damages on the party in breach by way of what is in effect an external standard.” [penekanan ditegaskan] [41] Berdasarkan kepada prinsip-prinsip ini, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Defendan adalah tidak wajar diberikan apa-apa ganti rugi. Tambahan pula Defendan turut tidak membuktikan apakah kerugian yang ditanggungi oleh Defendan. [42] Sebaliknya Defendan akan menerima enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan sepertimana perintah Mahkamah. Sebarang award ganti rugi hanya akan memberi kekayaan berganda kepada Defendan (rujuk; Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 CLJ 453). S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 Kesimpulan [43] Di atas pertimbangan keseluruhannya, Mahkamah merumus dan memutuskan seperti berikut: (a) Plaintif di atas imbangan keberangkalian gagal membuktikan tuntutannya; (b) Defendan di atas imbangan keberangkalian, berjaya membuktikan tuntutan balasnya berkaitan penyerahan enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan. Sehubungan itu, Mahkamah memerintahkan agar Plaintif Pertama menyerahkan enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan; (c) Mahkamah turut memerintahkan agar Plaintif membenarkan Defendan untuk masuk ke tapak pembinaan untuk membuat pemeriksaan ke atas enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan yang merupakan hak milik Defendan dan mengalihkan enjin utama, ‘gear box’ dan peralatan berkaitan ke premis Defendan; dan (d) kos sebanyak RM30,000.00 yang ditanggung oleh Plaintif tertakluk kepada fi alokatur. S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 Bertarikh: 10hb Disember, 2023 (DATUK MOHAMAD ABAZAFREE BIN MOHD ABBAS) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi (2) Kota Bharu, Kelantan S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 Pihak-pihak: Bagi Pihak Plaintif- Plaintif : Benedict Cheang Tetuan Bennedict Cheang, Naziruddin & Co. Peguambela & Peguamcara Lot 717, Tingkat 2, Seksyen 9 Jalan Sultanah Zainab 15000 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Bagi Pihak Defendan : Saravanan a/l Kuppusamy Peguam Persekutuan Jabatan Peguam Negara Bahagian Guaman No. 45, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4 62100 Putrajaya. Bicara Pada : 26hb. Julai, 2023 Keputusan Pada : 27hb. September, 2023 S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 Kes-kes yang dirujuk: ➢ Smallholders Corp Sdn Bhd & Ors v Utusan Transport Sdn Bhd [1995] 4 MLJ 587 ➢ Wan Salimah Wan Jaffar v Mahmood Omar; Anim Abdul Aziz (Intervener) [1998] 1 CLJ 480 ➢ Chan Whye & Sons Contractors (suing as a firm) v Sarawak Shell Bhd [2003] 5 MLJ 68 ➢ Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd v Lim Kok Hoe & Anor and other appeals [2009] 6 MLJ 839 ➢ Catajaya Sdn Bhd v. Shoppoint Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 3 CLJ 159; [2021] 2 MLJ 374 ➢ Tan Ah Kian v. Hj Hasnan (1962) MLJ 400 ➢ Kerajaan Malaysia v. Ven-Coal Rescources Sdn Bhd [2014] 5 CLJ 186 ➢ Hamdan Johan & Ors v. Felcra Bhd Ors and Another Case [2010] 3 CLJ 474 ➢ National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v Public Bank Berhad [2023] 1 LNS 1802 ➢ Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 CLJ 453 S/N 6kWBtY17EyUSTFMHUm7gA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24F-286-11/2017

PEMOHON J O Y RESPONDEN G I A

Family law - Application by husband to vary Court Order for enhanced access to Children - Children are four years older - Whether material change in circumstances - Whether husband's application a vexatious one based on his appeal against the Court Order, and his applications filed in the Madras High Court - Whether guardianship should be joint

09/12/2023

YA Puan Evrol Mariette Peters

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=a688d5c0-fdda-4d41-a0a4-f3a7799d250d&Inline=true

WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24F-286-11/2017 In the matter of Sections 88, 89, 92, 93 & 95 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (Act 164) And In the matter of the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court BETWEEN JOY …PLAINTIFF AND GIA …DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 09/12/2023 14:14:16 WA-24F-286-11/2017 Kand. 109 S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Introduction [1] This was an application (“this Application”) by the Plaintiff Husband in enclosure 77, seeking joint guardianship of, and enhanced access to the children of the marriage, by varying certain terms of the order of the High Court dated 18 October 2019 (“the Court Order”). [2] In the interest of privacy of the parties concerned, and sensitivity of the issues in these proceedings, the Plaintiff Husband, and Defendant Wife have been anonymised in this judgment as JOY and GIA respectively. The factual background [3] The Plaintiff (an Indian citizen), and Defendant (a Malaysian), (collectively, “the Parties”) were married in India in July 2012, and are blessed with two daughters (“the Children”), born in February 2015 and January 2018 respectively. [4] The Parties resided in India until July 2017, when the Defendant, whilst pregnant with the younger Child, left India and returned to Malaysia with the older Child. [5] The Plaintiff, after making attempts to locate the Defendant and the older Child, eventually filed an application in November 2017 (“the Custody Application”) in the High Court of Malaya for, inter alia, custody, care, and control of the older Child, who was then 2 years old, and the unborn Child, at that time. S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 [6] Pending the disposal of the Custody Application, an interim consent order was entered into by the Parties in February 2018. In October 2019, the Court made an order with regard to the Custody Application, granting the Plaintiff limited access to the Children, for three hours only (from 4 pm to 7 pm) on alternate Sundays. [7] In March 2023, the Plaintiff filed this Application for, inter alia, joint guardianship and enhanced access, which was allowed partially for the following reasons. The Issues [8] The issues for consideration for this Court were (i) whether this Application was vexatious and an attempt to relitigate issues raised in the Custody Application; (ii) whether the Plaintiff had established material change in circumstances to warrant enhanced access; and (iii) whether guardianship should be joint. Contentions, evaluation, and findings Whether this Application was vexatious and an attempt to relitigate previous issues [9] At the outset, the Defendant asserted that this Application constituted yet another instance of the Plaintiff’s frequent legal actions against her. The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff’s repeated applications seemed to be a strategy to prolong his stay in Malaysia, given his foreign status. S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 [10] It was undisputed that following the Court Order granted in October 2019, the Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the decision, lodged a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal in November 2019. The appeal was dismissed in June 2022. Undeterred, the Plaintiff, in July 2022, filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Federal Court, which was dismissed in June 2023. Concurrently, the Plaintiff pursued legal avenues at the Madras High Court. [11] In my view, the Plaintiff had exercised his legitimate rights throughout this process. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed three years after the Court Order was granted, and the four-year span from October 2019 to March 2023 was the basis for the Plaintiff’s argument that a material change in circumstances had occurred. Consequently, I found no grounds to categorise this Application as superfluous, vexatious, or one that was filed to intentionally irk the Defendant. [12] Additionally, the Court Order expressly permitted both Parties to seek modifications. The relevant part of the Court Order reads: … (vi) Bahawa kedua-dua pihak mempunyai kebebasan untuk meminda dan/ atau mengubah terma-terma Perintah ini pada masa hadapan. [13] Even if the Court Order was silent on the Parties’ right to apply to vary, such right is statutorily granted under sections 83 (Power for court to vary orders for maintenance), 96 (Power for court to vary S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 orders for custody or maintenance), and 97 (Power for court to vary agreement for custody or maintenance) of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (“Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act”). [14] At this juncture, it was incumbent on me to remind the Defendant that the law allows variation applications in family matters to accommodate the dynamic and evolving nature of family relationships and circumstances. Variation applications in family law enable individuals to seek modifications to existing court orders regarding issues such as child custody, visitation rights, spousal and child maintenance. This flexibility is crucial to address unforeseen changing circumstances that may impact the well-being and fairness of all parties involved. [15] Hence, I found myself unable to endorse the Defendant’s argument that this Application was superfluous, vexatious, or one that was filed to intentionally irk the Defendant. Whether Plaintiff had established material change in circumstances [16] In this Application, the Plaintiff relied on sections 89(2)(d) and 96 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act, both of which read: Section 89 – Order subject to conditions … (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an order for custody may- … S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 (d) give a parent deprived of custody or any member of the family of a parent who is dead or has been deprived of custody the right of access to the child at such times and with such frequency as the court may consider reasonable; … ***** Section 96 – Power for court to vary orders for custody or maintenance The court may at any time and from time to time vary, or may rescind, any order for the custody or maintenance of a child on the application of any interested person, where it is satisfied that the order was based on any misrepresentation or mistake of fact or where there has been any material change in the circumstances. [Emphasis added.] [17] To eliminate any ambiguity surrounding the construction of section 96 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act, it was imperative to expressly clarify that the criteria of misrepresentation, mistake, and material change are to be considered independently, as indicated by the disjunctive use of the word ‘or’. [18] The Plaintiff substantiated this Application by anchoring it on the grounds of a material change in circumstances. Consequently, the pivotal question presented to this Court in the course of this Application revolved around the determination of whether a material change in circumstances had been established. [19] The words "material change" has been emphasised in the case of Sivajothi a/p K Suppiah v. Kunathasan a/l Chelliah [2006] 5 CLJ S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 318; [2006] 3 MLJ 184 to mean not simply any change, as the operative word is ‘material’. [20] The phrase ‘material change in circumstances’ was also explained by George Seah SCJ in the Supreme Court case of Gisela Gertrud Abe v Tan Wee Kiat [1986] 2 MLJ 297, in the following passage: In our opinion, when an application is made to the court to vary an existing order for maintenance, the proper approach is to start from the original order and see what changes financial or otherwise, have taken place since that date including any changes which the court is required to have regard to under s 78 of the Act as well as any increase or decrease in the means of either of the parties to the marriage and make adjustments roughly in proportion to the changes, if that is possible. [Emphasis added.] [21] Further elaboration of ‘material change in circumstances’ may be found in Lim Hong Bee v. Mah Teck Oon [2010] 8 CLJ 473, [2010] MLJU 264, where it was stated by Suraya Othman J (as she then was) that ‘the change in question must be material and not any change. It means a change in a crucial and vital part. In considering whether there has been any "material change" within the meaning of this section, all the relevant circumstances must be taken into account.’ [22] In delving into the assessment of a material change in circumstances, it was imperative to recognise that the inquiry extends beyond the mere occurrence of any change since the Court Order. The change S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 must be of such significance that maintaining the existing state of affairs would be unjustified. [23] It was pivotal to underscore that the determination of whether a material change in circumstances has transpired is a matter of fact, as established in the High Court case of Anna Tay Siew Hong v Joseph Ng Tiong Yong [1995] 3 CLJ 717, [1995] MLJU 257. Additionally, reference was made to the case of Navarajan a/l Subramaniam v Rajeswary a/p Muniandy [2019] MLJU 715, wherein Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J articulated in the following excerpt: The legal definition of material change in circumstances is not cast in stone. It is ultimately dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No one case is like the other. [Emphasis added.] [24] The Plaintiff, therefore, had the legal burden to prove the material change of circumstances on a balance of probabilities, as elucidated in the cases of YCC v. LSY [2007] 7 CLJ 207; and Ng Say Chuan v Lim Szu Ling [2010] 10 CLJ 37. [25] The Plaintiff sought an increase in access rights, specifically aiming for unsupervised and overnight visits, online interaction, and permission to take the Children abroad for holidays. The core contention advanced by the Plaintiff in this Application rested on the premise that the Court Order was granted four years ago when the Children were both four and two years old. Now, at the ages of eight S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 and six, respectively, the Plaintiff argued that it was opportune for them to spend more time with their father. [26] In her submission, the Defendant predominantly emphasised the assertion that the Children are better placed under her care, citing their tender age, and contended that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated the Defendant’s unsuitability for custody, care, and control of the Children. [27] In my view, the Defendant’s argument lacked merit, as this Application sought enhanced access by the Plaintiff to the Children. It was an application to vary the terms of the Court Order, and therefore, did not contest the existing arrangement pertaining to custody, care, and control of the Children to the Defendant. Consequently, the doctrine of tender years and the Defendant’s fitness, or lack thereof, were not pertinent considerations in this Application. [28] The incontrovertible truth remains that the Children have matured and ought to establish a meaningful relationship with their father, the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant argued that this Application centred solely on the Children’s ages, asserting that this singular factor lacked the material changes required to justify a variation of the Court Order. [29] I found the Defendant’s contention untenable, emphasising that the adage ‘quantity is not always quality’ holds true. Merely because the Plaintiff relied on a single factor did not inherently render it S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 inadequate to justify this Application. In my view, the crucial fact that the Children are older was, in itself, substantial enough to warrant allowing this Application. [30] The Defendant, however, asserted that the Children were still in their formative years and argued against enhanced access at present. [31] I was unable to agree with the Defendant as the Plaintiff’s current restricted access to the Children in 2019 was contingent on their very young age at that time. The passage of four years constitutes a material change in circumstances as the Children are now of an age where the Plaintiff’s access to them can be appropriately expanded. [32] At this juncture, it was crucial to remind the Defendant of the vital role that the Plaintiff, as a father, plays in fostering a nurturing environment for his children. This significance was notably emphasised in the Singapore case of APE v. APF [2015] SGHC 17, where Tan Siong Thye J referenced the article Contact and Domestic Violence - The Experts ' Court Report [2000] Fam Law 615 by Claire, Sturge, and Danya Glaser. This expert report elucidated the indispensable contribution a father can make to his child’s life, underscoring the pivotal role a father plays in promoting his child’s well-being and development. The relevant comments of the authors are elucidated below: Contact with fathers, as opposed to other family members or people with whom the child has a significant relationship, brings the following, in particular, to bear, although the general principles remain the same: • the father’s unique role in the creation of the child; S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 • the sharing of 50% of his or her genetic material; • the history of his or her conception and the parental relationship; • the consequent importance of the father in the child’s sense of identity and value; • the role modelling a father can provide of the father’s and male contribution to parenting and the rearing of children which will have relevance to the child’s concepts of parental role models and his or her own choices about choosing partners and the sort of family life he or she aims to create. [33] Reference was also drawn to the case of Chow Sook Pheng v. Wong Maun Hoong [2011] 1 LNS 260, shedding light on the significance of safeguarding the bond between a father and a child. In that case, the court acknowledged that a child’s well-being and comprehensive development are enriched when he or she maintains a meaningful relationship with his or her father. Consequently, depriving a child of the opportunity to establish and nurture this relationship can result in adverse effects on his or her emotional and psychological well-being, as articulated in the ensuing excerpt: In my opinion, it is for the welfare and in the best interests of the children that they spend as much time as possible with not only their mother but also their father. Just because the parents' marriage has broken down, it does not mean that the 3 children should be alienated from either parent. I believe a child would develop better if he or she spends as much time as possible with both parents. What if, at the end of the case, the Respondent Husband is given custody of the 3 children? By then the damage would have been caused if, in the interim, the Respondent Husband was denied of access to the 3 children resulting in their estrangement and discomfort with each other. This would not be for the welfare of the children. [Emphasis added.] S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 12 [34] Indeed, access should unequivocally be acknowledged as an inherent right belonging to the child, rather than a privilege bestowed upon the parent. Consequently, denying the Plaintiff’s enhanced access to the Children would amount to violating their fundamental rights. [35] Hence, the Plaintiff’s enhanced access will be as follows: (a) The Plaintiff will be granted virtual access to the Children on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with a maximum duration of 30 minutes, anytime between 7 pm and 8 pm. It is incumbent upon the Defendant to facilitate this access and refrain from any attempt to interfere, interrupt, or frustrate such access; (b) For the next three months from the date this decision was delivered (19 September 2023), the Plaintiff is granted unsupervised access to the Children on the first and third weekends of the month from 10 am to 7 pm on both Saturdays and Sundays; (c) The Plaintiff’s overnight access to the Children will begin from 23 December 2023 at 11 am to 28 December 2023 at 9 pm; (d) With effect from 28 December 2023, the Plaintiff will have access to the Children on the first and third weekends from Friday at 7 pm to Sunday at 7 pm, and first half of the school holidays when the period of such school holidays are more than one week; S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 (e) With effect from 18 June 2024, the Plaintiff will be allowed to take the Children overseas during his access during the school holidays where the Defendant is to provide the Plaintiff with the necessary travel documents; (f) The Plaintiff is to provide a local address to the Defendant and her solicitors when he has unsupervised access to the Child in the local jurisdiction; (g) The Defendant is allowed to have virtual access in the form of video calls to the Children, every other day when the Children are with the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff must facilitate and refrain from any attempt to interfere, interrupt, or frustrate such access; (h) Both Parties are required to provide their telephone numbers to each other and to generally open the channels of communication to facilitate the access by each Party to the Children. Whether Parties should have joint guardianship [36] Since the Court Order was silent on the issue of guardianship, the Plaintiff, in this Application, sought joint guardianship of the Children, invoking section 5 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 (“Guardianship of Infants Act”), which reads: S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 Section 5 - Equality of parental rights (1) In relation to the custody or upbringing of an infant or the administration of any property belonging to or held in trust for an infant or the application of the income of any such property, a mother shall have the same rights and authority as the law allows to a father, and the rights and authority of mother and father shall be equal. (2) The mother of an infant shall have the like powers of applying to the Court in respect of any matter affecting the infant as are possessed by the father. [Emphasis added.] [37] In accordance with section 3 (Duties of guardian of person) of the Guardianship of Infants Act, both parents share equal responsibilities for the child's comprehensive welfare, encompassing health, education, religion, and general support. A fundamental tenet of these responsibilities is the child’s inherent right – to nurture meaningful connections with both parents. [38] I was also guided by the decision of Tan Sherry (P) v Soo Sheng Fatt (L) [2016] MLJU 1264, whereby Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J (as he then was) acknowledged that in a family setting, the general rule of raising the children has to be a joint cooperative enterprise of the parents: Even when the marriage breaks down, instead of being at war with each other as husband and wife, both should put aside their personal differences, to jointly decide on what would be best for the child. This would entail them to communicate with each other in a civil and courteous manner for the sake of their child's upbringing and development. This would to some extent constrain and require both to discuss with each other on all matters relating to the child such that neither should make unilateral decisions to the S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 exclusion of the other. See the application of that principle by Lee Swee Seng J in CY v. CC [2015] MLJU 930 HC. [Emphasis added.] [39] Upon a thorough examination of the evidence adduced, I found no compelling reason to deny the Plaintiff guardianship. It was imperative to underscore that the Children possess the right to maintain a consistent and valuable relationship with both parents. While the Children’s primary residence is with the Defendant, as stipulated by section 88(3) of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act, neither parent holds superiority over the other. Recognising the distinct dynamics of a child’s relationship with both parents is pivotal as reiterated in the Singapore case of CX v. CY (minor: custody and access) [2005] 3 SLR 690, where the Court of Appeal of Singapore upheld the importance of joint parenting as the preferred approach. [40] The Defendant failed to provide sufficient reasons to justify why guardianship should not be joint. In fact, the Defendant must be mindful that, in accordance with the Court Order, the Plaintiff is currently providing monthly child maintenance in the amount of MYR1,000. It was crucial to recognise that a father’s responsibility extends beyond financial support alone. Active involvement in the child’s upbringing and participation in his or her growth and development is equally vital. [41] However, I took note of the fact that since the Plaintiff was not in the same country of residence as the Defendant and the Children, joint guardianship in all aspects would be challenging, and ultimately at the S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 expense of the welfare of the Children. Hence, joint decisions are to be made by the Parties with regard to only the following matters: a) Name; b) Gender identity; c) Religion; and d) Major non-emergency medical decisions. [42] The Defendant shall, therefore, retain the Children’s identification and travel documents and the Plaintiff is to be given the relevant documents when he is permitted to travel with the Children. The Plaintiff is also ordered to return to the Defendant all important documents belonging to the children such as the vaccination cards, etc. [43] This arrangement underscores the significance of collaborative decision-making concerning important aspects of the Children’s welfare. [44] At this point, I am compelled to highlight the conduct of the Defendant. Following the delivery of my decision on this Application, the Defendant, without a formal application, sought an increase in maintenance through her Counsel. This request was premised on the argument that, given the Court's decision to enhance the Plaintiff’s access to the Children, a corresponding increase in maintenance should be considered. S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 [45] While the Plaintiff consented to the increase in child maintenance, it was imperative to underscore unequivocally that access to a child should never, under any circumstances, be contingent upon payment of child maintenance. While both parents bear the responsibility of financially supporting their children, access to a child is an inherent right that must never be used as a bargaining tool or leverage in any situation. In my view, this precisely encapsulates the conduct of the Defendant. [46] The Defendant’s informal request for the Plaintiff to increase maintenance to a monthly amount of MYR3,000, citing the enhanced access as a rationale, solidifies my view that the Defendant had no justifiable grounds to oppose this Application. It appears that her resistance to this Application stems not from a genuine concern for the Children’s well-being, but rather as an attempt to hinder the development of the Children’s relationship with the Plaintiff, while simultaneously seeking an increase in child maintenance. Conclusion [47] In the upshot, based on the aforesaid reasons, and after scrutiny of all the evidence before this Court, both oral and documentary, and submissions of both Parties, this Application was allowed with joint guardianship concerning specific matters as enumerated above, and enhanced access as stipulated in paragraph [35] above. S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 Dated: 9 December 2023 SIGNED …………………………………………. (EVROL MARIETTE PETERS) Judge High Court, Kuala Lumpur Counsel: For the Plaintiff – James Au Wei Wern; Messrs Au & Partners For the Defendant – Dato' Dominic Selvam and Sukhvinder Singh Sidhu; Messrs Law Chambers of Vijay Ruben Kannan Cases referred to: ➢ Anna Tay Siew Hong v Joseph Ng Tiong Yong [1995] 3 CLJ 717, [1995] MLJU 257 ➢ APE v. APF [2015] SGHC 17 ➢ Chow Sook Pheng v. Wong Maun Hoong [2011] 1 LNS 260 ➢ CX v. CY (minor: custody and access) [2005] 3 SLR 690 S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA-24F-286-11/2017 9 December 2023 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 19 ➢ Gisela Gertrud Abe v Tan Wee Kiat [1986] 2 MLJ 58, [1986] CLJ (Rep) 133 ➢ Lim Hong Bee v. Mah Teck Oon [2010] 8 CLJ 473, [2010] MLJU 264 ➢ Navarajan a/l Subramaniam v Rajeswary a/p Muniandy [2019] MLJU 715 ➢ Ng Say Chuan v Lim Szu Ling [2010] 10 CLJ 37 ➢ Sivajothi a/p K Suppiah v. Kunathasan a/l Chelliah [2006] 5 CLJ 318; [2006] 3 MLJ 184 ➢ Tan Sherry (P) v Soo Sheng Fatt (L) [2016] MLJU 1264 ➢ YCC v. LSY [2007] 7 CLJ 207 Legislation referred to: ➢ Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 – sections 83, 88, 89(2), 96, 97 ➢ Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 – sections 3, 5 Other sources referred to: ➢ Contact and Domestic Violence - The Experts ' Court Report [2000] Fam Law 615 by Claire, Sturge and Danya Glaser S/N wNWIptr9QU2gpPOneZ0lDQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-22NCvC-150-04/2023

PLAINTIF 1. ) CHOW YE AN 2. ) CHEAH KHAI LIN 3. ) KHOR WAI YANG 4. ) LOO MEI KEE 5. ) IZHAR HADAFI BIN ABDUL HALIM 6. ) LEE HAW JING 7. ) TAN SOKE CHIUN 8. ) YAP WEN KWONG 9. ) CHOO CHUN LIM 10. ) CHOO CHIN YEE11. ) TEY YUH ZHEN1 2. ) CHIEW SAI WENG1 3. ) SONG CHEE POH1 4. ) ONG LOO SEE1 5. ) LIEW WEE HOUNG1 6. ) SIEW YIN LING1 7. ) LIM BEE CHENG1 8. ) LOH KIT WEI1 9. ) WONG CHUN FEI20. ) WONG PEI SAN21. ) ALEX KHOW PIN FONG2 2. ) NG SU YEE2 3. ) LAM PHENG PHENG2 4. ) WAN TAT MUI2 5. ) HOOI HON MUN2 6. ) TAN HOCK SOON2 7. ) GO DESIREE SU-YEE2 8. ) ALL WAYS BUILDER SDN BHD2 9. ) Chia Chiw Hoon30. ) Wong Kin Sing31. ) Choong Yuen Keong @ Tong Tuen Keong3 2. ) Tong Yun Mong DEFENDAN EUROLAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD PENCELAH 1. ) ALL WAYS BUILDERS SDN BHD 2. ) CHIA CHIW HOON 3. ) DATO' SRI LIM TECK BOONPIHAK TERKILANWONG KIN SING

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Whether this suit is suitable to be determined under Order 14A and/or Order 33 r. 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 – Sale and Purchase Agreement – Late delivery of vacant possession − Whether the developer has defaulted its obligation − Whether the developer is liable to pay the LAD.CONTRACT: All 27 Plaintiffs had signed the SPA with the Defendant − Delivery of Vacant Possession – Issues on booking fee, rebate, modifications of the terms of agreement.

09/12/2023

YA Puan Rozi Binti Bainon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=28cbfa65-1731-47d2-9632-3e789cee85b4&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) GUAMAN NO.: BA-22NCvC-150-04/2023 ANTARA 1. CHOW YE AN (NO. K/P: 890203-08-5428) 2. CHEAH KHAI LIN (NO. K/P: 920513-07-5502) 3. KHOR WAI YANG (NO. K/P: 901010-08-6935) 4. LOO MEI KEE (NO. K/P: 861220-56-5754) 5. IZHAR HADAFI BIN ABDUL HALIM (NO. K/P: 780628-02-5183) 6. LEE HAW JING (NO. K/P: 830322-05-5323) 7. TAN SOKE CHIUN (NO. K/P: 840607-05-5764) 8. YAP WEN KWONG (NO. K/P: 961008-14-5857) 9. CHOO CHUN LIM (NO. K/P: 870814-56-5123) 10. CHOO CHIN YEE (NO. K/P: 920701-14-5352) 09/12/2023 00:00:10 BA-22NCvC-150-04/2023 Kand. 43 S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 11. TEY YUH ZHEN (NO. K/P: 730514-01-5002) 12. CHIEW SAI WENG (NO. K/P: 700501-01-5743) 13. SONG CHEE POH (NO. K/P: 861122-59-5407) 14. ONG LOO SEE (NO. K/P: 910601-10-6058) 15. LIEW WEE HOUNG (NO. K/P: 811116-14-5367) 16. SIEW YIN LING (NO. K/P: 861129-56-5550) 17. LIM BEE CHENG (NO. K/P: 880715-08-6548) 18. LOH KIT WEI (NO. K/P: 890917-14-6683) 19. WONG CHUN FEI (NO. K/P: 940405-14-6041) 20. WONG PEI SAN (NO. K/P: 860806-56-5650) 21. ALEX KHOW PIN FONG (NO. K/P: 850530-14-5559) 22. NG SU YEE (NO. K/P: 871014-56-5154) 23. LAM PHENG PHENG (NO. K/P: 851229-08-5870) 24. WAN TAT MUI (NO. K/P: 760106-14-5526) S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 25. HOOI HON MUN (NO. K/P: 860814-56-5757) 26. TAN HOCK SOON (NO. K/P: 800130-11-5179) GO DESIREE SU-YEE (NO. K/P: 850310-14-5960) − PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF [Plaintif-Plaintif memulakan dan membawa tindakan perwakilan ini menyaman dalam kapasiti peribadi dan sebagai seorang wakil kepada kesemua dua puluh tujuh (27) Plaintif-Plaintif/Pembeli-Pembeli hartanah dalam projek pembangunan perumahan yang dikenali sebagai “Damai Vista” menurut peruntukan undang-undang yang ditetapkan iaitu Aturan 15 Kaedah 12 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012] DAN EUROLAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 936529-K) − DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] Enclosure 19 dated 18-7-2023 is the notice of application by the Plaintiffs as follows: “… permohonan Plaintif-Plaintif di bawah Aturan 14A dan / atau Aturan 33 Kaedah 2 dan/atau Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah- S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau bidangkuasa sedia ada Mahkamah yang Mulia ini bagi perintah-perintah berikut: (a) Bahawa Mahkamah yang Mulia ini perlu menentukan persoalan undang-undang dan/atau persoalan undang- undang atau fakta seperti yang dilampirkan dalam LAMPIRAN 1 di sini menurut Aturan 14A dan/atau Aturan 33 kaedah 2 dan/atau Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau bidangkuasa sedia ada Mahkamah ini; (b) Bahawa sehingga penentuan persoalan undang-undang dan/atau persoalan undang-undang atau fakta seperti yang dilampirkan dalam LAMPIRAN 1 di sini menurut Aturan 14A dan/atau Aturan 33 kaedah 2 dan/atau Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau bidangkuasa sedia ada Mahkamah yang Mulia ini, segala prosiding lanjutan dalam guaman sivil ini ditangguhkan; (c) Bahawa suatu perintah relief-relief menurut Writ Saman Plaintif-Plaintif bertarikh 20-4-2023 dan Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 20.04.2023 dibenarkan, atas penentuan Mahkamah yang Mulia ini berkenaan dengan persoalan undang-undang dan/atau persoalan undang- undang atau fakta seperti yang dilampirkan dalam LAMPIRAN 1 di sini yang memihak kepada Plaintif-Plaintif; (d) Kos; dan S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (e) Relief-relief yang selanjutnya dan yang lain-lain dianggap suai manfaat oleh Mahkamah ini. [2] The Lampiran 1 is attached with the notice of application where the Plaintiffs had listed the Issues of Laws and/or Facts for the Court’s determination. LAMPIRAN 1: PERSOALAN UNDANG-UNDANG DAN/ATAU FAKTA (a) Sama ada pengutipan bayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit”) daripada Plaintif-Plaintif Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7, Ke-9 dan Ke-10, Ke-11 dan Ke-12, Ke-13, Ke-14, Ke-16, Ke-17, Ke-18, Ke-19 dan Ke-20, Ke- 21 dan Ke-22, Ke-23, Ke-24, Ke-25, dan Ke-26 dan Ke-27 oleh Defendan dan/atau Peguamcara Pemegang Amanah daripada Plaintif-Plaintif sebelum pelaksanaan Perjanjian Jual Beli (“PJB-JB”) adalah bertentangan dengan Peraturan-Peraturan Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Pelesenan) 1989 (“Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989”) (“HDR 1989”) dan Akta Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Perlesenan) 1966 (“Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966”) (“HDA 1966”)? S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (b) Sama ada Plaintif-Plaintif (kecuali Plaintif-Plaintif Pertama, Ke-2, Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-8 dan Ke-15) berhak untuk mengira dan menuntut Ganti Rugi Jumlah Tertentu (“Liquidated Ascertained Damages”) (“LAD”) bermula dari tarikh pembayaran bayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit”) masing-masing? (c) Sama ada Plaintif-Plaintif Pertama, Ke-2, Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke- 8 dan Ke-15 berhak untuk mengira dan menuntut LAD bermula dari tarikh PJB-PJB? (d) Sama ada pengiraan LAD harus berakhir pada tarikh pengambilan/penyifatan penyerahan milikan kosong, berkenaan dengan kelewatan penyerahan milikan kosong petak? (e) Sama ada pengiraan LAD harus berakhir pada tarikh pengeluaran Perakuan Siap dan Pematuhan (Borang F yang bertarikh 11.01.2023) berkenaan dengan kelewatan penyiapan kemudahan bersama? (f) Sama ada PJB-PJB yang telah diubahsuai dan disediakan oleh panel Peguamcara Defendan terhadap Klausa 1 (Tafsiran), 5, 11, 15, 25, dan 27 PJB-PJB Plaintif-Plaintif adalah tidak mengikut Jadual H dan Peraturan 11 (1) HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966, dan harus dikehendaki untuk mengikut format Jadual H dan Peraturan 11 HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966? S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (g) Sama ada Defendan telah melanggar obligasinya di bawah PJB-PJB Plaintif-Plaintif kerana gagal untuk menyiapkan dan memberikan milikan kosong petak-petak Plaintif- Plaintif dan kemudahan bersama dalam tempoh masa yang diperuntukkan? [3] The Plaintiffs had summarized its reasons for the application as follows: 1. Plaintif-Plaintif merupakan Pembeli-Pembeli hartanah dalam projek perumahan yang dikenali sebagai “Damai Vista” (“projek perumahan tersebut”). 2. Sebelum pelaksanaan PJB-PJB tersebut, Plaintif-Plaintif dikehendaki untuk membuat satu pembayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit”) kepada Defendan/Peguam cara Pemegang Amanah Defendan, iaitu Tetuan Kevin & Co., dan Tetuan Ng & Ong. 3. Plaintif-Plaintif telah memasuki satu PJB-PJB dengan Defendan menurut Jadual H dan Peraturan 11(1) Peraturan-Peraturan Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Pelesenan) 1989 (“Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989”) (“HDR 1989”) dan Akta Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Pelesenan) 1966 (“Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966”) (“HDA 1966”). S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 4. PJB-PJB Plaintif-Plaintif tersebut adalah kontrak berkanun yang tertakluk kepada HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966 yang mewajibkan penyerahan pemilikan kosong petak dan penyiapan kemudahan bersama bagi suatu pembangunan perumahan mestilah dalam tempoh tiga puluh enam (36) bulan. 5. Manakala, klausa-klausa dalam PJB-PJB tersebut (yang disediakan oleh panel Peguam cara Defendan) telah diubahsuai oleh Defendan, khususnya Klausa 1 (Tafsiran), 5, 11, 15, 25, dan 27 PJB-PJB tersebut. Maka, PJB-PJB tersebut adalah tidak mengikut Jadual H dan Peraturan 11 (1) HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966. 6. Defendan telah memperoleh Perakuan Siap dan Pematuhan (Borang F) yang dikeluarkan oleh Orang Utama Yang Mengemukakan, Ar Imezully Bin Taib [No. Pendaftaran LAM: A/I 25] pada 11.01.2023. 7. Defendan telah mengeluarkan Notis Penyerahan Pemilikan Kosong bertarikh 07.02.2023 dan menyampaikan Notis tersebut kepada Peguam cara Plaintif-Plainitf iaitu Tetuan Lui & Bhullar pada 08.03.2023, manakala Plaintif Ke-26 dan Ke-27 telah disampaikan Notis tersebut pada 09.03.2023. Berdasarkan kepada Notis tersebut, Defendan telah meminta Plaintif-Plaintif untuk mengambil milikan kosong petak-petak Plaintif- Plaintif masing-masing. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 8. Plaintif-Plaintif telah mengambil milikan kosong petak- petak masing-masing dalam tempoh masa tiga puluh (30) hari daripada tarikh penyampaian Notis tersebut, iaitu pada 24.03.2023, 29.03.2023, 30.03.2023, 31.03.2023 dan 01.04.2023 (kecuali Plaintif Ke- 19 dan Ke-20 yang disifatkan telah mengambil milikan kosong pada 07.04.2023, dan Plaintif Ke-26 dan Ke-27 yang disifatkan telah mengambil milikan kosong pada 08.04.2023). 9. Defendan adalah bertanggungan dari segi undang-undang sedia ada termasuklah HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966 dan/atau fakta untuk membayar kepada Plaintif-Plaintif jumlah keseluruhan Ganti Rugi Jumlah Tertentu (“Liquidated Ascertained Damages”) (“LAD”) sebanyak RM4,929,869.52 mengikut Jadual A, Lajur 10 yang dilampirkan bersama Pernyataan Tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif tersebut. 10. Alasan-alasan selanjutnya adalah seperti yang terkandung di dalam Afidavit Sokongan Plaintif-Plaintif. The decision of this Court on 19-9-2023 [4] On 19-9-2023, I allowed Enclosure 19. My decision briefly as follows: [1] Tuntutan 27 orang Plaintif-Plaintif ialah untuk menuntut Ganti rugi Jumlah Tertentu (Liquidated Ascertained S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Damages/LAD) terhadap Defendan (Euroland & Development Sdn Bhd) atas kemungkiran kewajipan Defendan di bawah Perjanjian. Terdapat kelewatan untuk menyerahkan milikan kosong. LAD yang dituntut ialah sebanyak RM4,929,869.52. [2] Notis Permohonan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif sebagaimana dalam Lampiran 19 memohon perintah Mahkamah ini memutuskan persoalan undang-undang dan/atau persoalan undang-undang dan fakta menurut Aturan 14A dan/atau Aturan 33 k. 2 dan/atau Aturan 92 k. 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Terdapat 7 persoalan yang dikenalpasti oleh Plaintif- Plaintif. [3] Pertikaian mengenai LAD yang berpaksikan kepada Perjanjian Jual Beli/SPA boleh dilupuskan melalui Aturan 14A dan tiada keperluan untuk memanggil saksi dalam suatu perbicaraan penuh. Tujuh persoalan itu adalah sesuai bagi penentuan tanpa perbicaraan penuh bagi tindakan ini. Mankala, bantahan Defendan ke atas 3 persoalan pada perenggan A, B dan G pula, Mahkamah ini mendapati ketiga-tiga persoalan itu juga boleh menggunapakai A.14A. [4] Mahkamah ini membenarkan Lampiran 19 tanpa perintah atas kos. [5] The Defendant is unhappy and unsatisfied appeal to the Court of Appeal. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 The question: Whether this suit is suitable to be determined without the Full Trial of the Action under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012? The Applicable Laws [6] The provisions in the Rules of Court 2012 – Determination Without the Full Trial of the Action “Order 14A. Disposal of case on point of law Determination of questions of law or construction (O. 14A, r. 1) 1. (1) The Court may, upon the application of a party or of its own motion, determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that— (a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action; and (b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein. (2) On such determination the Court may dismiss the cause or matter or make such order or judgment as it thinks just. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (3) The Court shall not determine any question under this Order unless the parties have had an opportunity of being heard on the question. (4) The jurisdiction of the Court under this Order may be exercised by a Registrar. (5) Nothing in this Order shall limit the powers of the Court under Order 18, rule 19 or any other provisions of these Rules.”. “Order 33. Mode of trial Mode of trial (O. 33, r. 1) 1. Subject to the provisions of these Rules, a cause or matter, or any question or issue arising therein, may be tried before a Judge or Registrar, with or without the assistance of assessors. Time of trial of questions or issues (O. 33, r. 2) 2. The Court may order any question or issue arising in a cause or matter, whether of fact or law or partly of fact and partly of law, and whether raised by the pleadings or otherwise, to be tried before, at or after the trial of the cause or matter, and may give directions as to the manner in which the question or issue shall be stated.”. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [7] Some of the authority in the case laws pertaining to O.14A − (i) Dato’ Sivananthan a/l Shanmugam v. Artisan Fokus Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 MLJ 122 − “[10] … The power, in our opinion, is only exercisable where determination of any such question of law or construction of any document, as the case may be, appears to the court to be suitable without the full trial of the action and will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue in such action. This is a required prior condition or prerequisite which must be fulfilled before this order can be invoked. The court should not, as a matter of course, proceed to determine any such question without first considering the legal prerequisite in this order.”. (ii) Ramba AK Bungkong & Yang Lain v. Asso Green Sdn Bhd [In the Court of Appeal of Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No. Q-02(IM)(NCVC)-2507- 12/2017], held that – The suitability and applicability of Order 14A [24] There are settled and established principles in our case law authorities that had firmly determined the ambit and the application of Order 14 A of the ROC. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [30] As stated by the Court of Appeal in Petroleum Nasional Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu (supra), even if the case appears to be or is complicated, the court must not shun from considering the applicability of O14A and O33 r 2 of the ROC in relation to the questions posed. A case involving a claim on NCR, in our view is no exception. Everything boils down to the question of whether the requirements for summary determination of the questions of law are present and satisfied, based on the relevant facts and circumstances of each case. [31] The test of whether the question of law or construction is suitable to be determined under Order 14A was dealt with by the Federal Court in Racha Urud (supra) at page 403 wherein reference was made to the commentary on Order 14A appearing in the Malaysian Court Practice (Practitioner Edition) at pp 125-127 which states – “The test of whether the question of law or construction is ‘suitable’ to be determined under this order is whether all the necessary and material facts relating to the subject matter of the question have been duly proved or admitted, and this postulates that there is no dispute or no further dispute as to the relevant facts at the time when the court proceeds to determine the question. The suitability of disposing of an action under this order depends entirely on S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 whether the court can determine the question of law raised without a full trial of the action…”. [32] In Racha Urud (supra) the Federal Court held that an application under Order 14A is to decide clear points of law or construction apparent on the pleadings and one primary task which must be undertaken by the court in deciding on the suitability and applicability of the order is to consider whether the pleadings disclose any dispute on the material facts. The Apex Court observed that “pleadings must cover a wide range of cause papers. The only cause papers available in our instant case are the statement of claims, the defence, reply and the affidavits in support of the O.14A applications.”. [33] It may be useful to briefly refer to the following excerpt from the Malaysian Civil Procedure 2015 (Sweet & Maxwell) at page 130 on the principles governing the application of Order 14A: “The outcome of an application under Order 14A does not need to dispose of the entire case. It is sufficient if substantial matters in the case can be disposed of: Petroliam Nasional Bhd & Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu [2003] 5 AMR 696 [2004] 1 MLJ 8; [2003] 4 CLJ 337, CA; of Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2008] 1 AMR 105; [2008] 2 MLJ 812. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 The issue to be determined should be a core legal issue that may for practical purposes turn out to be determinative of the case; Rockwin Enterprise Ltd v Shui Yee Ltd [2003] 3 HKC 174 at 184; Netwell Properties Ltd v JCG Finance Co Ltd [2003] 4 HKC 566, CA (HK). An application under Order 14A is inappropriate if: (a) There are conflicting allegations of fact. All material facts relating to the subject matter of the claim must be undisputed or admitted; and not on the basis of assumed facts. If cannot be invoked on the basis of assumed facts. The court should not give a ruling under Order 14A in vacuo or based on hypothetical facts. (b) The issues of fact are interwoven with legal issues raised. The court will not split the legal and factual determination for to do so would in effect be to give rulings in vacuo or on a hypothetical ruling; The court will in an Order 14A application determine the issues of law upon the construction of documents whenever it appears to the court that the determination of any question of law will lead to a final conclusion of the action because there are no facts in dispute: Danaharta Managers Sdn Bhd v Melewar Leisure Sdn Bhd & Ors [2008] 4 AMR 553; [2008] 4 MLJ 448.”. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [8] In the case of Thein Hong Teck & Ors v. Mohd Afrizan Husain [2012] 1 MLRA 712 − “26. Berdasarkan kes di atas, tuntutan Plaintif akan dilupuskan menurut Aturan 14A hanya dalam keadaan di mana tiada pertikaian antara pihak-pihak mahupun berdasarkan bukti-bukti dokumen yang ada terhadap fakta-fakta penting tuntutan tersebut. Plaintif- Plaintif selanjutnya berhujah bahawa, tiada pertikaian fakta penting dalam kes semasa seperti, pengubahsuaian perjanjian jual beli berkenaan tempoh serahan hak milik, kelewatan serahan milikan kosong dan kelulusan tempoh lanjutan 48 bulan yang diberikan oleh Pengawal perumahan…”. The Defendant’s objections and opposing to Enclose 19 [9] The application filed by the Plaintiffs is for the court’s determination on law and fact under O. 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 and if this application is allowed the LAD amount in the sum of RM4,929,869.52 is due and owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs. [10] In applying the authority of the following cases: • Petroleum Nasional Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu [2004] 1 MLJ 8; • Dato’ Sivanathan a/l Shanmugam v. Artisan Fokus Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 MLJ 122; and S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 • Pengerusi Persatuan Penganut Dewi Sri Maha Mariamman Devasthanam [2019] MLJU 689, the learned counsel for the Defendant submits that “Plaintif-Plaintif perlu memenuhi pra syarat dalam kes Pengerusi Persatuan Penganut Dewi Sri Maha Mariamman Devasthanam terlebih dahulu sebelum Mahkamah yang Mulia ini boleh menentukan sama ada persoalan- persoalan Plaintif-Plaintif adalah sesuai ditentukan secara ringkas berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan Petroleum Nasional Bhd.”. [11] The exact words used by the learned counsel for the Defendant in disagreeing that this Suit to be disposed summarily under O. 14A are (refer to paragraph 16 in the Defendant’s written submissions) – “16.1 Persoalan-persoalan Plaintif-Plaintif tidak menentukan secara muktamad bagi keseluruhan kausa tindakan atau sebarang tuntutan. 16.2 Terdapat pertikaian yang serius berkenaan fakta-fakta berkaitan dengan persoalan-persoalan Plaintif-Plaintif; dan 16.3 Persoalan-persoalan Plaintif-Plaintif menjalinkan isu-isu fakta dan undang-undang.”. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [12] Next in explaining its averment, the learned counsel for the Defendant cited the cases of Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroliam Nasional Bhd and other appeals [2014] 6 MLJ 31 and Jaks Resources Bhd v. Star Media Group Bhd and other appeals [2023] MLJU 1668. Based on these authorities, the learned counsel for the Defendant submits that “persoalan-persoalan yang dimohon ditentukan di bawah Aturan 14A perlu menentukan perkara-perkara yang substantial dalam sesuatu kes. namun begitu, Defendan menghujahkan bahawa persoalan- persoalan yang dibangkitkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif untuk ditentukan secara ringkas tidak menentukan perkara-perkara yang substantial dalam prosiding ini.”. [13] According to the learned counsel for the Defendant, the substantial issues in this Suit are (refer to paragraph 20 in the Defendant’s written submissions) – “20.1 sama ada terdapat konspirasi antara bekas pengarah syarikat Defendan untuk mencederakan syarikat Defendan dan/atau mendapat keuntungan daripada konspirasi tersebut; 20.2 sama ada konspirasi tersebut telah menyebabkan kelewatan dalam penyiapan Projek tersebut dan kelewatan dalam penyerahan milikan kosong unit-unit kepada pembeli- pembeli; S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 20.3 sekiranya Mahkamah ini menentukan bahawa terdapat suatu konspirasi sepertimana yang diplidkan, bahawa konspirator- konspirator tersebut adalah bertanggungjawab kepada tuntutan ganti rugi Plaintif-Plaintif. 20.4 sama ada konspirasi tersebut termasuk pengeluaran surat- surat rebat tanpa pengetahuan dan/atau kelulusan pengurusan syarikat Defendan kepada pembeli-pembeli unit Projek tersebut; dan 20.5 sekiranya Mahkamah ini menentukan bahawa terdapat suatu konspirasi untuk mengeluarkan surat-surat rebat kepada pembeli-pembeli unit Projek tersebut, sama ada surat-surat rebat tersebut adalah tidak sah dan dikeluarkan secara salah ari segi undang-undang dan Plaintif-Plaintif diperlukan membayar balik jumlah rebat sebanyak RM1,495,261.10 yang telah dikeluarkan oleh pengurusan Syarikat terdahulu Defendan.”. [14] Therefore, the learned counsel for the Defendant avers that the questions posted by the Plaintiffs in its application under O. 14A i.e. the booking fees, calculation of the LAD’s amounts, interpretation of the terms in the Sales and Purchase Agreements (SPA), and whether the Defendant has breached its obligations under the SPA for failure to deliver vacant possessions to the Plaintiff and to complete the common facilities within the stipulated times, are not to be resolved by way of O. 14A. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 The Plaintiffs’ contentions [15] In the affidavit in support for its application, the 12th Plaintiff affirmed the affidavit for himself and also for all the Plaintiffs in this Suit. [16] The facts regarding purchasing the unit in the Project (Damai Vista) are as follows: (a) payments and collection of the booking fee/deposit: • sebelum pelaksanaan PJB-PJB tersebut, Plaintif- Plaintif telah dikehendaki membuat suatu pembayaran tempahan (“booking fee”)/simpanan (“deposit”) kepada Defendan dan/atau Peguam cara Pemegang Amanah Defendan, iaitu Tetuan Ng & Ong, dan Tetuan Kevin & Co. (“entity-entiti tersebut”). Sesalinan bukti pembayaran tempahan (“booking fee”)/simpanan (“deposit”) Plaintif-Plaintif diekshibitkan dan ditandakan secara kolektif sebagai Ekshibit “CSW-3”. • sememang-memangnya merupakan pembayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit”) bagi tujuan untuk menjaminkan tempahan dan pembelian petak- petak Plaintif-Plaintif masing-masing yang tidak diperuntukkan dalam PJB-PJB tersebut. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 • Tanpa bayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit”) tersebut, proses pembelian petak-petak Plaintif-Plaintif dalam projek perumahan tersebut tidak boleh dimulakan. • Namun, penafian Defendan berkenaan dengan kutipan pembayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit’) yang dibayar oleh Plaintif-Plaintif adalah tidak berasas (f) Ini adalah satu percubaan sambil lewa Defendan untuk meniadakan (“negate”) pembayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit”) yang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif-Plaintif kepada Defendan dan/atau Peguam cara Pemegang Amanahnya, di mana kutipan bayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit”) tersebut adalah dilarang sama sekali dan tidak sah di bawah undang-undang sedia ada iaitu HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966; • Defendan sebagai Pemaju yang dilesenkan di bawah HDA 1966 tidak pernah membantah kepada pembayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit”) tersebut dan/atau mempunyai pengetahuan penuh berkenaan pembayaran tersebut meskipun mengetahui bahawa amalan tersebut adalah jelas salah disisi undang-undang yang sedia ada iaitu HDA 1966 dan HDR 1989 dan bayaran tersebut adalah, tanpa syak merupakan pembayaran fi tempahan (“booking fee”)/simpanan (“deposit”) tersebut. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 • Kutipan pembayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit”) yang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif-Plaintif kepada Defendan dan/atau Peguam cara Pemegang Amanahnya adalah bertentangan dengan Jadual Ke-3 PJB-PJB tersebut, dan undang-undang sedia ada iaitu HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966 dan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor and Other Appeals [2021] 2 MLJ 60 (“PJD Regency”). (b) modifications of clauses in the SPA (PJB) by the Defendant: • Plaintif-Plaintif telah memasuki satu PJB-PJB dengan Defendan menurut Jadual H dan Peraturan 11(1) HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966. Namun, Defendan dan/atau panel Peguam cara Defendan telah mengubahsuai terma- terma penting dalam PJB-PJB tersebut, yang mana pengubahsuaian tersebut tidak mengikut Jadual H dan Peraturan 11(1) HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966 seperti berikut: (a) Tiada Klausa 1 yang bertajuk “Tafsiran”; (b) Rujukan kepada klausa 11 dibawah klausa bertajuk “Caj pembayaran lewat”; S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 (c) Rujukan-rujukan kepada klausa 5 dan perenggan- perenggan 11(1)(a), (b), (c) dan (d) di bawah klausa bertajuk “Keingkaran oleh Pembeli dan penamatan Perjanjian”; (d) Rujukan-rujukan kepada klausa-klausa 5 dan 27 di bawah klausa bertajuk “Hakmilik strata berasingan dan pemindahan hakmilik”; (e) Rujukan kepada klausa 15 dibawah klausa bertajuk “Sekatan terhadap pengubahan kod warna”; Rujukan kepada Klausa 27 dibawah klausa bertajuk “Masa untuk penyerahan pemilikan kosong”; (f) Rujukan kepada klausa 15 dibawah klausa bertajuk “Cara penyerahan pemilikan kosong”; (g) Rujukan-rujukan kepada klausa-klausa 25 dan 27, dan (h) perenggan 27(1)(b) dibawah klausa bertajuk “Hakmilik strata belum dikeluarkan dan pemindahan hakmilik”. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 • Setelah dinasihatkan oleh peguamcara, Plaintif-Plaintif sesungguhnya percaya dan menyatakan bahawa segala pengubahsuaian terhadap klausa-klausa yang dinyatakan di perenggan 16(a) hingga (h) di atas adalah tidak masuk akal (“non-sensical”) dan tidak mempunyai maksud undang-undang (“of no legal purport”). • Oleh itu, Plaintif-Plaintif sesungguhnya percaya bahawa PJB-PJB tersebut yang digubal dibawah Jadual H HDR mesti mengikuti format dan templat PJB Jadual H HDR. Tiadanya peruntukan undang-undang di bawah peruntukan undang-undang sedia ada, termasuk HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966, untuk mengubahsuai klausa- klausa PJB-PJB tersebut. (c) Liquidated Ascertained Damages (“LAD”): • Setelah dinasihati oleh peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif, Plaintif-Plaintif menyatakan seperti berikut: (a) PJB-PJB tersebut adalah kontrak berkanun yang dimandatkan dan ditadbir di bawah HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966; (b) PJB-PJB tersebut yang dilaksanakan di antara Plaintif-Plaintif dengan Defendan adalah jelas tidak menurut HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966 kerana S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 Klausa-Klausanya yang telah diubahsuai oleh Defendan; (c) Defendan/Peguam cara Pemegang Amanah Defendan telah mengutip pembayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit”) daripada Plaintif- Plaintif sebelum pelaksanaan PJB-PJB tersebut, dimana ianya adalah bertentangan dengan Jadual Ke-3 PJB-PJB tersebut, HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966; (d) Oleh itu, Plaintif-Plaintif (Ke-5, Ke-6 dan Ke-7, Ke- 9 dan Ke-10, Ke-11 dan Ke-12, Ke-13, Ke-14, K3- 16, Ke-17, Ke-18, Ke-19 dan Ke-20, Ke-21 dan Ke-22, Ke-23, Ke-24, Ke-25, dan Ke-26 dan Ke- 27) berhak menuntut LAD bermula dari tarikh pembayaran tempahan (“booking”)/simpanan (“deposit”) masing-masing dengan mengambil kira tempoh pembangunan berkanun iaitu 36 bulan; manakala, Plaintif-Plaintif lain (Pertama, Ke-2 dan Ke-3, Ke-4, Ke-8, dan Ke-15) adalah berhak menuntut LAD bermula dari tarikh PJB- PJB masing-masing dengan mengambil kira tempoh pembangunan berkanun iaitu 36 bulan; S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 (e) Plaintif-Plaintif juga sedia maklum bahawa tempoh daripada 18.03.2020 hingga 31.08.2020 (“tempoh pengecualian”) adalah dikecualikan daripada pengiraan masa bagi penyerahan milikan kosong menurut Seksyen 35(1) Akta Langkah-Langkah Sementara Bagi Mengurangkan Kesan Penyakit Koronavirus 2019 (Covid 19) 2020 (“Akta Covid 2020”), dan Defendan telah memperolehi tempoh pengecualian selanjutnya daripada Jabatan Perumahan Negara/Kementeriaan Perumahaan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan (“KPKT”) sehingga 31.12.2020 menurut Seksyen 35(3) Akta Covid 2020; (f) Oleh demikian, tempoh masa dari 18.03.2020 sehingga 31.12.2020 (sebanyak 289 hari) adalah dikecualikan untuk pengiraan masa dan LAD bagi kelewatan dalam penyerahan milikan kosong; (g) Oleh demikian, Plaintif-Plaintif adalah berhak untuk mengira tuntutan LAD mereka sehingga tarikh pengambilan/penyifatan milikan kosong masing-masing (bagi tuntutan LAD untuk petak), dan sehingga tarikh pengeluaran Perakuan Siap dan Pematuhan (Borang F) (bagi tuntutan LAD untuk kemudahan bersama), dengan mengecualikan 289 hari akibat tempoh S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 pengecualian menurut Akta Covid 2020; (h) Tuntutan LAD yang dituntut oleh Plaintif-Plaintif masing-masing adalah suatu remedi berkanun (“statutory remedy”) yang berasal dari Jadual H dan Peraturan 11(1) HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966 dan kerana HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966 bersifat undang-undang sosial, Plaintif-Plaintif tidak terhalang untuk menuntut jumlah LAD masing- masing; (i) Justeru, pengiraan LAD adalah berdasarkan tempoh masa 36 bulan untuk penyerahan pemilikan kosong dan penyiapan kemudahan bersama menurut Jadual H dan Peraturan 11(1) HDR 1989. (j) Selanjutnya, untuk tujuan kesempurnaan, Plaintif- Plaintif telah dinasihati oleh peguamcara Plaintif- Plaintif, Plaintif-Plaintif sesungguhnya percaya dan menyatakan seperti berikut: i. Tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif di sini adalah bagi menuntut LAD; ii. Berkenaan dengan tuntutan LAD untuk petak-petak Plaintif-Plaintif tersebut, menurut Klausa 25(3) PJB-PJB tersebut, sebarang kausa tindakan untuk menuntut S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 LAD adalah terakru pada tarikh di mana Pembeli (Plaintif-Plaintif) mengambil pemilikan kosong petak tersebut; iii. Berkenaan dengan tuntutan LAD bagi kemudahan bersama, menurut Klausa 27(3) HDA 1966, sebarang kausa tindakan untuk menuntut LAD adalah terakru pada tarikh Pemilik (Defendan) menyiapkan kemudahan bersama, iaitu 11.01.2023 yang merupakan tarikh Perakuan Siap dan Pematuhan (Borang F); iv. Guaman ini telah difailkan oleh Plaintif- Plaintif pada 20.04.2023; v. Oleh itu, Plainitf-Plaintif berhak untuk menuntut LAD bagi petak-petak maisng- masing daripada Defendan menurut undang-undang sedia ada, iaitu HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966. vi. Selanjutnya, memandangkan LAD yang dituntut oleh Plaintif-Plaintif adalah remedi berkanun (“statutory remedy”) dan HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966 bersifat undang- undang sosial, Plaintif-Plaintif adalah S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 berhak untuk menuntut LAD daripada Defendan. vii. Justeru, atas nasihat peguam cara Plaintif- Plaintif, Plaintif-Plaintif sesungguhnya percaya bahawa Defendan telah melanggar terma-terma nyata dan penting PJB tersebut, iaitu subklausa-subklausa 25(1) dan 27(1) apabila Defendan – ▪ gagal untuk menyerahkan milikan kosong petak-petak Plaintif-Plaintif menurut tempoh kontrak berkanun, iaitu 36 bulan; dan ▪ gagal untuk menyiapkan kemudahan bersama bagi projek perumahan tersebut menurut tempoh kontrak berkanun, iaitu 36 bulan. (d) Question of Law and/or Fact: • Berdasarkan perkara-perkara yang dikemukakan di atas, Plaintif-Plaintif dinasihatkan oleh peguamcara Plaintif-Plaintif dan sesungguhnya percaya bahawa persoalan undang-undang dan / atau fakta yang dikemukakan dalam Lampiran 1 bersama-sama Notis S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 Permohonan tersebut boleh ditentukan dan diputuskan oleh Mahkamah ini. • Plaintif-Plaintif benar-benar percaya bahawa Permohonan ini adalah permohonan yang telah dibawa secara bona fide dan untuk menegakkan hak Plaintif- Plaintif dalam guaman ini. • Plaintif-Plaintif telah dinasihatkan oleh peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif dan percaya bahawa ianya adalah wajar, munasabah, mudah dan cepat untuk menyelesaikan guaman ini melalui penentuan persoalan-persoalan undang-undang dan/atau fakta yang dikemukakan dalam Lampiran 1 bersama-sama NP tersebut. • Defendan adalah bertanggungan dari segi undang- undang sedia ada termasuklah HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966 untuk membayar kepada Plaintif-Plaintif jumlah keseluruhan LAD sebanyak RM4,929,869.52 sebagai pembayaran LAD mengikut Jadual A. • Plaintif-Plaintif juga turut telah dinasihati oleh peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif dan sesungguhnya percaya bahawa persoalan undang-undang dan/atau persoalan undang-undang dan fakta yang dinyatakan dalam Lampiran 1 pada Notis Permohonan tersebut boleh ditentukan tanpa keperluan untuk memanggil sebarang keterangan secara lisan dan perbicaraan penuh. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 • Selanjutnya, bahawa tindakan-tindakan kausa terhadap Defendan sepertimana diplidkan dalam Writ Saman tersebut dan Pernyataan Tuntutan tersebut boleh diputuskan dan dilupuskan secara keseluruhan melalui Notis Permohonan tersebut yang memihak kepada Plaintif-Plaintif. • Selanjutnya, setelah dinasihati oleh peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif, Plaintif-Plaintif juga percaya bahawa penentuan persoalan undang-undang dan/atau persoalan undang-undang dan fakta yang dinyatakan dalam Lampiran 1 pada NP tersebut akan menjimatkan masa dan kos kesemua pihak yang terlibat, termasuk Mahkamah ini. • Plaintif-Plaintif sewajarnya dinasihatkan oleh peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif dan sesungguhnya percaya bahawa Defendan tidak mempunyai isu yang boleh dibicarakan untuk mengalahkan tuntutan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk LAD yang Defendan mesti menghormati. • Plaintif-Plaintif sesungguhnya percaya bahawa Defendan tidak ada pembelaan terhadap tindakan ini. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 • Plaintif-Plaintif sesungguhnya percaya bahawa tiada merit dalam pembelaan terhadap tindakan ini seperti yang difailkan oleh Defendan terhadap tuntutan Plaintif- Plaintif dan oleh itu, kes ini sesuai dan wajar untuk diselesaikan secara ringkas melalui keterangan afidavit, tanpa perlu diteruskan melalui Perbicaraan Penuh. [17] The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submits as follows: “ISU KONSPIRASI YANG DIDAKWA OLEH DEFENDAN … dakwaan Defendan berkaitan konspirasi diantara pihak-pihak ketiga adalah langsung tidak relevan dan tiada kaitan dengan tindakan disini. Malah, ia tidak merupakan isu sah yang bangkit dalam tindakan ini dan hanya merupakan dakwaan kosong. Ianya juga langsung tidak berada dalam pengetahuan Plaintif- Plaintif. Ianya seolah-olah merupakan suatu percubaan sambil lewa oleh Defendan untuk meniadakan (“negate”) liabilitinya. Sebagai tambahan, isu yang dinyatakan oleh Defendan merupakan isu-isu dalaman (“internal issues”) bersama syarikat terdahulu yang didakwa oleh Defendan, yang mana ianya adalah tiada kaitan dengan Plaintif-Plaintif yang hanya menegakkan hak-hak masing-masing berdasarkan PJB-PJB menurut tujuan perundangan sosial, yang dikenali sebagai HDR 1989 dan HDA 1966. Jika Defendan berpendapat ianya adalah relevan dan perlu dalam guaman ini, Defendan patut membuktikannya dengan beban bukti yang kukuh berkenaan dengan kesesuain S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 (“relevancy”) dan keperluan (“necessity”) tersebut. Namun demikian, Defendan telah gagal mengemukakan sebarang bukti untuk membuktikan dakwaannya dalam permohonan ini.”. [18] This Court has no problem in understanding the submissions by both learned counsel regarding the law under O. 14A and/or O. 33 r. 2 of the Rules of Court 2012. [19] In the written submission in reply, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff said as follows: “PERSOALAN-PERSOALAN YANG DIKEMUKAKAN AKAN MENENTUKAN SECARA MUKTAMAD KESELURUHAN KAUSA TINDAKAN TERHADAP DEFENDAN: 9. Defendan telah berdakwa bahawa permohonan ini tidak memenuhi pra syarat-pra syarat yang diperlukan untuk menentukan persoalan-persoalan undang-undang secara ringkas di bawah Aturan 14A dan/atau Aturan 33 Kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, oleh kerana – (a) Persoalan-persoalan Plaintif-Plaintif tidak menentukan secara muktamad bagi keseluruhan kausa tindakan atau sebarang tuntutan; (b) Terdapat pertikaian yang serius berkenaan fakta- fakta berkaitan dengan persoalan-persoalan Plaintif- Plaintif; S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 (c) Persoalan-persoalan Plaintif-Plaintif menjalinkan isu- isu fakta dan undang-undang. 10. Selanjutnya, Defendan telah berdakwa bahawa persoalan- persoalan yang dibangkitkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif tidak menentukan perkara-perkara yang substansial dalam prosiding ini. 11. Seterusnya, Defendan telah berdakwa bahawa persoalan- persoalan (a), (b) dan (g) yang dibangkitkan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif melalui Lampiran 1 dalam Notis Permohonan tersebut menjalinkan isu-isu fakta dan undang-undang, dan oleh itu, tidak sesuai ditentukan secara ringkas. UNDANG-UNDANG BERKAITAN DENGAN PELUPUSAN SUATU KES MENGENAI PERKARA PERSOALAN UNDANG- UNDANG DAN/ATAU FAKTA Plaintif-Plaintif telah memfailkan permohonan ini bagi pertimbangan Mahkamah yang Mulia ini di bawah peruntukan berikut: (a) Bagi pelupusan kes atas persoalan undang-undang adalah seperti yang terkandung dalam ATURAN 14A KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH 2012; S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 (b) Bagi Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini untuk membicarakan sebarang persoalan atau isu fakta-fakta atau undang- undang adalah seperti yang terkandung dalam ATURAN 33 KAEDAH 2 KAEDAH-KAEDAH MAHKAMAH 2012. Undang-undang mengenai permohonan di bawah Aturan 14A merupakan suatu prinsip yang sedia ada dan prinsipnya telah dikemukakan dalam kes-kes undang-undang seperti berikut: (a) Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan Thein Hong Teck & Ors v. Mohd Afrizan Husain & Another Appeal [2012] 2 MLJ 299 – perenggan 47; (b) Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Lekaz Constructions Sdn Bhd v. Kop Petroleum Sdn Bhd; HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd (Intervener) [2003] 4 CLJ 377 – perenggan E hingga G; (c) Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan Director of Forests, Sarawak & Anor v. Racha Ak Urud @ Peter Rucha Urud & Ors And Other Appeals [2017] 4 MLJ 42; (d) Keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan Petroleum Nasional Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu & Another Appeal [2004] 1 MLJ 8 – perenggan 12 hingga 14; S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 (e) Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Chau Chee Sing & Ors v. R & F Development Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 2045– perenggan 10 hingga 12. Berhubung dengan kes undang-undang yang berkaitan dengan Aturan 33 Kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, rujukan dibuat kepada kes-kes yang berikut: (a) Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Si Rajah & Anor v. Dato’ Mak Hon Kam & Ors. (No. 1) [1994] 1 CLJ 207 – perenggan D hingga I, dan A hingga B; (b) Keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan Petroleum Nasional Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu & Another Appeal [2004] 1 MLJ 8 – perenggan 16; (c) Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Chau Chee Sing & Ors v. R & F Development Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 2045 – perenggan 13. Merujuk kepada kes-kes di atas, prinsip dan syarat-syarat bagi permohonan di bawah Aturan 14A dan Aturan 33 Kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 adalah seperti berikut: (a) Bahawa tiada pertikaian antara pihak-pihak mengenai fakta yang berkaitan; S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 (b) Jika Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini mendapati bahawa persoalan undang-undang yang dikemukakan adalah sesuai untuk ditentukan tanpa memerlukan perbicaraan penuh dan menjimat kos serta masa; (c) Penentuan sedemikian akhirnya akan menentukan keseluruhan kausa atau perkara; (d) Persoalan undang-undang atau fakta yang dikemukakan hendaklah jelas dan tepat. Perundangan dan kes-kes yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif- Plaintif di sini menjelaskan bahawa Defendan telah melanggar dan memintas undang-undang dan klausa kontrak yang berkaitan, khususnya – (a) Tindakan Defendan/Peguam cara Pemegang Amanah Defendan yang mengutip pembayaran tempahan (“booking fee”)/simpanan (“deposit”) daripada Plaintif- Plaintif sebelum pelaksanaan PJB-PJB tersebut, yang bertentangan Peraturan 11(2) HDR 1989; (b) Tindakan Defendan dalam pengubahsuaian klausa-klausa PJB-PJB tersebut, yang tidak menuruti Jadual H HDR 1989; S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 (c) Kegagalan Defendan untuk menyerahkan milikan kosong petak-petak dan kemudahan bersama kepada Plaintif- Plaintif menurut tempoh kontrak berkanun, iaitu 36 bulan melayakkan Plaintif-Plaintif untuk memohon perintah menurut Aturan 14A/Aturan 33 Kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 terhadap Defendan. Plaintif-Plaintif berhujah bahawa persoalan undang-undang dan/atau fakta yang dikemukakan dalam Lampiran 1 Notis Permohonan tersebut telah memenuhi prinsip dan syarat-syarat bagi Aturan 14A/Aturan 33 kaedah 2 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.”. Evaluations & Findings of this Court [20] The understanding of the application of O.14A of the Rules of Court 2012 by both learned counsel are accurate and valid, where, this provision allows a party or the court on its own motion to determine the question of law or construction of document if it can determine the entire cause or matter. [21] The application under Order 14A is to decide clear points of law or construction apparent on the pleadings. It generally allows the court, to determine the issues that involve arguments on the point of law and immediately make a summary judgment for that case. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 [22] The principles on the ambit of an Order 14A application are set out below: (a) an issue is “a disputed point of fact or law relied on by way of claim in defence"; (b) a question of construction is well capable of constituting an issue; (c) if a question of construction will finally determine whether an important issue is suitable for determination under Order 14A and where it is a dominant feature of the case a court ought to proceed to so determine such issue; (d) respondents to an application under Order 14A are not entitled to contend that they should be allowed to hunt around for evidence or something that might turn up on discovery which could be relied upon to explain or modify the meaning of the relevant document. If these were material circumstances of which the court should take account in construing the document, they must be taken to have been known, and could only be such as were known, to the parties when the agreement was made. In the absence of such evidence the court should not refrain from dealing with the application. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 [23] For the court to exercise its power to summarily dispose of an action under Order 14A, there should not be any dispute by the parties as to the relevant facts, or that the court, upon scrutinizing the pleadings, concludes that the material facts are not in dispute. [24] The primary task in deciding on the suitability and applicability of an Order 14A application is to consider whether the pleadings disclose any dispute on the material facts. An application under Order 14A is to decide clear points of law or construction apparent on the pleadings. [25] In deciding this Suit vide Enclosure 19, this Court did not make any decision/held that the Plaintiffs had successfully prove its claims for LAD. [26] This Court has of the view that the Plaintiffs’/purchaser’s claims are rightfully can be disposed pursuant to O. 14A. This Court had judiciaously exercise her discretion and follow the principles that – (a) the question of law must be suitable for determination without the full trial of the action: O.14A r.1(a). (b) the determination of question of law will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue in the action: O.14A r.1(b). S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 [27] For that to take place, on plain reading of O.14A ROC as well as case authorities which are applicable and binding on this court, succinctly elaborating on the operation and enforceability of O.14A entails, in order for this court to exercise its power to summarily dispose of an action, there shall be no dispute between plaintiff and defendant on the relevant and material facts pleaded in the pleadings. [28] Jurisprudence applicable in order to deal with an application under Order 14A ROC, which is a summary procedure is laid down in the rule itself to dispose of the case altogether after determining it on a point of law. [29] By virtue of proceeding under Order 14A ROC, this Court in fact would consider and determine a point of law which has arisen from facts of the case, premised on the pleadings as well as the available affidavit evidence explaining the transaction in issue. If that point of law is finally resolved, it would be unnecessary for an open court trial. [30] The determination on point of law would also have the effect of declaring rights of the parties. Application and enforceability of Order 14A ROC is demonstrated by the following principles of law, distilled from the rule itself as well as decided case authorities explaining construction of the said rule, which is the following: • Pursuant to Order 14A, the court will determine questions of law when it appears to the court that such question can be determined without a full trial. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 • The determining factors will be derived from the facts disclosed by the pleadings and affidavit evidence which must be sufficient for the court to make such determination. • The Federal Court in the case of Thein Hong Teck & Ors v. Mohd Afrizan Husain & Another Appeal (2012) 1 CLJ 49 decided that, it is trite that O14A could only be resorted to if there was no dispute by parties as to the relevant facts, or the court concluded that the material facts were not in dispute. • The Court of Appeal in the case of Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd (2007) 6 CLJ 741 decided that Order 14A is not a tool where the court is required to interpret the statement of claim to decide what point of law arises before deciding on it. An Order 14A application is to decide clear points of law or construction that are apparent on the pleadings. The points of law to be determined thereunder must be stated in clear and precise terms. • The Federal Court in Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroliam Nasional Bhd & Other Appeals [2014] 7 CLJ 597 ruled that a court, in determining an Order 14A application, should consider whether the action is suitable to be disposed of by way of Order 14A application and whether the material facts are not in dispute. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 [31] Thus, to iterate, a successful Order 14A application shall satisfy the following requirements: (i) the defendant has entered an appearance to the writ. (ii) the question of law or construction is suitable for determination without a full trial of the action. (iii) such determination will be final to the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein. (iv) there is no dispute as to all necessary and material facts relating to the subject matter of the question when the court proceeds to determine the question. (v) the parties have had an opportunity of being heard on the question of law. [32] The fact of this case is about the SPA entered by both parties where the Plaintiffs/purchasers bought their units from the Defendant. [33] The issues raised by the Defendant pertaining to its former company, former individuals related to the Project etc. certainly the internal problems faced by the Defendant. It has nothing to do with the Plaintiffs’ Suits as initiated by the Plaintiffs. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45 [34] Any fault by the Defendant’s management the best cause of action must be brought by the Defendant against “the culprit” to the Court. The issues on rebate, validity of the rebate etc did not at all prevent the Plaintiffs in claiming the LAD from the Defendant. [35] Enclosure 19 is the Plaintiffs own “motion” to this Court asking the Court to summarily determined the issues in Lampiran 1. The issues listed by the Plaintiffs were within the scope of the provisions in O. 14A and O. 33 r. 2of the Rules of Court 2012. [36] I have read my learned brother decision (Yang Arif Tuan Muniandy) in a loan facility where Yang Arif has dismissed the application made under O. 14A, case of Kok Kon Sang v. CIMB Bank Berhad [2023] 1 LNS 740. In that case, Mr. Kok Kon Sang (plaintif), according to his writ and statement of claim (SOC) has sued the defendant CIMB, a Bank (referred to as CIMB, defendant Bank or Bank) for specific performance of an amount of RM300,000 charged on property valued at RM3.5 million. He has also claimed damages for injuries caused to him due to adverse CCRIS reports which had occasioned loss of his business opportunities as pleaded in paragraphs 10 to 16 of his SOC. It is also alleged by him, he had been short changed by the defendant which had debited an overdraft interest of RM6,265.77 and a further amount of RM8,697.50. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 46 [37] Yang Arif Tuan Muniandy held that − “[13] Ensuing from the above, I have at the outset, scrutinised the pleadings to discover what material facts are not obviously in dispute, and bearing the above principles in mind, the questions posed by plaintiff, specifically questions 1, 5, 6 and 7 cannot be determined under Order 14A as the material facts are in dispute as evidenced by the pleadings and affidavit evidence before the court and it appears to this Court that O.14A is an inappropriate procedural device to be adopted to deal with the matter. The said questions posed are suitable for determination only after a full trial, as it involves questions of fact. (See: Mohamed v. Alga & Co [1998] 2 AER 720).”. [38] Compared to the Suit before me, Lampiran 1 has listed the issues to be determined by this Court and the questions posed by the 27 Plaintiffs can be determined under Order 14A as the material facts are about the LAD’s claims as envisaged in the SPA (Perjanjian Jual Beli/PJB). It appears to me that determination using the provision in O. 14A is an appropriate procedural device to be adopted to deal with the matter. [39] It is emphasised, decision of this court has further instructed the parties to file their affidavits and written submission. This Court did not at all pronounced that the LAD must be paid to the 27 Plaintiffs yet. S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 47 Conclusion [40] This suit is suitable for disposal by way of determination through the issues and or questions of law as above without the necessity of this Court requiring to determine this matter through a full trial. Based on the above, the issues and or questions of law ought to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Plaintiff. [41] For the above reasons, I allowed the Enclosure 19 without costs. Dated: 8 December 2023. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Judicial Commissioner Shah Alam High Court NCvC12 The Counsels: For the Plaintiffs: Chandni A/P Anantha Krishnan Tetuan Lui & Bhullar, Kuala Lumpur For the Defendant: Hazwan Lee bin Haris Lee Tetuan Shu Yin, Teh & Taing, Subang Jaya S/N ZfrLKDEX0keWMj54nO6FtA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-21NCvC-79-09/2018

PLAINTIF NIK MOHD SUHAIMI BIN AHMAD GHAZALI DEFENDAN 1. ) Siti Fairuz Binti Shamsuri 2. ) Pang Teck Mai 3. ) Ameer Anuar Bin Minhad 4. ) Mohd Tharuzi Bin Mohd Nor 5. ) Dato' Abdul Razak Bin Musa 6. ) Syafinas Binti Shabudin 7. ) Rozana Binti Abdul Hadi 8. ) Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) 9. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Tort- False Imprisonment- Wrongful arrest- Wrongful detention- harassment- tort of malicious prosecution- Plaintiff was arrested and detained by MACC- Plaintiff was then charged for forgery offence under section 468 of Penal Code at Kuantan Session Court- Plaintiff plead not guilty- Prosecution failed to prove prima facie- Plaintiff was acquitted and discharged-Plaintiff suffered physiological illness as a result of arrest and prosecution- Whether action by prosecution amount to malicious prosecution- Whether action by MACC enforcement amount to false imprisonment, wrongful arrest and harassment-Tort of malicious process and abuse of process- Plaintiff was abused and unnecessarily handcuffed.

08/12/2023

YA Dato' Ahmad Bin Bache

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5b851f70-540b-48d3-a17a-0b0c1adef6bb&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO.: ____________________TAHUN 2023 ANTARA 1. SITI FAIRUZ BINTI SHAMSURI 2. PANG TECK MAI 3. AMEER ANUAR BIN MINHAD 4. MOHD THARUZI BIN MOHD NOR 5. DATO’ ABDUL RAZAK BIN MUSA 6. SYAFINAS BINTI SHABUDIN 7. ROZANA BINTI ABDUL HADI 8. SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA 9. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA … PERAYU-PERAYU DAN NIK MOHD SUHAIMI BIN AHMAD GHAZALI (NO. K/P: 660331-03-5341) … RESPONDEN [DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO.: WA-21NCVC-79-09/2018 ANTARA NIK MOHD SUHAIMI BIN AHMAD GHAZALI … PLAINTIF (NO. K/P: 660331-03-5341) 08/12/2023 19:20:20 WA-21NCvC-79-09/2018 Kand. 107 S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 DAN 1. SITI FAIRUZ BINTI SHAMSURI 2. PANG TECK MAI 3. AMEER ANUAR BIN MINHAD 4. MOHD THARUZI BIN MOHD NOR 5. DATO’ ABDUL RAZAK BIN MUSA 6. SYAFINAS BINTI SHABUDIN 7. ROZANA BINTI ABDUL HADI 8. SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAHAN RASUAH MALAYSIA (SPRM) 9. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN] GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT A. INTRODUCTION [1] The Plaintiff had filed a suit against all the Defendants for the tort of False Imprisonment which entails wrongful arrest, wrongful detention and harassment and the tort of malicious prosecution. B. BRIEF FACT [2] The Plaintiff was earlier investigated for bribery, and was later arrested and detained by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”) and thereafter was charged under the authority of the Public Prosecutor for “forgery” offence under Section 468 of the Penal Code. S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [3] He was arrested on 19.3.2014 at MACC Putrajaya and detained and brought by car to Kuantan MACC and spent the night in a MACC lock up which was in deplorable condition. He was then brought to Kuantan Session Court in handcuff the next morning where he was charged. After the proceeding, he was again handcuffed and paraded in front of the medias that were awaiting him. According to him, throughout the process from Putrajaya to Kuantan, he was harassed, threatened, intimidated and induced (to plead guilty). [4] On that day when he was charged he did not plead guilty, hence eventually he was tried by the Session Court but was acquitted and discharged without his defence being called, as the Prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against him. Throughout this proceeding, he suffered physiological and mental anguish, apart from anxiety, stress and tension, to say the least. To add salt to injury, the Public Prosecutor then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, prolonging his agony of having a charge still hanging on his head, inspite of being acquitted but subsequently withdrew it. [5] Hence this suit by the Plaintiff for false imprisonment/wrongful arrest/harassment and malicious prosecution against all the Defendants. (Technically the tort of False Imprisonment was against the MACC and its Officers and the tort of Malicious Prosecution against the Public Prosecutor and its Deputies). [6] Regarding this civil trial, at the end of the trial, this Court, on a balance of probability found that the Plaintiff had successfully S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 proved his claims for wrongful imprisonment/arrest/harassment which this Court had “rebranded” it as “malicious process or abuse of process” with cost of RM40,000.00. However, this Court disallowed the claim for malicious prosecution against the Defendants as the Court ruled that this tort is simply unsustainable in Malaysia because of the discretionary power accorded to the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor under Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution, amongst others. [7] Dissatisfied with that decision, the Defendants had filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal for abuse of process/malicious process. The Plaintiff did not file an appeal regarding the claim for malicious prosecution. [8] Herewith are the grounds for that decision regarding abuse of process (malicious process). C. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF COURT [9] This suit by the Plaintiff underscores the need to recognize the tort committed by officers of investigating and enforcement agencies in handling suspects/arrestees under their custody especially in cases involving white collar crimes, for example corruption, CBT/Deception etc. and the importance to exercise restrains and recognize humanity and human rights of white-collar crime suspects. [10] This is so because inspite of their duty to act within the perimeters of the powers accorded to them, and that due protection to be S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 accorded to the suspects under their custody and to ensure they are not harmed and to observe all the SOPs however cases of harm and abuses committed by these officers are quite prevalent. The tort of Malicious process/abuse of process [11] The tort of malicious process or abuse of process was introduced earlier in United Kingdom, where the Police were found to be liable for procuring arrests maliciously and without reasonable cause. This tort is newly introduced in Malaysia. It entails the torts of wrongful arrest/detention/wrongful imprisonment etc. and the lists are not closed. Apart from the United Kingdom, some other Commonwealth Countries, example New Zealand, Australia and Canada has recognized it. As we will see later, the Supreme Court of Canada earlier had even introduced the tort of negligent investigation against the Police, as they recognized that the torts of false imprisonment, misfeasance etc. do not provide an adequate remedy. [12] It is distinct from the tort of malicious prosecution which applies against the Public Prosecutor. In the case of Everett v. Ribbands And Another [1952] 1 All ER 823, at page 826, lines B – D, the Court held: “This action was known as an action for malicious process. It differed from malicious prosecution in that there was no need for the plaintiff to prove that he had been acquitted. There could be no question of acquittal, because the process issued without his innocence or guilt being decided at all. It issued, indeed, without S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 his being heard at all. A modern parallel is the issue of a search warrant. If it is obtained maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, an action lies.” See also Roy v. Prior [1971] AC 470. [13] This tort prevails in a situation like the present case before the Court whereby the Claimant/Plaintiff was rightfully and legally arrested but in the process, he was subjected to abuse, harassment, intimidation, inducement, harm which had affected him not only physically but mentally and psychologically. (This Court agreed that the arrest and detention was legal). Hence, he should be entitled to some form of redress or remedy for malicious process/abuse of process, as this Court ruled that the arrest and detention was legal. [14] In the English case of Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd. [1977] 2 AII ER 566, page 574 lines E - F, the Court of Appeal in a dissenting judgment said this about the tort of abuse of process: “What may make it (the legal process) wrongful is the purpose for which it is used. If it is done in order to exert pressure so as to achieve an end which is improper in itself then it is a wrong known to the law.” [15] This dissenting judgment was applied by our court in TN Metal Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Ng Pyak Yeow [1996] 4 MLJ 567 @ page 583 (A – C). The judge held that the tort of abuse of process is distinct from malicious prosecution. It is applied in S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 cases when a legal process has been misused to satisfy some other ulterior motives, thus: “Where a legal process, the basis for which in itself could have proper foundation, has been perverted to satisfy some other motive such as extortion or oppression, an action will lie at the feet of a party that suffers the wrong. This is the tort of abuse of process. Unlike the tort of malicious prosecution, the tort of abuse of process does not depend on the wrongful procurement of the legal process but in the misuse of the process however correctly it was obtained...” [16] The Court of Appeal in the case of Malaysia Building Society Bhd v. Tan Sri General Ungku Nazaruddin Bin Ungku Mohamed [1998] 2 MU 425, at page 438 above also applied the dissenting judgement in Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd. (supra). The court ruled that, if a legal process is abused for an ulterior motive, and harm is done to the person for which the process is initiated against, then the court can award damages against the wrongdoer. [17] This position has been neatly summed up by Lord Denning MR in his dissenting judgment in Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd & Ors [1977] 1 WLR 478, where at page 489 his Lordship said: “In a civilized society, legal process is the machinery for keeping and doing justice. It can be used properly or it can be abused. It is used properly when it is invoked for the vindication of men's rights or the enforcement of just claims. S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 It is abused when it is diverted from its true course so as to serve extortion or oppression: or to exert pressure so as to achieve an improper end. When it is so abused, it is a tort, a wrong known to the law. The judges can and will intervene to stop it. They will stay the legal process, they can, before any harm is done. If they cannot stop it in time, and harm is done, they will give damages against the wrongdoer.” [18] Though a dissenting judgment, the principle enunciated by Lord Denning has been accepted as authoritative of what constitutes an abuse of process. − See: Malaysia Building Society v. Tan Sri General Ungku Nazaruddin (supra), at page 435. [19] This Court subscribes to the view that suspects investigated and later arrested for corruption and other white-collar crimes are normally physically, psychologically and mentally weak, as they are not prepared to face the eventualities that awaits them compared to a hardcore criminal arrested for a hardcore crime. Some even fainted upon arrest. Matters will take a turn for the worst if they themselves are sickly or patients of chronic diseases or even not in the best of his/their health at the time of the arrest/detention. The situation will be exacerbated when he was then holding a signal position in society for example as a Head of a Government Department, or a renouned Politician or a CEO or a Director of a well-known Company, as his reputation will be immediately tarnished. S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [20] The next thing that will befall on the arrestee/suspect will be that the news of his arrest will be a breaking news in the medias. The next morning, he will be brought to Court donned in the investigating agency’s lock up attire (eg. SPRM in orange or the Police in dark colour) in front of the many cameras awaiting him. This Court takes judicial notice of this scenario. [21] Have we ever thought what will happen to him thereafter. Court has taken judicial notice that firstly, he will be, with respect “vilified” by the medias when the news of his arrest was and his identity revealed. The public will then “convict” him as they have already perceived him as having committed the (white-collar) crime, example corruption or CBT deception or forgery, albeit he was not even charged as yet or if he is charged on that day, he was not tried as yet. [22] This Court takes cognisance that at its worst, what will happen next to this suspect/detainee will be quite disastrous if not catastrophic, as what happened to the Plaintiff in this case. Society and friends will shun away from him, wife and children will desert him, if he is a businessman, business associates will start to disassociate from him and that no prospect will do any business with him, to say the least. It doesn’t stop here. Eventually, if he is a sickly person, his sickness will be further aggravated, and as night turn into day, very often he will enter into depression and thereafter may suffer from mental diseases. Some will suffer from “suicidal tendency syndrome” and the classic case of Teoh Beng Hock, who took his life whilst under the custody of SPRM/MACC is a classic example. S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [23] Not to mention the loss of business and the loss of income that comes along with it. [24] In the House of Lords case of Reeves v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolice [2000] AC 360 ruled the Police have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent a suspect/detainee from taking his own life. In the Supreme Court of Canada case in Hill v. Hamilton Wentworth Regional Police Services Board [2007] SCC 41; [2007] 3 SCR 129 the Supreme Court even recognized the tort of negligent investigation against the Police as the torts of false imprisonment, misfeasance and malicious prosecution do not provide an adequate remedy. [25] This was what exactly happened to the Plaintiff here who was investigated for bribery, arrested and finally charged by the MACC for forgery. His “agony” was more profound here as according to him, he was wrongly charged because as he was eventually acquitted by the trial Court without his defence being called and that the Public Prosecutor who filed an appeal against the acquittal, to the Court of Appeal withdrew the appeal thereafter. [26] To deny him of any redress or remedies will cause gross injustice to him against the factual background above. The Evidence [27] This Court has perused all the Evidence both oral and documentary and has considered the submissions by parties. S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (a) The Breach [28] From the evidence, this Court observed that the Plaintiff was mistreated and abused whereby he was unnecessarily handcuffed tightly as though he is a hardcore criminal as this is another form of oppression. That has caused bruises on his hands. The medical report specifically mentioned “handcuff injury” and “happened during arrest by SPRM”. (See Page 639 B2) [29] The Plaintiff as like any businessman already had his ticket to fly to Chennai the next day for business. Because of his abrupt arrest and detention, on 19.3.2014 he was unable to attend and was not given the opportunity to inform the other parties of his inability to attend and also to participate in the meeting. He has lost that business opportunities. [30] This Court ruled that, his arrest, detention and being charged on 20.3.2014 although legal but the adverse publicity was very damaging to his life and reputation as a businessman. This has also greatly affected the reputation of his family as a whole. That had changed his life not for the better, thereafter. From the evidence adduced, this Court found that this action by the Defendants (SPRM) was deliberate and hence malicious as it was pre planned. This was because the Third Defendant had at the SPRM Headquarters, Putrajaya informed the Plaintiff of his eventual charging the next day and that the media was already informed. This is an act of harassment and inducement to lure the Plaintiff to plead guilty. Infact during his arrest, he was also deprived of making preparations regarding his bails, medication S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 etc. at that period of time. The Plaintiff was brought to Kuantan handcuffed during the journey where he was charged at the Kuantan Sessions Court the next day. [31] This Court has had the opportunity of viewing the scenarios after he was charged, recorded by a TV Station and aired on prime-time news slot that evening. This Court observed that the Plaintiff was deliberately paraded around the Court’s lobby after he was charged, in the full view of the medias. The next day the print medias reported the news, some displaying the Plaintiff’s full picture of being handcuffed with his full personal details. [32] The Plaintiff felt humiliated as he strongly believed that he is innocent, unless otherwise proven. He was sick at that point of time and was denied medication. As a result of all the above, in the ensuing days, he gradually experienced depressive symptoms – loss of mood, sleep loss (insomnia), poor appetite, lethargy, withdrawal symptoms persistent worries regarding loss of business and his mind was consistently preoccupied with worries about the charge he was then facing. [33] Following the charge and the humiliation he was facing, he lost everything. His wife and the 2 children left him. He was in great financial debt because of the lost in his business. He was declared a bankrupt. He had to sell his house to release the bankruptcy proceeding. [34] Through some form of corroboration in certain circumstances are needed but in this case this Court ruled that the established facts S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 above speaks more eloquent than words. This Court has had the opportunity to see his demeanor whilst testifying in Court. He has to pluck some courage and confidence to testify and occasionally he broke down but tried hard to compose himself. Be that as it may, this Court ruled that he is a credible witness and there was no reasons for this Court to rule otherwise. [35] This Court also had considered judicial notice of the surrounding circumstances and the circumstantial evidence in this case. [36] Evidently, he suffers from mental health – that led him to psychotic illness. He also suffered from Anhedonia (see report Page 667), which are associated to mental disorders, including depression. [37] The following are the extract of the Plaintiff’s statement/evidence: “S39: Boleh terangkan kejadian-kejadian yang berlaku kepada kamu setelah ditangkap oleh SPRM? J39: Atas arahan Defendan Keempat dan/atau Defendan Ketiga, Pegawai-Pegawai Defendan Kelapan membenarkan saya membuat hanya satu panggilan telefon sahaja bagi memaklumkan keluarga bahawa saya telah ditangkap oleh SPRM. Defendan Ketiga seterusnya telah mencabar saya untuk saya dapatkan “cable” (kenalan/rakan berpengaruh) agar boleh terlepas daripada pertuduhan yang bakal dihadapkan kepada saya. S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 S43: Semasa kamu dibawa ke Mahkamah, apakah tindakan- tindakan Pegawai-Pegawai SPRM terhadap kamu? J43: Semasa menunggu untuk kes saya dipanggil oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen, Defendan Ketiga juga telah cuba menghasut dan/atau secara tidak langsung untuk mempengaruhi saya untuk mengaku bersalah dan bahawa sekiranya saya mengaku bersalah, hanya hukuman denda sahaja yang akan dikenakan terhadap saya. Tindakan Defendan Ketiga tersebut seolah-olah menganggap saya sememangnya bersalah tanpa dibicarakan dengan adil terlebih dahulu. Saya juga telah digari dengan ketat sehingga sukar untuk bergerak dan mengambil sapu tangan untuk mengelap muka dan hidung saya kerana saya sedang mengalami selsema dan batuk yang teruk. Sementara menunggu proses ikat jamin selesai, saya berada di bilik saksi/bilik menunggu Mahkamah. Di situ, seorang Polis pengawal Mahkamah bersimpati melihat keadaan saya telah meminta agar gari saya dibuka atau dilonggarkan kerana saya kelihatan tenang dan tidak berbahaya atau mendatangkan ancaman, namun Polis pengawal Mahkamah tersebut telah ditengking dengan keras oleh Pegawai pengiring SPRM tersebut.” [38] The situation above underscores the need for transparency to prevail in all process of investigation by the investigating and enforcement agencies’ officers and that the rule of law to be strictly S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 observed and that they should not abuse the legal process in discharging their duties. As public servants, they are stewards of public trust and they have to ensure not to erode this trust. [39] By not allowing this claim, when a certain remedies and redress are wanting, a wrong message could be drawn i.e we are condoning such acts. (b) Egg Shell Skull Rule [40] This Court has taken cognizance that in the realm of the law of torts, there is a doctrine called “eggshell skull rule” which means the Defendant takes the victim as they find them. It means if the Plaintiff is injured or sick and the injury is exacerbated due to a Plaintiff’s particular susceptibility to a certain health condition, the Defendant is still liable for the full injury. [41] It follows that in a claim of this nature, the Court has to consider who the Plaintiffs/victims are. One of the considerations in this case is that as the Plaintiff was investigated (later arrested and detained) as a “white collar” suspect/criminal holding quite a signal position in a company as contrast to a hard-core criminal, hence, the handling of the investigation, the arrest, the detention by the investigation agency on this 2 types of criminal suspects/accused should differ. As mentioned earlier, suspects being investigated/detained for white-collar crimes are normally by nature vulnerable as they are susceptible to harsh conditions and hence by nature are weak. He can even faint the moment he is arrested as compared to hard-core criminal suspect. It will be more S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 profound if he holds a signal position as CEO or Director of a company or Director General of a government department etc. [42] They are normally investigated by MACC/SPRM. [43] The hard-core category might be drug addicts, gangsters, ex- convicts of hard-core crime etc, who themselves are not first timers being detained/locked up/charged. [44] It will be a gross injustice if Courts were to keep its eyes shut in not making such distinction. For instance, a Director General of a government department or a CEO of a company was arrested because of some suspected bribery activity and was remanded. The news about his arrest/detention will be publicly made known (because of his signal position). The after effect will be very damaging and devastating. He will lose his job, will lose his reputation which could give rise to friends/society shunning away from him. Worse of all, the family will desert him. Hence, the Court will have to take this into consideration in determining liability and assessment of damages. What is more, the Plaintiff in this case was sick at the time of the arrest and the charging and was under medication. [45] This by no means, would mean that Court is practicing double standards but the law of torts permits it under the doctrine of the “eggshell skull rule”. (c) Can the Plaintiff’s claim be sustained when he did not specifically plead in his Pleading/Statement of Claim? S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [46] This Court opined that although in this case, the Plaintiff had not used the word ‘malicious process’ but relied on “false imprisonment/malicious prosecution”, this Court observed that the facts pleaded and the evidence relied on, show clearly that the Plaintiff has pleaded facts sufficient to show the existence of the new tort of malicious process against the Defendants, and therefore the Defendants are liable for the same. This is permissible, because what is important is that the Plaintiff has averred the facts in the pleadings which he is relying on, and not the legal effect. [47] In the case of Shanta A/P Manikam v. Teik Joo Chan Sdn Bhd & Anor [2015] 11 MLJ 721, it was held that whilst it was true that the term “Occupier’s Liability” was not used in the Statement of Claim, it must be remembered that a pleading needs only to aver the facts relied upon and need not state the legal effect of the facts. [48] In Venture SKL Sdn Bhd v. Geonex (M) Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 987 CA, in a termination of agreement case, the Respondent contended that he had stored the dismantled ‘palong’ and the machineries of the Appellant, but led no evidence where it was stored. The Appellant claimed damages for unlawfully removing and disposing off of the ‘palong’ and the machineries. Although the Appellant did not employ the term ‘conversion’, however the pleaded facts and the evidence led to substantiate a case for conversion. The High Court disallowed the claim but the Court of Appeal set aside the Judgment of the High Court and allowed the claim for conversion eventhough the claim for conversion was not pleaded. S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [49] Put it in another way, the Statements of Claim might not have mentioned particulars exactly to “abuse of process/malicious process” but the Plaintiff did plead or allude to facts that pointed to abuse of process/malicious process. Hence, the Defendants cannot be said to be caught by surprise. [50] In the case of Ellamala d/o Ellapen v. Raganathan [1988] 3 MLJ 121, the Court of Appeal held that although perhaps the pleadings are wanting in the sense that they do not set out the detailed particulars of fraud, the evidence clearly shows the instances of fraud has occurred. The Court ruled that though the particulars might be insufficient but it should not be a bar to the Plaintiff’s claim. Further, the Defendants were not caught by surprise. (d) MACC practices double standards? [51] This Court observed that of late certain white-collar suspects/detainees/accused were given extra special treatment whereby for example they were not handcuffed etc. This shouldn’t have happened because it has given rise to “legitimate expectation” by other similar suspects/accused in this category (white-collar), that they too be entitled to be accorded the same treatment. This has bearing on the liability and amount of compensation to be awarded. [52] This can also give rise to an inference that incidents that few will get the breeze of being treated very exceptionally especially the VVIP suspects and many non VVIP white-collar suspects will be getting the pains as they are being denied of the same. S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 D. CONCLUSION [53] This new approach by the Court must be recognized and is timely as it is built on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness, justice and respect to this group of vulnerable suspects/detainees. This resonates with the application of the egg shell skull rule and the call that the time has come for society and officers of investigation and law enforcement agencies (like MACC and Police) to recognize the rights of these vulnerable suspects/arrestees as they are, at the extreme of the spectrum are susceptible to suffer from mental health which can cause them to even take away their own life (see Teoh Beng Hock’s case). The Ministry of Health once declared that from surveys conducted, 4 in every 10 ordinary Malaysian, suffers from some form of mental health issues and remedial measures are to be taken to arrest this problem. It will be more profound to this group of people. [54] Further this group of vulnerable suspects/detainees especially and the public as a whole view Courts as a platform where their rights could be protected. By assuring that rights, will make public to repose trust in our Court system as a fair and an effective forum to enforce their rights eventhough as an accused/detainee. What is more, for the Plaintiff here, he was not found guilty afterall. [55] To deny the Plaintiff of this claim will cause gross injustice to him as amongst others his reputation is now beyond repair and society has convicted him eventhough Court has acquitted him. He is now suffering especially mentally physiologically. S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [56] Notwithstanding the decision of this Court, MACC and the Police are to be commended for their commitments in discharging their professional duties of investigation but have to take into consideration of the welfare of the person/s investigated by them under their custody as anything done not within the legal perimeter of their powers/scope of duty will give rise to a civil claim in the area of torts as in this case against them. [57] For the foregoing reasons, the claims of the Plaintiff are allowed with costs of RM40,000.00. Damages are to be assessed at a date to be fixed. Dated: 30 November 2023 (DATO’ AHMAD BIN BACHE) Judge Criminal High Court 1 Kuala Lumpur S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Parties: Plaintiff’s Solicitor: Dato’ Kamalanathan Ratnam (Mr. Vinod Kamalanathan and Puan Anis Amirah Zakaria with him) TETUAN VINOD KAMALANATHAN & ASSOCIATES Suite 501, 5th Floor, Loke Yew Building 4 Jalan Mahkamah Persekutuan 50050 KUALA LUMPUR Defendants’ Solicitor: Puan Syahriah Shafiee (SFC) Peguam Kanan Persekutuan JABATAN PEGUAM NEGARA Bahagian Guaman No.45, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4 62100 PUTRAJAYA (Ref. No.: PN/WKL/HQ/16/23/2018) S/N cBFWwtU00ihegsMGt72uw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24NCC-24-01/2022

PEMOHON 1. ) HARCHARAN SINGH A/L SANTOKH SINGH 2. ) RAJINDER KAUR A/P S.KESAR SINGH RESPONDEN 1. ) BIDANG KEMUDI SDN BHD 2. ) LEONG CHEE LUEN 3. ) GOON KOK WAH 4. ) PENDAFTAR SYARIKAT,SURUHANJAYA SYARIKAT MALAYSIA

COMPANY LAW: Reinstatement of company into the register – Whether the plaintiffs are persons aggrieved – Whether application was made within the prescribed statutory period – Whether the company was carrying on business at the time it was struck off – Whether it is just to reinstate the company into the register – Companies Act 2016, s 555

08/12/2023

YA Puan Adlin Binti Abdul Majid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c5faac15-5b83-4045-9dd0-efc63756f88b&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN (BAHAGIAN DAGANG) SAMAN PEMULA NO. WA-24NCC-24-01/2022 Dalam Perkara Mengenai BIDANG KEMUDI SDN BHD [(No. Syarikat: 199701005028 (420524-X)] DAN Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 549 dan Seksyen 555 Akta Syarikat, 2016 DAN Dalam Perkara mengenai Aturan 1 Kaedah 8 Aturan 88 Kaedah 2, dan Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 ANTARA 1. HARCHARAN SINGH A/L SANTOKH SINGH (No. KP: 660223-10-5525) 08/12/2023 10:54:44 WA-24NCC-24-01/2022 Kand. 45 S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 2. RAJINDER KAUR A/P S. KESAR SINGH (No. KP: 650307-05-5546) ... PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN 1. BIDANG KEMUDI SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 199701005028 (420524-X) 2. LEONG CHEE LUEN (No. KP: 610413-08-5937) 3. GOON KOK WAH (No. KP: 590512-08-5435) 4. PENDAFTAR SYARIKAT SURUHANJAYA SYARIKAT MALAYSIA … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGMENT A. Introduction [1] The plaintiffs filed this action, seeking to reinstate the 1st defendant into the register of companies (“Register”). The main objective for the reinstatement is to enable the plaintiffs to commence an action against the 1st defendant. [2] The court dismissed the originating summons, for the reasons set out below. S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 B. Background Facts [3] The plaintiffs appointed the 1st defendant as a contractor for the construction of a bungalow (“Project”), pursuant to a letter of acceptance of tender dated 25 November 2014 (“Letter of Acceptance”). [4] The Letter of Acceptance provides that: a. The works shall be completed between 25 November 2014 until 25 March 2016; and b. If the 1st defendant fails to complete the Project, the 1st defendant is required to pay the plaintiffs liquidated and ascertained damages in the value of RM500 per day. [5] The plaintiffs claimed that the 1st defendant abandoned the Project, and that the plaintiffs had terminated the Letter of Acceptance by a letter dated 17 May 2017. The plaintiffs thus intend to commence legal proceedings to seek liquidated and ascertained damages against the 1st defendant, and other damages arising from the termination of the Letter of Acceptance. [6] The 2nd and 3rd defendants were the shareholders and directors of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is now deceased. [7] The 2nd defendant denied that the 1st defendant had abandoned the Project, and that the plaintiffs had terminated the Project. Instead, the 2nd defendant claimed that the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant had mutually agreed to terminate the Letter of Acceptance in January 2017, subject to, S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 inter alia, payment by the plaintiffs of RM30,000 (out of RM35,740.86 from the progress claim due). The 2nd defendant claimed these payments had been duly made by the plaintiffs. [8] On 30 June 2017, the 1st defendant closed their bank account, and ceased operations. The 1st defendant was struck off the Register on 17 January 2020. [9] The plaintiffs are seeking to reinstate the 1st defendant into the Register, to enable them to commence an action against the 1st defendant. C. The Law on Reinstatement of a Company [10] The reinstatement of companies into the Register is governed by section 555 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA”), which provides that: “(1) Any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar to strike off the company may, within seven years after the name of the company has been struck off, apply to the Court to reinstate the name of the company into the register. (2) If the Court is satisfied that the company was at the time of the striking off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise that it is just that the name of the company be reinstated in the register, the Court may order that – (a) the name of the company be reinstated; and S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 (b) give such directions and make such provisions as seem just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off. (3) Upon an office copy of the order is lodged with the Registrar, the company shall be deemed to have continued in existence as if its name had not been struck off.” (emphasis added) [11] Based on the provision, several requirements must be met for a company to be reinstated into the Register. The first two requirements are in section 555(1) of the CA: a. The applicant must be a person aggrieved by the decision of the registrar of companies (“Registrar”) to strike off the company from the Register; and b. The application must be made within seven years after the name of the company has been struck off. [12] Once the above requirements are met, the court must then satisfy itself, in accordance with section 555(2) of the CA: a. That the company was at the time of the striking off, carrying on business or in operation; S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 or otherwise, b. That it is just that the name of the company be reinstated into the Register. D. Considerations Requirements under section 555(1) [13] The question before the court is whether the 1st defendant ought to be reinstated into the Register. In answering this question, I considered whether the requirements under section 555 of the CA have been met. [14] I found the two requirements under section 555(1) have been met. The plaintiffs have shown that they are persons aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar, and the application was made within seven years of the date of the striking off. Are the plaintiffs persons aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar? [15] In arguing that they are aggrieved, the plaintiffs relied on Hemalatha a/p Arumugam v Springs Court Sdn Bhd & Anor [2012] MLJU 1444. In that case, the petitioner had entered into a building agreement with the 1st respondent, and wished to take action arising from the late delivery for vacant possession against the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent had been struck off the Register. The High Court held that the petitioner was an aggrieved person, adversely affected by the striking off of the 1st respondent. S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [16] Similarly, in the present case, the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are bound by the Letter of Acceptance. The plaintiffs intend to pursue legal action against the 1st defendant, arising from the Letter of Acceptance. The striking off of the 1st defendant from the Register on 17 January 2020 had thwarted the plaintiffs’ plan. Thus, the plaintiffs are persons who are aggrieved by the striking off of the 1st defendant from the Register. [17] At this point in the court’s assessment of the requirements under section 555 of the CA, I am of the view that a consideration of the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim is not necessary. It is sufficient for the court to find that the plaintiffs are persons who are adversely affected by the striking off of the 1st defendant from the Register. I found the plaintiffs were adversely affected, as they had intended to file an action against the 1st defendant, but were unable to do so. Was the application within seven years after the 1st defendant was struck off? [18] In relation to the second requirement, it is not in dispute that the originating summons was filed within seven years from the date the 1st defendant was struck off from the Register. The 1st defendant was struck off from the Register on 17 January 2020, while this action was filed on 12 January 2022. Requirements under section 555(2) [19] With these requirements met, I then went on to consider the requirements in section 555(2) of the CA. There are two parts to section 552(2). The first part is a consideration by the court of whether the 1st S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 defendant was at the time of the striking off, carrying on business or in operation. The second part is a consideration of whether it is otherwise just that the name of the 1st defendant be reinstated into the Register. Was the 1st defendant carrying on business or in operation at the time it was struck off the Register? [20] It is not in dispute that the 1st defendant was not carrying on business or in operation at the time it was struck off the Register. The 1st defendant has provided evidence that it had closed its only bank account on 30 June 2017, and was dormant since then. The 1st defendant was subsequently struck off the Register on 17 January 2020, while it was still dormant. [21] In Tetuan Wang & Co v Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia; Thiageswary A Suppiah & Ors (interveners) [2013] 1 LNS 200, the court referred to Re Priceland Ltd,; Waltham Forest London Borough Council v Registrar of Companies and others [1997] 1 BCLC 467 in considering whether a company was carrying on business or in operation. [22] Re Priceland Ltd (supra) examined the purpose of section 653(2) of the (then) United Kingdom Companies Act 1985. The section is similar to section 555(2) of the CA, in that it provides that a company may be restored to the register, if the court is satisfied that the company was at the time of striking off carrying on business or in operation, or otherwise that it is just that the company be restored to the register. The court held: “It seems to me that the purpose of the section is to give the court the widest possible powers to restore. The words 'carrying on S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 business or in operation' in s 653(2) should be read together and in the light of that purpose. What the section is directing the court to do is to look back to the time of dissolution. If, at that time, the company was completely dormant, this particular avenue for giving jurisdiction to the court is not made out. On the other hand if the company was carrying on any activity at all, then the court's power to restore is brought into play.” (emphasis added) [23] Thus, with the finding that the 1st defendant was not carrying on business or in operation at the time it was struck off, it follows that the 1st defendant should not be reinstated into the Register. [24] Notwithstanding this initial conclusion, the second part of section 555(2) of the CA allows the court to consider whether it is just for the name of the 1st defendant to be reinstated into the Register. Is it just that the name of the 1st defendant be reinstated into the Register? [25] On this issue, it is essential for the court to consider the purpose of the reinstatement. The plaintiffs’ case is that there is a pending contractual dispute between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, arising pursuant to a Letter of Acceptance and the subsequent termination of the Letter of Acceptance. [26] In my view, the question of whether it is just to reinstate the 1st defendant into the Register must be considered by taking into account the S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 strength of the plaintiffs’ case against the 1st defendant. If the plaintiffs’ case is not sufficiently strong, the reinstatement would be redundant and impractical. [27] The 2nd defendant referred to the Singapore High Court case of Re Asia Petan Organisation Pte Ltd [2018] 3 SLR 435 which considered the issue of whether it is just for a company to be reinstated. The company sought to be reinstated was incorporated with two shareholders and directors, namely Song Seok Won (“Song”) and Tan Chung Hoe (“Tan”). The company’s affairs were managed by Tan. Song claimed that Tan had breached his fiduciary duties as a director, in drawing unauthorised salaries, making unauthorised withdrawals and failing to account for the company’s revenues and profits. He sought to commence derivate action, but the company had been struck off the register. Thus, Song applied to restore the Company to the register under section 344(5) of the Singapore Companies Act 2006, which contains similar provisions that allow the court to consider whether it is just to restore a company to the register. The court held as follows: “[33] Tan argued that there is no merit in Song’s allegation that Tan had breached his fiduciary duty as a director of the Company. I was of the view that whether the Company’s claim against Tan was meritorious was a matter to be decided at another forum and another time. The court should not, at this stage, be required to examine the substantive merits of a potential claim to see whether it is likely to succeed. That said, the court has to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case for the claim that would purportedly be commenced after the Company’s restoration, and that the claim is not spurious. It S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 was not disputed that Song had contributed to the Company’s entire paid-up capital of $50,000 and at least another $80,000 to the Company, which sum was deposited into Tan’s personal account. When the Company’s corporate account was closed, the balance in that account was withdrawn by Tan. This gave rise to a dispute as to what had become of the moneys withdrawn by Tan (from both Tan’s personal account and the Company’s bank account), among other things. I was of the view that the putative claim by the Company after its restoration was not spurious.” (emphasis added) [28] The legal principles expounded in Re Asia Petan (supra) were followed in another Singapore High Court case of Ganesh Paulraj v Avantgarde Shipping Pte Ltd [2019] 4 SLR 617. [29] In the present case, I find the plaintiffs’ claim against the 1st defendant to be unsustainable. My finding is premised primarily on the fact that the limitation period for the cause of action arising from the alleged breach of the Letter of Acceptance has already set in. [30] The plaintiffs’ claim arises from the 1st defendant’s alleged delay in completing the Project. Under the Letter of Acceptance, the Project was to be completed in March 2016. As such, the cause of action arising from the delay and breach of the Letter of Acceptance would have accrued in March 2016. S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 1st defendant had accrued in March 2016, the cause of action would have before limitation was due to set in. The court finds the plaintiffs’ delay in commencing a claim against the 1st defendant to be detrimental to the plaintiffs’ position. The plaintiffs admitted that they had only discovered that the 1st defendant had been struck off the Register when they conducted a search on the 1st defendant on 11 January 2022. The timing of the plaintiffs’ search – almost six years from the alleged date of the breach of the Letter of Acceptance – raises the question of why the plaintiffs did not take immediate steps to commence action against the proceedings against the 1st defendant does not reflect the conduct of persons who believe they have a strong case against the 1st defendant. I should also highlight that the 1st plaintiff is a lawyer, and as such, he would have been aware of the limitation period for actions premised on a breach [31] Section 6(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 states: “Save as hereinafter provided the following actions shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, that is to say – (a) actions founded on a contract or on tort; …” [32] Based on this section, if the plaintiffs’ cause of action against the been barred by limitation in March 2022. [33] The plaintiffs’ application was filed in January 2022, two months defendant. [34] The lack of urgency shown by the plaintiffs in the initiation of S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 2nd defendant had received a letter from the 4th defendant which stated that the Registrar would be striking off the 1st defendant from the Register. The 1st plaintiff had acted on this knowledge, and prepared a deed of novation and indemnity to allow outstanding payments to be made to the 2nd defendant, in the event the 1st defendant was struck off. This action is reinstate the 1st defendant into the Register a month before limitation was due to set in, it would have been unlikely for the plaintiffs to have been defendant. [35] I also accept that the 1st plaintiff had known since 2016 that the again inconsistent with the conduct of a person intending to commence legal proceedings against the 1st defendant. [36] It is important to note that having only commenced this action to able to file an action against the 1st defendant within the limitation period. [37] As the limitation period for the plaintiffs’ cause of action against the 1st defendant has expired (and most importantly, had expired within two months of the plaintiffs filing this action to reinstate the 1st defendant) the plaintiffs’ case would have been barred by limitation. It is on this basis that I hold the plaintiffs’ claim against the 1st defendant would have been unsustainable. As such, reinstatement of the 1st defendant for the purpose of the proposed claim is not justifiable. [38] With these findings, I am of the view that it would not be just for the 1st defendant to be reinstated into the Register. of contract. Yet, he took his time to commence an action against the 1st S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 E. Decision [39] The originating summons is dismissed, with costs. Dated 31 October 2023 - sgd - ADLIN ABDUL MAJID Judge High Court of Malaya Commercial Division (NCC6) Kuala Lumpur Counsel: Plaintiffs : Harcharan Singh (together with Shereena Kaur Sidhu) of Messrs. Harcharan Singh Sidhu & Associates 2nd defendant : Simon Hue (together with Edward Yii) of Messrs. Simon Hue & Associates 4th defendant : Zuriatulmida Nor Azmi of Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia S/N Faz6xYNbRUCd0O/GN1b4iw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

A-09(H)-427-12/2022

PERAYU FAIZAL ANUAR BIN MAT ISA RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

Seksyen 375 Kanun Keseksaan - Rape - Seksyen 376(2)(b) Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 376(2) Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 14(b) Akta Kesalahan Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 - Seksyen 14(d) Akta Kesalahan Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 - Physical sexual assault on a child - Seksyen 102 Akta Mahkamah Rendah - Prinsip perundangan berkaitan hukuman pemenjaraan berasingan atau serentak - Ketiga - tiga pertuduhan telah dilakukan pada tarikh yang sama, masa yang sama, tempat yang sama dan melibatkan mangsa yang sama - Hukuman pemenjaraan yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen dan Mahkamah Tinggi sepatutnya berjalan secara serentak dan bukannya secara berasingan - Terkhilaf apabila memerintahkan hukuman pemenjaraan berjalan secara berasingan tanpa mempertimbangkan prinsip satu transaksi - Sabitan bagi ketiga-tiga pertuduhan dikekalkan - Perintah supaya hukuman pemenjaraan berjalan secara berasingan diketepikan - Digantikan dengan hukuman pemenjaraan berjalan secara serentak - Hukuman sebatan dikekalkan.

08/12/2023

YA Dato' Azmi Bin AriffinKorumYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Tuan Mohamed Zaini Bin MazlanYA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=105eb213-cdb0-43a3-89e5-252adbaa19d3&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: A-09(H)-427-12/2022 ANTARA FAIZAL ANUAR BIN MAT ISA - PERAYU (No.K/P:830709-08-5551) DAN PENDAKWA RAYA - RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah Di Taiping, Perak Rayuan Jenayah No: AB-42JSKS-03-12/2021 Antara Faizal Anuar Bin Mat Isa - Perayu (No.K/P:830709-08-5551) Lawan Pendakwa Raya - Responden] 08/12/2023 11:00:42 A-09(H)-427-12/2022 Kand. 22 S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 KORUM: HADHARIAH BINTI SYED ISMAIL, HMR MOHAMED ZAINI BIN MAZLAN, HMR AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, HMR PENGHAKIMAN PERTUDUHAN [1] Pendakwaan terhadap Perayu bermula di Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Kangsar di atas tiga (3) pertuduhan - pertuduhan berikut: PERTUDUHAN PERTAMA “Bahawa kamu pada 3/1/2020, jam lebih kurang 2.00 pagi, di dalam satu bilik di rumah bernombor 109, Kampung Trosor, Sungai Siput, di dalam Daerah Sungai Siput (U), di dalam Negeri Perak, telah didapati merogol satu (1) kanak-kanak perempuan nama: xxxxxx, KPT xxxxx yang berumur 15 tahun 9 bulan dengan meletakkanya dalam ketakutan kecederaan pada masa segera sebelum melakukan kesalahan rogol itu, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 376(2)(b) yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 376(2) Kanun Keseksaan.” S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 PERTUDUHAN KEDUA: “Bahawa kamu pada 3/1/2020, jam lebih kurang 2.00 pagi, di dalam satu bilik di rumah bernombor 109, Kampung Trosor, Sungai Siput, di dalam Daerah Sungai Siput (U), di dalam Negeri Perak, bagi maksud seksual telah menggunakan tangan seorang kanak-kanak perempuan nama: xxxxxx, KPT xxxxx yang berumur 15 tahun 9 bulan untuk menyentuh kemaluan kamu, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14(b) Akta Kesalahan Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.” PERTUDUHAN KETIGA: “Bahawa kamu pada 3/1/2020, jam lebih kurang 2.00 pagi, di dalam satu bilik di rumah bernombor 109, Kampung Trosor, Sungai Siput, di dalam Daerah Sungai Siput (U), di dalam Negeri Perak, bagi maksud seksual telah memasukkan jari kamu ke dalam kemaluan seorang kanak-kanak perempuan nama: xxxxxx, KPT xxxxx yang berumur 15 tahun 9 bulan untuk menyentuh kemaluan kamu, dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14(d) Akta Kesalahan Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak2017 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 14 Akta yang sama.” S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 FAKTA KES PENDAKWAAN [2] Mangsa (SP3) berusia 15 tahun 9 bulan semasa kejadian. [3] Pada 3/1/2020 jam lebih kurang pukul 2.00 pagi, ketika SP3 sedang tidur di ruang tamu di tingkat atas di rumah datuknya di Kampung Trosor, Sungai Siput, bersama adik lelakinya iaitu Mohammad Hakin bin Abdul Sani (SP7), SP3 terjaga kerana terdengar bunyi tarikan plastik dan disangkanya kucing. Pada masa itu, lampu di kawasan ruang tamu berada di dalam keadaan tertutup. [4] Selepas beberapa ketika, apabila SP3 membuka matanya beliau melihat di sebelah kanannya terdapat seorang lelaki yang sedang merangkak menuju ke arahnya. Lelaki itu memakai penutup muka dan membawa sebilah pisau. Lelaki itu telah mengacukan pisau kepada SP3 dan memberitahu SP3 supaya diam dan menyuruh SP3 bangun dan mengikutnya masuk ke dalam bilik yang terletak di tepi ruang tamu di tingkat yang sama. [5] SP3 bangun lalu lelaki tersebut memeluk SP3 dari belakang dan mengacukan sebilah pisau ke perut SP3. Lelaki itu membawa SP3 masuk ke dalam bilik tersebut. Kebetulan lampu bilik itu terpasang. Semasa di dalam bilik itu, lelaki itu berkata kepada SP3 “kamu dengar cakap aku, kalau kamu tak dengar, aku tikam kamu”. SP3 merasa takut apabila mendengar kata - kata ugutan lelaki itu. SP3 merasa hendak menjerit sahaja tetapi tidak berani berbuat demikian kerana SP3 takut nyawanya dan nyawa adiknya (SP7) akan terancam. S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [6] Lelaki itu menyuruh SP3 membuka seluarnya dan SP3 menurut saja arahan lelaki itu. Selepas itu, lelaki itu pun menanggalkan seluarnya sendiri. SP3 tidak membuka seluar dalamnya kerana SP3 sedang “period” untuk hari kedua. Lelaki itu pun kemudiannya menyuruh SP3 memegang dan menghisap kemaluannya. SP3 ada memegang kemaluan lelaki itu tetapi SP3 tidak mahu menghisap kemaluan lelaki itu. Pada masa itu SP3 nampak kemaluan lelaki itu. [7] Lelaki itu kemudiannya menyuruh SP3 baring. SP3 mengikut sahaja kerana takut. Tangan lelaki itu masih memegang pisau. Lelaki itu berada di atas SP3 dan kedua - dua tangan lelaki itu berada di tepi kepala SP3. Kemudian lelaki itu cuba memasukkan kemaluannya ke dalam kemaluan SP3 tetapi tidak berjaya. SP3 berasa sakit di kemaluannya. [8] Selepas gagal untuk memasukkan kemaluannya dengan cara SP3 berbaring, lelaki itu telah mencuba pula dengan cara mengiring di mana muka lelaki ini kini mengadap muka SP3 dan tangan kanan lelaki itu memeluk badan SP3. Tangan kiri lelaki itu pula cuba memasukkan kemaluannya ke dalam kemaluan SP3 tetapi masih tidak berjaya. [9] Kemudian lelaki itu duduk berlunjur dan SP3 duduk di atas paha lelaki itu di dalam keadaan mencangkung. Kedua - dua tangan lelaki itu kini berada di pinggang SP3 dan lelaki itu mencuba untuk memasukkan kemaluannya ke dalam kemaluan SP3. Kali ini kemaluan lelaki itu hanya dapat masuk sedikit sahaja ke dalam kemaluan SP3. S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [10] Kemudian lelaki itu menyuruh SP3 baring melentang dengan kaki kiri SP3 di atas bahu lelaki itu. Kedua - dua lutut lelaki itu berada di lantai dan dia duduk di celah kelangkang SP3. Lelaki itu memegang kemaluannya dan cuba sekali lagi memasukkan kemaluannya ke dalam kemaluan SP3. Kemaluan lelaki itu tidak dapat masuk sepenuhnya kerana SP3 merasa pedih. SP3 dapat merasakan cecair panas di tepi kemaluannya. Cecair panas itu keluar daripada kemaluan lelaki itu. [11] Selepas itu, lelaki itu telah memasukkan jari tangan kirinya ke dalam kemaluan SP3. Namun SP3 tidak pasti jari manakah yang digunakan oleh lelaki itu. Semasa kemasukan jari ini berlaku, SP3 telah bertanya kepada lelaki itu, siapakah dia yang sebenarnya. Melalui pakaian dan suara lelaki itu, SP3 sudah dapat mengagak siapakah lelaki itu. Lelaki itu bertanya kepada SP3 sama ada SP3 kenal Awang. Tekaan SP3 adalah tepat apabila lelaki itu membuka baju warna hitam yang digunakan untuk menutup mukanya. Nyata lelaki itu adalah Awang yakni Perayu yang merupakan kawan arwah bapanya sejak SP3 masih di peringkat tadika lagi. SP3 mengenali Perayu kerana ibu SP3 pernah menghantar SP3 dan adik - adiknya untuk dijaga oleh ibu Perayu semasa keluarga Perayu dan keluarga SP3 sama - sama tinggal di Pulau Kemiri. [12] Selepas itu, Perayu beritahu SP3 bahawa dia akan datang lagi untuk berjumpa dengan SP3 dan dia berjanji akan menjaga SP3. Perayu meminta SP3 merahsiakan perkara yang berlaku ini. [13] SP3 telah berkeras menyuruh Perayu keluar dan jika Perayu enggan berbuat demikian, SP3 akan beritahu kepada keluarganya tentang kejadian S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 ini. Perayu dengan segera keluar melalui tingkap kayu di dalam bilik itu. SP3 terus turun ke bawah dan mencuci bahagian bawah kemaluannya. [14] SP3 telah mengejutkan SP7 sambil menangis dan memberitahu SP7 bahawa dia telah dirogol oleh Perayu. SP3 terus menghubungi ibu angkatnya. Selepas itu, ibu angkatnya datang bersama anaknya. Bapa tiri SP3 serta bapa saudara SP3 juga datang bersama. Pada tarikh yang sama juga iaitu 3/1/2020, SP3 telah pergi ke balai polis bersama bapa saudaranya untuk membuat laporan polis berkenaan kejadian ini. Laporan Polis Salak Baru Report No: 4/2020 telah ditandakan sebagai Ekshibit P5. [15] Selepas laporan polis dibuat, SP3 terus dibawa ke Hospital Sungai Siput dan seterusnya ke Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun, Ipoh untuk dibuat pemeriksaan genitalia. SP6 (Dr Lee Saw Joo) iaitu seorang doktor pakar sakit puan telah mengesahkan bahawa terdapat koyakan baru pada jam 5 di hymen SP3 dan juga koyakan di bahagian posterior forchette. Koyakan ini disebabkan oleh “Blunt object penetration through hymen”. Laporan perubatan telah ditandakan sebagai Ekshibit P16. SP6 juga mengesahkan bahawa tidak terdapat koyakan lama yang ditemui pada hymen SP3. [16] Pada 6/1/2020 jam lebih kurang 3.00 petang, pegawai penyiasat kes iaitu Inspektor Milda Aren Anak Maling (SP8) telah menangkap Perayu di perkarangan Balai Polis Salak Baru, Sungai Siput, Perak di atas kesalahan sepertimana pertuduhan. [17] Begitulah fakta kes pendakwaan. S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 KEPUTUSAN DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN [18] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berpuashati bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya mengemukakan suatu kes prima facie terhadap Perayu. Pembelaan diri dipanggil. PEMBELAAN [19] Perayu (SD1) memilih memberi keterangan secara bersumpah daripada kandang saksi. Perayu memanggil tiga (3) orang saksi pembelaan iaitu SD2 (ibu Perayu), SD3 (sepupu Perayu) dan SD4 (kawan Perayu). KEPUTUSAN DI AKHIR KES PEMBELAAN [20] Di akhir kes pembelaan, pada 29/11/2021, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berpandangan bahawa pembelaan yang dibangkitkan hanyalah suatu penafian kosong, pemikiran terkemudian dan rekaan semata - mata dan tidak menimbulkan apa - apa keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan. Pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kesnya melampaui keraguan munasabah ke atas Perayu. Perayu didapati bersalah dan disabitkan di atas ketiga - tiga pertuduhan tersebut. [21] Hukuman terhadap Perayu adalah seperti berikut:- (a) Pertuduhan pertama – pemenjaraan selama 12 tahun dari tarikh S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 tangkap dan 4 kali sebatan; (b) Pertuduhan kedua - pemenjaraan selama 4 tahun dan 2 kali sebatan; (c) Pertuduhan ketiga – pemenjaraan sealam 4 tahun dan 2 kali sebatan; dan (d) Ketiga - tiga hukuman pemenjaraan berjalan berasingan bermula dari tarikh Perayu ditangkap (6/1/2020). PERAYU MENFAILKAN RAYUAN KEPADA MAHKAMAH TINGGI [22] Terkilan dengan keputusan tersebut, pada 10/12/2021, Perayu telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan di Mahkamah Tinggi Taiping, Perak terhadap sabitan dan hukuman. Perayu memohon agar hukuman pemenjaraan dijalankan secara serentak dan bukannya secara berasingan. Pihak Responden/Pendakwa Raya juga turut menfailkan rayuan silang terhadap hukuman bagi pertuduhan kedua dan ketiga di bawah Akta Kesalahan - Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak - Kanak 2017. DAPATAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI [23] Pada 19/12/2022, Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Taiping telah menolak rayuan Perayu dan mengekalkan sabitan dan hukuman S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang memerintahkan tempoh hukuman pemenjaraan bagi ketiga - tiga kesalahan dijalankan secara berasingan. Rayuan silang Responden di atas hukuman ditolak. PERAYU MENFAILKAN RAYUAN KEPADA MAHKAMAH RAYUAN [24] Terkilan dengan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut, maka pada 21/12/2022, Perayu telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan (Kandungan 32) di Mahkamah Rayuan ini memohon agar hukuman pemenjaraan dikurangkan dan berjalan secara serentak dan tidak secara berasingan sepertimana yang diperintahkan oleh oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Taiping. PERUNTUKAN UNDANG - UNDANG [25] Seksyen 375 Kanun Keseksaan memperuntukan seperti berikut:- “375. Rape. A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the following descriptions: (a) against her will; (b) without her consent; S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (c) with her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death or hurt to herself or any other person, or obtained under a misconception of fact and the man knows or has reason to believe that the consent was given in consequence of such misconception; (d) with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married or to whom she would consent; (e) with her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent; (f) with her consent, when the consent is obtained by using his position of authority over her or because of professional relationship or other relationship of trust in relation to her; (g) with or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation - Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.” [26] Seksyen 14(b) Akta Kesalahan - Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak - Kanak 2017 memperuntukan seperti berikut:- S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 “Physical sexual assault on a child 14. Any person who, for sexual purposes- (b) makes a child touch any part of the body of such person or of any other person; commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years and shall also be liable to whipping. Explanation 1 - The act of touching may involve the act of touching with any part of the body or with an object and may be done through anything including anything worn by the person touching or by the child touched. Explanation 2 - In determining what constitutes sexual purposes, the court may take into consideration, among others, the part of the body that is touched, the nature and extent of the act of touching or the physical contact and all other circumstances surrounding the conduct.” [27] Seksyen 14 (d) Akta Kesalahan - Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak - Kanak 2017 memperuntukan seperti berikut:- “Physical sexual assault on a child 14. Any person who, for sexual purposes- S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (d) does any other acts that involve physical contact with a child without sexual intercourse, commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years and shall also be liable to whipping. Explanation 1 - The act of touching may involve the act of touching with any part of the body or with an object and may be done through anything including anything worn by the person touching or by the child touched. Explanation 2 - In determining what constitutes sexual purposes, the court may take into consideration, among others, the part of the body that is touched, the nature and extent of the act of touching or the physical contact and all other circumstances surrounding the conduct.” [28] Seksyen 102 Akta Mahkamah Rendah [Akta 92] memperuntukkan seperti berikut:- “Sentence in case of conviction for several offences at one trial. When a person is convicted at one trial of any two or more distinct offences a Magistrates' Court may sentence him for those offences to the several punishments prescribed therefor which the court is competent to inflict, the punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the court may direct, or to run concurrently if the court shall so direct, but it shall not be necessary for the court, by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of one single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher court: Provided that- (a) in no case shall the person be sentenced to periods of imprisonment amounting in the aggregate to more than twenty years; (b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the court in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction is competent to inflict; and (c) when imprisonment is directed in default of payment of a fine or of costs or compensation ordered under the authority of any law for the time being in force, the imprisonment shall be consecutive to any other term of imprisonment so directed and to any sentence of imprisonment otherwise imposed." PRINSIP UNDANG - UNDANG DI PERINGKAT RAYUAN [29] Mahkamah dalam mendengar rayuan ini berpandukan kepada prinsip undang-undang yang mantap di mana mahkamah di peringkat rayuan seharusnya mengambil pendirian untuk tidak mengganggu dapatan hukuman yang telah dibuat oleh mahkamah perbicaraan melainkan ternyata keputusan tersebut mempunyai salah arah, tidak menurut undang-undang S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 dan terdapat keterangan yang kuat yang menunjukkan bahawa Hakim Perbicaraan telah terkhilaf di dalam menggunapakai prinsip menjatuhkan hukuman yang betul ataupun telah menggunapakai budibicara yang tidak dibenarkan (unauthorized) ataupun asing (extraneous). Prinsip ini telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 LNS 139; [1982] 1 MLJ 83 di mana mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:- "For a discretionary judgment of this kind to be reversed by this court, it must be shown to our satisfaction that the learned judge was embarking on some unauthorised or extraneous or irrelevant exercise of discretion." [30] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Pendakwa Raya v. Prabu A/L Veeramuthu and Others [2010] 8 CLJ 257; [2010] MLJU 663 juga telah memutuskan seperti berikut:- "In an appeal against sentence an appellate court would not disturb the sentence imposed unless the trial court had erred in applying the correct principles of sentencing or had embarked on some unauthorized or extraneous exercise of discretion (see Ganesan a/l Nachiappan & Ors v. Public Prosecutor [2000] 3 CLJ 302; Public Prosecutor v. Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 256; Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 LNS 139; [1982] 1 MLJ 83 and Yit Kean Hong v. PP [2005] 4 CLJ 592.” S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [31] Di dalam kes Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP [2002] 3 CLJ 457, Mohamad Dzaiddin, KHN (beliau pada ketika itu) menegaskan seperti berikut:- "It is of the upmost importance to stress here that the appellate court will not normally alter the sentence unless it is satisfied that the sentence passed by the lower court is manifestly inadequate or excessive or illegal or otherwise not a proper sentence having regard to all the facts disclosed or that the court has clearly erred in applying correct principles in the assessment of sentence. See:PP v. Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102, [1976] 2 MLJ 257.” KEPUTUSAN KAMI [32] Perayu di dalam rayuannya terhadap hukuman memohon agar kami memerintahkan supaya hukuman pemenjaraan bagi ketiga - tiga pertuduhan terhadap Perayu ini disingkatkan dan berjalan secara serentak dan tidak secara berasingan sepertimana yang telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi. [33] Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman di dalam mengekalkan hukuman tempoh pemenjaraan dan hukuman dijalankan secara berasingan seperti yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen menyatakan di dalam alasan penghakimannya (m/s 22 - 24 Kandungan 5 RR Jilid 1) seperti berikut:- S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 “[33] Having examined the relevant case law on the principles in regard to consecutive and concurrent sentences and the “crushing effect” on the prisoner, unfortunately this Court is not swayed by the Appellant’s submissions. In my view, the total 20 years imprisonment did not go against the totality principle because the maximum sentence that could be imposed for all the 3 offences is 70 years. The rationale of the Sessions Court Judge was that the court must show its abhorrence to the rampancy of crimes of a sexual nature committed against children and therefore, a deterrent sentence was warranted. This Court agrees that the facts and circumstances of the case did not justify a shorter term of imprisonment nor was it fit to impose concurrent sentences. Two of the charges were under Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, despite their commission within the “one transaction rule” and the first charge was on aggravated rape. The Court views that these are very serious and heinous crimes indeed. [34] In reviewing the sentences imposed on the Appellant, this Court has also taken into consideration the Victim Impact Statement (P30), the facts of the case adduced at trial, aggrieving factors and mitigation of the Appellant. Due to the nature and gravity of the crimes committed, public interest would be better served by keeping the Appellant away from the victim, and society at large for a longer period of time. Hence, this Court agrees with the rationale of the Sessions Court Judge in imposing these sentences consecutively against the Appellant. It cannot be said that she had not considered the Appellant’s plea in mitigation at all. In fact, the learned Sessions Court Judge had explained the reasons for doing so in the Grounds of Judgment. S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [35] An appellate court would be slow to interfere or disturb a sentence passed by a lower court unless it is manifestly wrong in the sense of being illegal or unsuitable to the proved facts and circumstances: PP v. Mohamed Nor & Ors [1985] 2 MLJ 200. [36] Premised on the above, the Court did not find any error of fact or law such that would justify the Court to disturb the findings nor to interfere in the sentences meted out by the Sessions Court Judge. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the conviction and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court Judge on the Appellant. Appeal dismissed.” [34] Sebelum kami memutuskan samada berlakunya kekhilafan atau tidak oleh Mahkamah Sesyen dan Mahkamah Tinggi dalam menjatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan secara berasingan bagi ketiga - tiga pertuduhan terhadap Perayu ini, maka adalah lebih wajar bagi kami merujuk dahulu kepada beberapa nas undang - undang yang mantap berkaitan isu utama ini. [35] Prinsip perundangan berkaitan hukuman pemenjaraan berasingan atau serentak ini telah dinyatakan secara jelas oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Bachik Abdul Rahman v. PP [2004] 2 CLJ 572; [2004] 3 AMR 429 di mana Augustine Paul JCA (beliau pada ketika itu) di dalam menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah menyatakan seperti berikut:- “…..combined effect of s. 282 and s. 292 is that unless the court imposing a sentence says anything to the contrary, the sentence runs from the date on which it was passed (see Ooi Sim Yim v. PP [1990] 1 S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 CLJ 435; [1990] 1 CLJ (Rep) 223). The exercise of the discretion to determine the date of commencement of the sentence of imprisonment is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. In deciding whether the terms of imprisonment should be consecutive or commence at another date the court will be guided by the one transaction rule and the totality principle. Pursuant to the one transaction rule where two or more offences are committed in the course of a single transaction all sentences in respect of these offences should be concurrent rather than consecutive (see R v. Saleem [1964] Crim LR 482; R v. Walsh [1965] Crim LR 248). For there to be one transaction four elements must be present, that is to say, proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity of purpose or design (see Jayaraman & Ors v. PP [1979] 1 LNS 36; [1979] 2 MLJ 88; Amrita Lal Hazra v. Emperor 42 Cal 957; Chin Choy v. PP [1955] 1 LNS 17; [1955] MLJ 236).” [36] Srimurugan Alagan di dalam buku penulisannya bertajuk "The Criminal Procedure Code: A Commentary with Appellate Practice & Procedure (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell)" di m/s 461 dan 462 menyatakan seperti berikut:- “In deciding whether the terms of imprisonment should be consecutive or commence at another date, the court will be guided by the one transaction rule and the totality principle. Pursuant to the one transaction rule where two or more offences are committed in the course of a single transaction, all sentences in respect of these offences should be concurrent rather than consecutive (see R v. S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Saleem [1964] Crim LR 482; R v. Walsh [1965] Crim LR 248). For there to be one transaction four elements must be present, that is to say, proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity of purpose or design (see Jayaraman & Ors v. PP [1979] 1 LNS 36; [1979] 2 MLJ 236).” [37] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam Yap You Jee v. PP & Other Appeals [2015] 7 CLJ 897 memutuskan seperti berikut:- “In respect of the second and third appellants, in determining whether the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive, we are guided by the one transaction rule where four elements must be present, that is to say, proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and continuity of purpose or design (see Bachik Abdul Rahman v. PP [2004] 2 CLJ 572.” [38] Bersandarkan kepada nas undang - undang di atas, kami mendapati untuk ketiga - tiga pertuduhan ini, ianya telah dilakukan pada tarikh yang sama, masa yang sama, tempat yang sama dan melibatkan mangsa yang sama. Oleh itu hukuman pemenjaraan yang dijatuhkan oleh mahkamah sesyen dan mahkamah tinggi sepatutnya berjalan secara serentak dan bukannya secara berasingan. [39] Sudah terang lagi bersuluh bahawa mahkamah sesyen dan mahkamah tinggi telah terkhilaf apabila memerintahkan hukuman pemenjaraan berjalan secara berasingan tanpa mempertimbangkan prinsip satu transaksi sepertimana yang dijelaskan di atas. Kegagalan mematuhi S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 prinsip undang - undang tersebut mewajarkan campurtangan Mahkamah Rayuan ini. KESIMPULAN [40] Rayuan Perayu dibenarkan. Sabitan bagi ketiga - tiga pertuduhan dikekalkan. Perintah supaya hukuman pemenjaraan berjalan secara berasingan diketepikan dan digantikan dengan hukuman pemenjaraan berjalan secara serentak. Hukuman sebatan dikekalkan. Tarikh: 8 Disember 2023 - Sgd - Azmi bin Ariffin Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia Bagi Perayu : Ilyani Khuszairy [Firma Fahmi Abd Moin (Shah Alam)] Bagi Responden : Sarulatha a/p Paramavathar Timbalan Pendakwa Raya [Jabatan Peguam Negara] S/N E7JeELDNo0OJ5SUq26oZ0w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-72-01/2022

PERAYU Tetap Tiara Sdn Bhd RESPONDEN 1. ) Pengurusan Perbadanan Jaya One 2. ) Pavilion Summit Sdn Bhd 3. ) Beyond Insights Sdn Bhd 4. ) Flagship Estate Sdn Bhd 5. ) Manlink International Sdn Bhd 6. ) Worldwide Emergency Assistance (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd 7. ) Chu Choong Yow 8. ) Kalyana Mohana A/L Teagarajan 9. ) Krishnananthan A/L Rajah 10. ) Lee Hui Boon11. ) Lim Chu Chuan1 2. ) Lim Kok Kin1 3. ) Ong Lian Wah1 4. ) Pakiarajah A/L Kalimuthu1 5. ) Ser Chai Seong1 6. ) Shanthi A/P Appasamy1 7. ) Viren Doshi1 8. ) Yee Thien Seng1 9. ) Christina Mei Mei Ng20. ) Yap Hong Hui21. ) Christina Wong Siew Fang2 2. ) Teh Shu Mei

Interlocutory injunction - from voting in the Annual General Meeting – failed to take any action or meaningful action against the principal wrongdoers - failure to reasonably discharge fiduciary duties - determination and imposition of maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions – striking out application - no locus standi - Strata Management Act 2013 - no jurisdiction by the Court to injunct - preserve the status quo - Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulation 2015

08/12/2023

YA Dato' Sri Mariana binti Haji YahyaKorumYA Datuk Vazeer Alam bin Mydin MeeraYA Dato' Gunalan A/L MuniandyYA Dato' Sri Mariana binti Haji Yahya

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=0d760706-17ef-47a0-af15-a6cfd8a789f7&Inline=true

22/12/2023 15:37:26 W-02(IM)(NCvC)-72-01/2022 Kand. 97 S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Bgd2De8XoEevFabP2KeJ9w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-22NCvC-72-04/2023

PLAINTIF MARVESCO SDN BHD DEFENDAN APEX COMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD

Adjudication – Application filed by the Respondent to strike out the claim pursuant to Order 18 rule 19 (1)(b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 on grounds of duplicity and res judicata.Whether the present claim by the Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and duplicity/multiplicity of proceedings The Court finds that the same issues, facts, cause of action and reliefs in relation to the same subject matter i.e. invoices were raised previously and determined in another suit before another learned High Court Judge.Court allows Enclosure 6 with costs.

08/12/2023

YA Dato' Anand Ponnudurai

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ba54f45f-711f-42c3-8635-7695de1eb0ad&Inline=true

08/12/2023 15:44:08 PA-22NCvC-72-04/2023 Kand. 24 S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N X/RUuh9xw0KGNXaV3h6wrQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1>A—22Ncvc—72—n¢/2023 Kand. 24 22/mzm ,5vAa-on DALAM MAHKAMAN TINGGI IIIALAVA DI PULAU PINANG DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL N ANIARA MARVESCO sun. am). (No. Syarikat: 124351.?) ...PLAlNTlFF DAN APEX couluumcmous snu. sun. (Nu. Syarllul: 137415-v) MDEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Inmaauulun [1] The P\amW(here|n:m.er referred to as “Man/esco') was engaged by me Devenaam (neremanar relened Ia as 'Apsx“) as a subconlraclnr my a pm]ec1 by me employer (herelnafler marred in as 'P.asarana'). The project has smne been wmweled. A mspma arose Ieaamg m atuuducauon pmoaemngz. and an amumcauon award which subsequently was ma subyaci mallet of several mm pmoeeamgs m we Fenang High counwmcn Iwill emmraca an Valor m ms pmgmenu. aw X/Ruunvmnksnxavanmru WI: 1 nl 2: ma Sum IHIVVDIY Mu be used m mm ua nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm [2] The crux or the dispuls appears to D: wha| Marvesoo mmsnas an unpaid invoices far Variation Orders (hsrernaner revenue: in as “VO's") amourmng m RM2‘E58,2E‘/.25 and invoices fol Extension oi Time (rreremaner referred in as ‘EOT‘s”) in me amoum of RMi.o15.1966o [3] Pursuam to mu man In sum No PA-22c-I-01/2a22 (hereinafler relened to as ‘Suit No1'|‘ the High ooun made the iuiiawirig declaration on 16' December 2022 as loiiows’ Ii} A doclnrltlon Ml! lb! Dvhnd-M’: fllllrvlscu) V0 and E01 involcu 1: tot am In pmgnph 9 honin or any plymlnt in nsplcl rnmarm nordut fmm orpiylblc by PlaiIm'I7 (Apmr) until Ml D"-‘E188 of rvvfcw llld virificafion is concludtd which ll pundlna. (D; pursuamlc (a) above, a duclnrlflon mum Aqludicarion docisicrr dared 10.1.2022 is not binding Ind/DI onforvoablo gains! mo P/aimilr (Apex) under sectlun 1.1 of the GIPAA [41 Marvesoo has appealed sgsinsi me said uecision in Suil N01 am: such appeai IS fixed for hearing in me Court -11 Appeal an um February 2024. sw X/RuunvmnKGNxav:mura Page 1 ulli Nab! sum mm. WW .. used M van; me migiruflly mm; dun-mm VII mum Wm ( )M:rvuDo'I Enforcnmont Originating summons and gnu Sitting Asldo Orlglnnlng summons [25] Based rm me adwdicatwon decusxcn, Iwo Drigmaling Summons were Ned m me Penang High Conn by Apex and Marvasw resneclively which are: a. On 24” January 2:122, Marvescn filed an origmeung Summons in Suil Nu. PA—24c—14)1/2022, seekmg an order of eniuruemenc :11 me adjud afler reraned lo as 'Marvesoo‘s Enlorcemem 05') and‘ on decwslon (‘he n. on 27* January 2022, Apex filed an Ongmaling Summons m Sun No. PA.24z>2-on/2n22, seeking lo set asme or say the adjumcannn decision (hereiniflev referred Io as “Apex's semng Asme os“). [27] Apex‘s semng Asme os was firs! heard by me Hwevev, via consent of the pames, ma maner was Iranslermd In Jusnee Quay Chew Soon‘: coun as bclh sun No I and Marvescds Enloraemenl os were alreaay balom His Lorasmp. [251 Jusuce Quay Chew Soon rum bum Marvascds Envoroemem 0s and Aged: Samng Ame as and aHawed Marvesods Enlcroemenl as and dismwsssd Apex‘: samng Ame os. [29] Apex men appnea (or a stay of exeumon pending delermmalmn av Sm| No.1 The High Court alwwed E oondmanal s1ay whereby Apcx was In pay Illa sum 11! RM3‘B73,463 B5 bemg the ed]udu‘.alod sum syn x/Ruum7mnKGNxav:na~mq Page 11 5415 -we Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m van; ms mn.ny mm; m.n.n wa mum puns! lu Mamsoo-s sohonlors. Messrs. Sunny Knee as s1akeno|dars and k: be deposited Into an m(.eresI—bearing acmunl pending the msposan ofsmma 1. [30] Wilh Apex's win m Suit No.1. me Hvgh cam runner made consequential otders iovlhe adiudwcaled sum of RM3‘573,A83.a5‘ being monies held by Marves/.:o‘s solrcilors to be returned to Apex. These monies have been dmy rammed lo Apex. Th can nllu nd nly In Enclocurue [:11] Apex eunlendsmal me smmleu by Marvesm harem us nnlmng more men an anempl by men: to remlgale Issues Iha| have already been named In sum No. 1. In pamaum, VI :: eonlended xhal Marvaxoo .5 sashdng In ordev max ma sand Vnvalees be pawd wnen the High Conn .n sun No.1 has suaaay delsrmlnad nnanneyare only payable once ma ravuaw and yermcauon moms .3 ooncvuaea by [M employer, Prasarana. [:21 In rm, me am: puod by Ibo pnmes were de|arminad in the conomng mlrmev by my Veamad brvlher Juslwca ouny cum Soon In SIM No. 1 an IOHOIISI a wnambr ma Marvasmfs V0 and E07’ mvorce: 513 due and payable by the Ptainm unm ms process of review and vervficalmn u concluded by me Employefl Myanswel: V5: yn X/RuunvmnKGNx:v:nuwrq p... n will “Nuns Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m van; .. nrighvnflly mm; m.n.n vu mum pans! b VI/nether Apex rs name to pay Marvescn with regard to Man/esco’s V0 and EOT submrssmn Io Apex at me matenar Irma? My answer No 0 I! the answer to Question 1 Is in me afiirmaziva, than whether ma Adiudicahon Daemon rs not binding and/av enfamsable agains1 Apex? My answer: (he adjudioanon demsmn »s not mndmg. .1. Whether the purported process afrewew and racmcstion are mlemsl namaan Apex and me Emplayel? My ansvmr. No.‘ [331 I have undertaken a mamculaus examinanon of the scanemenc of Clam: mad by Marvesoo harem am compared mam wnn mefindmgs made m me grounds aumgmanun Sull No.1 am I cannot but reach me mescapable conclusion that me pieaded lads and the invcmes n-we bean dean mm and aemenrnnea by me High Court Vn Su1lNa 1 andlhul Marvasods mam I! In mlmgale me same issues In panlullar, ma lcnowmg are Vssues raised hevein which were delennined In sun No 1: a The issue :11 wheinav ma LOA was applncabla an we terms av payment vim: sand \rwc\us was aaauwtm where the High Caun manmnaa mu ma LOA was mappHoab\e: syn X/RuunvmnKGNx:v:na~mq an n 0418 -ma snn n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm D The rssuelnel lne lnslructlons tonne V0's and EOT‘s urns lrorn Apex was deall wrln a oerldusion man Marvescn nad [sued to prove me same wllh lne Court disbelievlng Marvesods wrtnesses. and c. on me crnrcal lssue of 'back—tu—baI:k paynrenlsr the High Court ned made specm: findings based on me wllnesses‘ lesllmony and oorllempararleous dpcumenls and lnel such invdlues are only payaple when approved by lne employer. [34] nesplle Mervesoo naying rnrlielly succeedlng vra lhe adludlratlon emerd, il ls not disputed lnel such an award ls only of remperary nnalrly and can be redelennrned rn a noun :71 law pursuanl ln seclion 13 CIFAA 2012. [see me cases ol Eeonplle (M) Sdn Bhd v IRDK Vomurll sdn and end enmner use [2017] 7 MLJ 1:2 and NTN Aela Bnlldor sdn Bhd v Slnohydro Comma on (M) sun and A Anor [21:11] MLJU 2553]. [35] By Suit Na 1, me adludinallun declslon was rederermrned hased on wrlness lesllmony and documenlary evlaenoe AI lne oundusmn or me rnal, rne mgr. ceun In sum No I leund lrlal me said Invoices were not due and payable unill may were approved and pald by lne employer, Prasararla The Hrgh coun wncluded as fullows: -109 For (he reasons above, I allawed Ps alarm. I granted a dec/arsriorl (ha! lrre lnvoices or any payrrrenr in reapea lrrereor are not we «run. or payapre by P, am my are approved and SW X/RuunlnwnKGNxav:lnmru rage :4 am we s..r.r ...m.. M“ r. used m van; me nllglrullly mm; glam. VIZ erlurm wrul para by Me Employer The mspms belween the parlres ha!/mg bsvn final/y decided by me me adjudication xiscfsmn new 19 1.2922 »s not binding under mm». 13 re) 0! crpm As a conseauenhal order, / minted ms: [he sd/udrcafed sum af RM3,673,453 55 which is cunenuy held by D's so/iciror as slikefmldels be renamed forthwith to P rogemsr with seemed mleresl I ordered D to pay costs arRM4o. one to P, " [36] Apex submrls man me Statement of C\aim and me issues raxsed by Marvesw m mew pleaded facts have aveaay been dean mm m mm nevare me H>gh Court in Sm! No.1 and mac Marves/.>o's recourse Is by way oi appeal which may have aheady exercised. In essence, :1 Is ecmenaea that they are esfopped from seekmg men remedy elsewhele. [37] The Apphcalmn harem raises I719 Iommmg wssues of law a. Duplipiiy‘ and b. Resjudicala (A) flint 135] In Nuanlddin bin llolld Sharifl @ Masari L Anor v Roslan bin muluu .5 Anal [mo] mm 1357, me Hugh coun lollowed me pmpounded princ\p\e an mulnphmly at pmoasdmgs «mm m Ln Klm sw X/Ruunvmnxsnxzvanama pm is one Mme smm ...m.mm be used m mm ms mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] nfluNG pm Lol v Data’ LII Fonk Kim 5 Ann! [war] 1 MLRA 15¢, man] 2 Mu 290. (193911 CLJ (Rip) 61 as follows "[11] The Defendanls relled, lnlac alla. on the Suplams Cam case ufLaI Klm Lo; v Dam’ Lal Fook mm 5. Anor[1989] 2 ML] 2912 (ran 3 at paga 295) wnsrsln me Appellant ln mar case had pleserlted a mnamg Up Pemlon agamsl ma 2"” Respondent: company A! (he same mna, [ha Appellant had filed a civil sull by way ola wm and Statement 0/ clalm agamsl ma 1-' Respondent (who was also snamnolual of me 2""R9spurman!} based on ma sama subslanllal facts and ssakmg sssanha/ly ma same lallals rn ma Femlan ma Pslilion was smlck on! on ma grounds that ma Psmlon VS Irfvolous. wxabous and an abuse olpmcess 0/ ma court. On lppeal to ma supreme Court. Gunn cl-m man, SCJ (later CJ 1MaIaya)) upheld ma dlsmlual of the Annual ml round ma: lna Issues IIVSOI1 and ma nsllel sought in no»: we Pallllon and Ihs wm an in duplfcalion and amounlacl lo mu/(lp/lcrty ol lacfmns as lpllawa. Alnage 56 ‘(I ma cmlarslup ofme same 1.200.000 sham: has atrusdy been chaflsllgedin another High Conn filed aalllar and ma dispute is still pending, how can the plafnli/fin our poasent case ls at the same llma ma firslclalandanl m the D3’: sun. file this action before this court claiming ma barlafils (me dividends) arising from the same shares’ I do no! mmk nus IN X/RuanvmaKGNxav:Imurq Iuellvfnl «ma Snl1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used a mm .. aflmnaflly mm: dun-mm VII .mm v-mm rs a propel court olacoorv to be taken by ma plaml/llm this action . " A! page 59 ‘There Carmel be a silustion where the shslvs as being contested In one cow! and slams qua is being marntafned in mar court and yet (he dividends are bsmg cla/med m snarner noun. as what has happened now nus rs cleany duplrmfy or proceedmgs and abuse ofprocess cream [12] Having cansrdered the grounds rarse-1 by me Dafandanv Applicant m summit of Endosure 27, ms law and pnncipres applrcable to duplimnrl mulllpl iry ofplooeedtngs based on ma same set of facts and la smking out of plsaarngs, ma canlentions of counsel, the background lacls, the relrels sougnv and cause olacnon m born the anions concerned, rt rs lound as rooows. [13] ln applying the estabhshed principles on the /ssue I! hand to [he present lacks, II 75 beyond dispute that as (here /S B subslarmal dupncauon ofissue: raised and mlrsfs sought, by Ihs Flamlfil Ill [be MD suparale suit as alluded to‘ I! would amount to mumplrcity/ duplrcrty nfecfions. Fmm 8 perusal of ma pleadmgs in both acnons, it would appear clearly rnaz ma P/sirmfls have patently pleaded muany the sam issues. cause olacrian, racrs andrehe/s In respect orma same sumac! maner, Le 15, L0! 864 in M0 separars suils, me earliar filed Surf 327 (vide me counrsr Claim) and Su/‘I 599 nerain {vtde IN X/RuunvmaKGNx:v:Inn~mq ms 11 cl :5 “Nuns sans! In-nhnrwm as used m van; .. nrighvnflly sums dun-mm VII mum pans! the wm and szaiaineiii or Claim) If wouiu {allow that me Pisiiizi‘/rs action in siiw proceeding to fils Suit 599 can be considered an abuse 0/ the court process and an attempt is bite me SSIIIS pmverbla! chslry notonce but mics si me W17 same time as contended by [he Delurvdsnt. [10] The Court agrees W/Ih the Defendants’ contention mat in View of ms undisputed and substantial sirniiarivies in the cause of action, etc in respect or Loz 864 between this suit and the CDImterCIaim in Sui! 321 wiiicn alsa sham ms same set of Iacls, the principls af dupliciiy uf pwceedings applies to bar we presemsuiv men by me Ptaimiirs ltis clealmal ma prsseni‘ suiz is an abuse a! me judicial prvcess anu imenaeu to eiieurnvenx the decision of the Land Admimstralor {L/A) wherein Lot 854 was acquired by the Gavemmem under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and the Land OflFoe had issued Form H dated 05.09 2015 Whevein the LA awarded in the Defendants a sum oi RM121, 70000 as me 'Perniiii< aaiigunan for an enacted building on Lo! (:54. [191 Hence, niis action is obviously unsusminsbis on (he grounds ad»/ancod Ind ought to be struck out summarily unaer the raiauani limbs nl On1aI18 rule 19, R06 2012 " [39] Based an ma amve, by pemslng both pleadings oi Mirvsods present suit and Suit N01‘ 1| hemmes evldsnt Ihal Marvesw has aeany pieaued me same issues, Vans, use of acflnn and isiisas IN X/RuunvmnKGNx:v:Mwiq rm 1: ans Nuns s.n.i n-vihnrwm be used M mm i.. nflmnnflly sun. dun-mm vu nFiuNG WM! In rulalxan |o UIB same subyect mailer, LB the maflef 04 (he Said vrwmcas. ms aemmscmss a srgnificani duplmalion at me issues and rahafs which have already been addressed and named vn Sum N01 Therefore, m my considered view, INS SIM Is an abuse of process and ougm to be struck out. (5) [401 The Hwah own 1: conferrud with adamonal Wwar under the schodulo anho cuun auuulcatun mu, n-r-graph II wmch states, Inler aha max “11. Res Judmals Powal mo dlunln or my alproeoodlngx when ma matter In queslrorl is rssjudicala balwaan ma parties, 0! when by reason of mumuicuy of pmcaedings In any court or mulls the pmcamfings mlghtnol In be continued‘ [41] Funhar, the Fedeval Courl m T--up Nninnll Ehd v OL Endm llurinu Products Sdu End [2921] 1 LNS oon had explained me daarine of res wdrcafa Is nropcunded hy me Suprume com vn Asil comm-man Flnunu (M) and vKaII|I To ti Sdn Bhd (19951 3 MLJ m as Vollaws, syn x/RuunvmnKGNx:v:na~mq p... u at H mm smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm s. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm “[42] The doctrine ones [udicala as proboimded by the supreme Court in Asia coi-yin-ierciai Finance (M) Bria v Kawai Teini Sdn arid [1995] 3 MLJ 159 is as roiiaws. wirai is ms/udicals? It simply means a matter admdgsd, and its significance lies in its elfscf HI creating an 981091.751 De! rem /iidicarum Wherl a matter nelwssn two parties has been adjudiceied by a court oicompeienumisdiciion, the panes and riieir prm/fss are no: bemiirred Io litigate once more are res iudicaia, because i:ie,udgrrieni becomes me win berweeii such berries, oiin olhsrwords, Ins psmes snouid eccepirias meirum. res [udicala pm veriraie accipilur The public policy omie law is iriar, ii is in the public iriieresi iiiai mere sriouid be /inaiiry in irrigation — iliielesl rei'pubIicae ui er nriio /mum. It is only/us! rriai no one ougnr id be vexed Iwrbe for me same cause biamicn — riemo debei bis wexari DID eadem cause.- [42] Based on me above, ii is evident in me that me issues raiaea in the suii rieieiri properiy belong in sun No,i wriicii have been deie by me High cam and mo decision is wrrenlly pending appeal, It is cleav iiiai mesa issues pleaded in me suii hemn prcoeriy belong in sun No.1. in my oonsidcred view, to allow iiie present euii no be tried again concerning mo same suoieci rnafler and iaois wouid be wrlhin me prirrcipies 01 res judicata and oonsmuias an abuse oi pmoss unriis Honourable coim an sue esioppei aioo appiiae. [43] Apex subnniia mat Marvescds rights and remedies Involving me said invoices cannm be made in insiainnenis Their right: ieii SiN xrauunamnxcuxavanoeid My nu cl ii We s.n.i In-vihnrwiii be used m van; in! nflgiriniily Mimi dnunvilril VIZ eFiuNG wmi [5] Nmwilhslaridirig, Marvesoo filed these lresn prpceeeings in April 2023 seeking lhe ielier ihal Apex pay them lhe arrieunls under the \/0's arid EOT irivaieea. [6] Apex than filed Enclosure 6 pursuanl lo Ordur I! lull in (ma) andlor(d)o1the Rules M Court 2012 In strike am this c ' . The crux oi such application was that llie matters pleaded in this case are res iuiiicela aria/or lhal Marvesoo is estopped from raising these issues again In light or the decision in siiii No 1 Yr-I Baolgrwrid Facts [7] The bllckgmlmd facts aria nisiary nl praeaaairigs beiweeri lhe pariies are largely urielspuied and are as lallaws. la} Prasararia Malaysia Bemad lhereirianei ielerrea in as FraaIrana"/ -Employer“), a wholly-wvlled Feaeral eeiierriinerii company, ea me cmiier el a laiiilairig prcleei iriiowri us “Design, Mariureelura, Delivery, lriaiall, lrilegreie, Teal, commission and Wumnly ol Bus /rllogralad syarerii tor Rapid laiia — Rapra Periarrgr (iiarainarler ralairae in as ‘the pralael") had appuiriied Apex aria LG crcs Malay Sdn Ehd (naiairialier mfernd in us “LG CNS") in iinrleriake, aoriiplele and hammer ilia eriliie works uriaei Corilracl No. PRASARANA/Gcslcrr/2.0574/2015 on 25'“ March 2016 (hereinaller referred in as ‘the principal eoniracr‘). [9] Apex hsa arigaqee Marvuw as ii subconlraclurvo carry eel pan al Apex‘; scape afwams under me principal contract wide a Leiier of IN X/RUuliVxvnDKGNX2VllilwrQ r... 1 am Wane a.i.i In-rlharwiii be flied a van; me nflgihaiily MIME dnunvilrll VII aFiuNG am squareiy wiihin suit No.1 which is now undei appeal by irieni and suii No. 2 iiereiii IS nulhing man: than Mewesms attempt at -s second one mile enemy, aisgmiiiiea by the ouioonie oi Sml No.1 and is a dearabuse of pmeese and I agrae wiiri such submis n. his Assemone gig Marv co [441 Marvasca nppnses ine application to some am and advance me laliowlng contentions via Iheiramdavlts and wiinen submissions: in. Thai more is an admission by Apex in the sieiernent oi Claim in sun No.1 lhll Ihcre is conditional appmvul 07 irie sum 07 RM1,D84,5E2 75 of iris said invoices which has not been med :7. That Marvesods uaim has nei been dismissed! struck on or posed afand is sun active c That «lie issues answered in Suit mi have not crystallised and «his is a life issue ior disposal 01 «ms Honourable com The «amine of Res ,ui1icaze is not applleebie to me preflialure issue whldl is not possible In he nreugm «man: in sun No.1 a That iiie Said invoices are me man six (5) yeais but huwevel. Man/esco has yel to receive any lener or feedback iegensiiig the status it BPDFU‘/al. SIN X/RuuviinwnKGNxzv:via~mq Page 2: av 11 -use s.ii.i n-vihnrwm be used M mm i.. nflfllnnflly MIME dun-mm VI] nF\uNG WM! e That Apex ooes nm mtend op same Mervespos debt as aflar spr my years, Marvesods daims on me sara mvaioes will be barred by hmnanon. [45] vwrrr respecr, I find the oonrernions of Manrmo Kn pe wrmpm menl rn (act, m my view, n has aveaay peerr determmed Ihal Malvesw will pe errrmea la payrnerrn nnoe sppmvsd and paid by Prasarana. In relation to the specrfic wntermons rarser: by Mawesw. the «onowrng would appear 10 pe me currern pusifion we e vs Mervesppe onarrrre or ponrerniprrs auer me oeeisrpn in Sun! N01 a. The earo mvcroas rrao rn pan been oondmenally approved, however, we Boards appmva\ 0! Flasarana rs pending. The High Courl apceprea Apex's poerrron rn a reple umwded by ins wrrness En Hafsez rsgarmng me ereurs and eunpprrre of me Frasarana approval prppese whereby oenam name which were auorweo in pan. or in run were sumea rp final Prasamns hoard approval [see paragraph as at me Grounds er Judglnsnl an page I95 01 Enclosure 9]. p. The only posllmn Marvoepo took rn sun No.1 with respect In me appnwa\ prooess was mar may are no: reepgnree Ihe epprpvex process py Prasavana and claimed man me process was inrerrren perween Apex am Preeerene [see parlgraphs 6 - n M are srarernenr ov Delence rn sun Na.Ia| page 255 0! Endasum 5}. c. Hence, mere rs no beers up contend me: me works wmch were oondmcnally appmvsd were not urea by me Hugh com. in wls erw X/Ruwm7xwnKGNX:v:mwrq P252 2: ans ‘Nuns e.r.r n-nhnrwm re used m mm ms nrwhrnflly mm: dun-mm wa enurm wrm sin X/Rumil7xwnKGNxav:lviawrq -nae Smnl In-vlhnrwlll be in... m van; in! nflglrinllly MIME dnunvlnril via nFluNG wml dslermined and accepted pylne Hign cum in suit No I as being subiecl lo final Board approval a. Funhsrmore. irie High Court in suii No 1 accepiea lne position 01 Apex mar lne claims by Marvesw under inc said invoices have to go Ihruugh a pmcese or review arirl verlficaliorl by Prasanina Tnerelcre, the said lnvoioes had yei rc be crysialisec as a claim as ii was a mere submission to be accesseg and approved by Prasaiana [see paragrapns 57 and e2 01 me Grounds cl Judgment ai page 204-206 cl Enclosure 9]. e. Ape\< submits trial lrrere is no cueslicn pl mere being six (5) years liiniiancn since mere nas been mndltlonal appmval ci uie claims by lne employer The Hign cam in sin: Nci nas determined lnai lire said invoices were siill pencing final Bcald approval and paynieni of Prasarana arm |he claims rnace by Marvescp riaa yel Io uysfiafise. [46] in last, a perusal al Marveseds wrmen submissions will reveal lnal may up not cispuie lnai Sull No.1 was decided againsl Ihem and being dlssallslied wini the cnlccnie_ lney are indeed pursuing an appeal al ine ccun ol Appeal wnicri is currenlly fixed lcr appeal on me 14“ February 2024. It is nawever ccnlenued lrial lne duclrine cl ms /udlcata is pplicahls as special clrcumsllrloes axial in mm Apex have admitted lnal a sum cl RMLD84562 75 nas been conanlonally appmvsd py Preeararia am now merely awaliing appruval lrorn uieir board pl cireapre. wnllei ii is we lhal Marvesccs cailnis have rial been rlisrriiseea, it is also peyona peranvenlure lrinl lrie High com in sull No l has eeiennined lliai rm 1: ens they are nal due rroiii or payabie by Apex uriiii hey are approved and paid by me eiiipiayer. Piaserarie The iudgriieiii is equeiiy binding on Apex iii mac aiice me irivoiees are eppioved and paid by me emplayev, they will need to be paid in Marvesco. [41] whiisi Merveseo is aggrieved by me decision in Higri couri Sui! Md. 1 to me exieiiuiiamiey Submil criai I\ is suarige and aiisuid lhallhey have to awafl i=iasaiaria's iev ew arid veiineanori, it is iidrieirieiess a decision uniie cdun ind iri my WEN, iriis curierii suil is indeed ari eiieiiipiw eiicuiiiveiii irie seiiie end in seek iudgiiierii uri Ihose very same irwaioes Aiiy caiiisauoii rim that Ihefe may be anin(en|ioi1a| delay by Piaseiaria lo apprave eic is a iiiaiiei in be nrougrii up iii suii No.1 oi ventilated iii me appeai an me cauii ai Appeal. coiiclimon [as] In iiie upsiioi. riaviiig considered all iiieiieis. in my View. zriis siiii uugrii in be siiiiek am Is being an ewrarii is me dumririe oi res judicals seeirig lhal irie eare issue on Apex‘: iienimy to pay Maiueeao rias already been adiudged in suii No I in my view‘ Ihls suit in esseiiee seeks wiry irie same suiiieci iiimier and Malvescu ougriuo be esmpped lmrii doing so as ll ednsmuieis an abuse dime Court's proecss SIN X/RUuliVxwflKGNX2V3liEwiQ me 1. M26 we Smni In-vihnrwfli be used is mm the nfliirinflly MIME dun-vinril wa nFiuNG WM! [49] I therefnre auaw Encrosme s with cos\s oi RM75DDOO subject «.2 aflocalnr. Dale 6"’ Deoember2D23 I ANAND PONNUDURAI Judge High Courl Gecrgetown Pmau Pinang Counul( 1 Mr. Sunny Khan @ Law Long voong from Messrs Sunny Khan a. Company «or me P\a>nuW Data‘ scanley Isaac: together with Mr. John Stanley Isaacs, and Ms. Vasanlhi Rasalhural from Messrs lsaacs 3. Tan (Pevalmg Jaw] fur the Defandam. cases @;m k- Ewnnive (M) Sdn Bhd v IRDK Vanmres Sdn SM and another use [2017] 7 ML! 732 syn X/RuunvmnKGNx2v:na~mu pm 5 at is um smm ...n.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Lay Krm L01 v Dam’ Lai Fook Kim a Am [1959] 1 MLRA 1561 (198912 Mu 2911, 1193911 CLJ (Rep) 61 Naxsruddm Dm Mahd Sham! @ Masan .: Anal v Rosier! bm Maulud 5 Ann: (2021:) Muu 1362 NTN Asia auuuer Sdn BM 1/ Smohydro Corpolatron (M) sun and 1:. Ana 120211 MLIU 256.7 I. g Ian; )uhrrvdlo: Schaduls althe counor./umcarm 1964, pamgmpn 11 Canslrucfiarr Industry Psymsnr and An1;udIca1;on Act 2012, section 13 Order 18 ms 19 (1)(h)am1/ar{d)oHhe Rules of com 2012 sw xmum».amNx;v:m.m vane mm: mm 5.11.1 ...m.mm be .1‘... 1: mm 1.. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm.‘ Award dated 27" February 2017 under me we M 'Tumkey Project for Rerln-/arlorl cnnl Walks including Fna suppression system, Gensers, Air-Conditioning units and In-door /al/I-door data Cab/mg won with accessofies and necessary peviphevals (Bcc, DC‘ DRC, sarvar Foams, Depots, Tsnnlnals and Hubsrluv a contract sum ol RM1‘S14,3B0.DO(he1alnaf(er ralerrea to as “LoA'). Alurlner sum -2! RM1,35o,oo0 00 was daimable sumac: lo lna awroval at the Prasarana. II ls ml in dlspule lhal both me aonlraclual sum and Ihe addlllonal sum have been lully disbursed In Marvesw under the LOA [lo] II is not disputed Ihal the prolecl under me pmlclpal contract was nompleled by Apex and LG CNS on 13*" April 2018 and as at 13*" April 2020, me Defect Lnabillty Period had endad. Th nflfflc mn [11] In the presenl claim, Marvesno I5 seeking the iallvwlng relief a. ‘lnvats-invols V0: bodurnlah RM2,659,2s7 25 man Invois-Jnvms Eon bar/umlsn RM1.a15l9s no lunlulan jumlah bassr RMa,e7:l,4aa 55 dikuhandaki nfibayav olan Defondan kapada Plainnr [12] we lnvoioes relerred by Marvesw are fur invnioes issued between 30"‘ May 2017 la 30” March 2013 whidl are labelled by mm as aw X/RuunlnwnKGNx:v:lna~mq me - vi )5 -ma s.n.l In-vlhnrwlll be flied m van; .. nflglnnllly mums dun-mm VIZ arlum Wm i table neiw mass tor v0‘: and Eon. and mu said invoices are found in me to V0! "0 D I N D rl H M,“ . uh nvoico 0. we p on ‘ (RM) 1 30.52017 V1711ID02A Customised PM-PSM 50,010.00 tables 2. 15.6.2017 V1711/D03/I NOW Sound pmaf15.0007D0 aeauslicwnll 3 30.fl20I7 V171!/004A Additional A|r153.475.2§ canumoning Ia.1HP (3 units) 1b.2HP (2 units) 1:. 1.5!-IP (5 units) 4. 20.7.2017 V1111/005A ChangeollPsegmenl 2aa,a12.nn 5. 2372017 v17moooA Aadnionai $wI|cI1 1ai24o.ou ‘ 1 Snckelouliel c 15.3.2013 V171Il033A Cubic duming 'O!‘,GB8,§1D.UD Flhia onuc 7. 3o.a.2o1s V1711/035A Wire\5sAP 464.350.D0 mun 2,esa.z:7.zs sm X/Ruuhvm/DKGNX2V3hbwrQ Vue 5 ms DI! mi ...m.mm .. .4... M my me nflninnflly mm: dnuuvinnl Vfl .mm Wm! (I1) Im/o|us1orE0l‘: ue. Dntn " Immlia Nu. ' iiueripnan Aninim1(Ri) i. e.a.2oi1 Asonm/oii Extended Wan-nnly i1i2.auuon iar Inergen Fire Suppreulon syeiem 2. 10.5.2017 AEo‘r1711ioi2 Extended Warranty 126,600.00 ior Genseq i 2912.201 AEOT1711l019 Suppiy M |ahour‘ 101,834.70 7 manpower and skilled workers for‘ insceiiaiion at Fire; Extinguisher 4 25.3 2013 AEOT1711lD3D Weir! Quay Dapat- ZMLBOSBD Ciaims for Civii Works Cm GHHSQQ R00, M&E works for Sense! Room and euppry a1 iaimur, rnanWWer and skilled workers lor Illslalaliofl for ‘ lnergen Fire ‘ Supptessinn i 5 25.32015 AEoT1711Io3i Peri-no Sunirui-79.56130 claim for Cabling em X/Ruimi7mi'iKGNx2v3mnrq Page I we ii. s.r.i nuvihnrwm e. i... m may i... nflmnniily mm. mm. VII nFiuNG Wm! No. Data ' Invoieiuo.’ ’DucrIption Amnum(RIl) Works and MAE Works 6. ‘zsazoia ‘Aeomwusz Lorong KuhlDepol- 253,295.00 Claim lor Renovation W0“ M&E Works and} Cabling Works 1,015,195.30 (Caflectively relerred to as -me said /nvorces“) [131 It is not in dispute man the said invoices are me same Invoices eisimea by Marvesoo In me adjumcalion pruwedings and me sumac! mailer M the sun.-. In me Pemg High Court. [14] II is also nm In aispuie ms: the Penaiig High Conn allowad Apex‘: claim with cases in sun No.1. M PiI1l2s' Anmageni grocndings (I) MMJm [151 On 29'" Seplamber 2o21,Maivssminmanm1 pmeeedmgs under me cousnuciiou Industry Paymunl ma Miuaicauen Am 2u12 (risieinsner relened In as ‘CIPAA 2012") against Apex lo seek sin X/RUuhVxvnDKGNX2VlhlwrQ Fag: 1 M )1 Nuns s.n.i In-vihnrwm be flied M mm s. nrwiruflly MIN: dun-mm VII .mm mm paymem an the sad ilwmoss Maryesco alsa claimed Vale payment interest in me amount of RMs2e_3sD.5a [161 In response. Apex assanea mallhe pames had enlemd into a have mask understanding eencermng the awruva\ and paymam oi the sam mvmoes [mm Prasarana and hence Ihe crpm acuon was premature. [171 on mm January 2022, me Myuamacaraxmwaa Mamescos dam: on the saw mvaloes (or the sum av RM3,673.483.85 wdh Interest and easu. Hmvever, Marvesods dawn for late paymerll mterest was dismissed (heremafler reflerrad to as “the adjudlcauon decxslun"), (ll) sun by ggex in Pnlau Plnang rug; coun Suit No. FA-220-1- 01/2n22 (“Suit No.1") [13] Subsequent lo the adjudxcahon deusmn, on 21" January 2022, Apex mmnced an man agaIns| Marvesm in Sml N01 pursuana up socnon 13 ul CIPAA 2012 The rellels sougm by Apex In sun No. 1 were as vauows: a. A decllmlon um ms Dlflnd-Int‘: (Malvowa) va and EDT invoices as serum in plragrxph v heieln ouny plymont in nspcct mono! am not dun from or paynble by planmn (Apax; umll the pnmss oi ruvilw and verifizatlon is concluded which is pending. yn X/Ruunvmnxsnxavammu W . .,.,. -ma s.nn nu-uhnv M“ be used m yam me numn, mm; dun-mm vn mum puns! o pursuant lo (a) above. a dcclaririan mat the Ad/udicction dlcision dated 10. 1.2022 is not binding and/or Inforcolblo twins: are Plaiiniiirupvxl und-r suction 11 ultiic CIFAA [I9] seeueri 13 at CIPAA 2:212 reads as foilows “The au,uui'eeiian dacisibn is binding unless — (e) I: is set aside by me mgr. court on any of me grounds Iafermd to in section 15: (I71 nie subieei ineiter oi‘ me uecisipn is sell/ed by a written egreenienr between me parties, at (c) Thudisputu is fiiully riecid-.1 byarpnreiienarthe courl." [20] It is to be noted that sun No 1 had determined this issues surrounding me said invoices and the respective names‘ Positions on the back-to-back understandinfl Marvesco riesappealed ag st tne decision at the Hign court in suit No. i and the hearing and disposal of that appeal is pending deierrninatiori in tne court of Appeal nxeit «pr 14'" February 2024. [21] Anex Uonlends «net as SIM No 1 was ueterniinea in its iaveur, this means tnat tne sa invoices are ml payabie to Maivesuo unlil such time the approval piimess aria I13 payment were concluded witn Prasarana. the einpiovei. Suit No 1 has aisp put an eiia lo the Eiiiorceinent Order on me adjudicalion as the prayev suugnuur in suit No.1 by Apex was iiiat me eaiuaicsuuri itecisien was not binding pursuant In Soction ta oi CIFAA zaiz. sin X/RuuhvxwnKGNX2V:hE~mG rs... er is -use s.n.i n-vihnrwm be used M mm i.. nflfliruflly sini. dun-mm via nF\uNG WM! [22] On 8"‘ February 2022, Marvaseo mad 3 slriking pm applrcanan rn sun No I on grounds that are matters olappluval ollheir claims hy Prasarana are Internal between Prasarana ma Apex and furlhar that Marvesco did not have pnvily atoormacl wllh Prssamna. me employer. [23] on IE” May 2022, the High cmm m Suit No. 1 dismissed Marvosods smking out applvcalion on the bass that mere were vssues tn be mad lhatwsrmnled a MI m'aI Marvesoomd not appear me sad aecrsrpn to me Court of AppeaL [241 sum No.1 pmceeded In a mu me! on 4* and 5* July zuzz befove Jusuce Quay Chew Seen In the Penang High com. Two mmesses from each side resufieu. The primary Vssue before me Ooun was wnemer mere was a “nacmepack understanding“ bemeen Apex and Marvesw mar the sand Invoices of Marversroo were sumecl lo appmval and payment «ram Pmsarana [25] On 1am December 2022 me High Cuurl allowed sun No.1 and graruea me prayers as set out in paragraph ca (a) and my above. Dissatisfied wflh me ' Conn decision. on 9*" January 2023. Marvesoo med a Nnune of Appeal In me Courl uVAppaa\ undev cm: Appea\ No.: P—o2(C)(W)-55-D1/2023. The hearing :71 me appeal I: scheduled «or 14' February 2024 srn X/RuunvmnKGNx:v:nawrq rule 1-: ar as ‘Nata am.‘ n-uhnrwm be used m van; ..a nrighrnflly mm: dun-mm wa mum puns!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-22NCvC-272-07/2022

PLAINTIF SUPATRA TAVI A/P SUBRAMANIAM DEFENDAN SUPATRA TAVI A/P SUBRAMANIAMPIHAK KETIGADATO’ SRI SHAMIR KUMAR NANDY

Withdrawal of suit - plaintiff withdraws action with no liberty to file afresh – plaintiff’s action struck out with "no liberty to file afresh" – defendant’s third party notice for indemnity – defendant’s indemnity claim is contingent upon event of defendant being held liable for the plaintiff’s claims – defendant’s withdrawal of third party notice – defendant’s third party notice struck out with no liberty to file afresh – limit of “no liberty to file afresh” – whether defendant has valid ground to object against “no liberty to file afresh.

08/12/2023

YA Tuan Tee Geok Hock

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7e993da2-5a86-427a-b566-407f10834f66&Inline=true

1 THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO.: BA-22NCvC-272-07/2022 _________________________________________________________ BETWEEN SUPATRA TAVI A/P SUBRAMANIAM (IDENTITY CARD NO. : 640710-10-7714) … PLAINTIFF AND CREST WORLDWIDE RESOURCES SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION) (COMPANY NO. : 701381-H) … DEFENDAN AND DATO’ SRI SHAMIR KUMAR NANDY (IDENTITY CARD NO. : 640107-01-5479) … THIRD PARTY GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Pembatalan atas Pemberhentian Tindakan) Introduction and Background 1. On 12.7.2022, the Plaintiff, in her capacity as the wife and nominee of her husband Datuk Apparao a/l Apana, filed this action against the Defendant, a company in liquidation pursuant to winding-up order of the Court, for specific performance of and ancillary reliefs in connection with a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 24.2.2010 (“the SPA”) in respect of a property descried as penthouse unit at Parcel No. A-36-03, No. Unit 03, Tingkat 36, Jenis Penthouse, Bangunan Crest Residence, The Crest Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala 2 Lumpur (“the said Property”) which was allegedly signed between the Defendant as the vendor and the Plaintiff, as purchaser nominated by Dato’ Apparao [see paragraph 6.19 of the Amended Statement of Claim in Enclosure 8]. 2. It was also alleged by the Plaintiff that by a Credit Note dated 25.2.2010 (“the Credit Note”] issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the full purchase price for the said Property was confirmed to have been paid [see paragraph 6.20 of the Amended Statement of Claim]. According to the Plaintiff, this payment of purchase price for the sale and purchase of the said Property was a contra payment arrangement for the alleged services rendered by Datuk Apparao to the Defendant and/or related companies. 3. The Plaintiff’s claims and allegations were denied by the Defendant [see Amended Statement of Defence in Enclosure 9]. 4. Shortly before the filing of the original Defence (Enclosure 6), the Defendant issued a Third Party Notice on 19.8.2022 against Dato’ Sri Shamir, the Third Party (see Enclosure 5). 5. In the Defendant’s Statement of Claim against the Third Party in Enclosure 60, the Defendant pleaded breach of duties on the part of the Third Party in relation to handling of and dealings with the said Property and claimed for indemnity against the Third Party in the following words in paragraphs 16 and 17 thereof: “16. In the circumstances, in the event the Plaintiff’s claim is allowed, the Third Party is liable to indemnify the Defendant for all loss, damage, interest, cost and expenses which the Defendant may incur or suffer arising from the Third 3 Party’s breach of duties and/or to defend the Plaintiff’s claim herein. 17. WHEREFORE, the Defendant claims against the Third Party, in the event the Defendant is made liable to the Plaintiff’s claim herein, the following: 17.1 Sum of RM3,222,600.00 being the value of the Property stated in the 1st SPA; 17.2 Sum of RM1,498,288.27 being the LAD claimed by the Plaintiff together with interest ….; 17.3 Costs of the original action and third-party proceedings on full indemnity basis; and 17.4 Such other and further reliefs ….” Orders made on 9 November 2023 6. The 9 November 2023 session before this Court was fixed after the parties notified the Registrar that they wanted to withdraw their respective claims in the action and in the third party proceeding. 7. On 9 November 2023, the Plaintiff’s counsel informed this Court that as the Plaintiff’s key witness Datuk Apparao passed away recently and the Plaintiff has no other supporting witness to testify for the Plaintiff’s case, the Plaintiff decided to withdraw her claim and action. In response, the Defendant’s counsel had no objection for the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of her action but pressed for costs of action in the amount of RM20,000 and also for no liberty to file afresh. The Defendant’s counsel applied to withdraw the Third Party Notice, and asked that there be no costs on the third party proceeding. The Third Party’s counsel had no objection to the withdrawal of the Third Party 4 Notice but asked for costs of third party proceeding in the sum of RM5,000. 8. After hearing the parties’ respective counsel and their oral applications for withdrawal and for costs, this Court on 9 November 2023 made the following orders: (1) The Plaintiff’s action against the Defendant is struck out with no liberty to file afresh; (2) The Plaintiff shall pay costs of RM5,000 to the Defendant, subject to allocator; (3) The Defendant’s Third Party Notice is struck out with no liberty to file afresh; and (4) The Defendant shall pay costs of RM1,500 to the Third Party, subject to allocator. Appeal by the Defendant 9. Unhappy with the terms of the said Order dated 9 November 2023, the Defendant has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. 10. From the contents of the Notice of Appeal, it appears that the Defendant is unhappy with “no liberty to file afresh” as a term of striking out the Defendant’s Third Party Notice consequential upon the Defendant’s withdrawal of the Third Party Notice. Evaluation, assessment and clarification by this Court 11. As summarised in paragraph 5 above, the sole and entire basis of the Defendant’s indemnity claim against the Third party in the third party proceeding is contingent upon the Defendant being held liable 5 to the Plaintiff in the Plaintiff’s action. The expression “in the event the Plaintiff’s claim is allowed” in paragraph 16 and the expression “WHEREFORE, the Defendant claims against the Third Party, in the event the Defendant is made liable to the Plaintiff’s claim herein, the following:” in the opening sentence of paragraph 17 of the Defendant’s Statement of Claim against the Third Party make this point crystal clear. 12. As the Plaintiff has withdrawn the Plaintiff’s claim and action against the Defendant with no liberty to file afresh, the contingency or pre- condition which formed the Defendant’s sole basis of indemnity claim in the third party proceeding cannot possibly happen in future. 13. In the premises, there is no valid reason for the Defendant to have any liberty to file afresh its indemnity claim against the Third party for any liability which the Court holds against the Defendant in respect of the Plaintiff’s claim and action. 14. Of course, if the Defendant has any cause of action or perceived cause of action against the Third Party in respect of any matter or cause which is not part of the Plaintiff’s claim in the Plaintiff’s suit herein or which is unrelated to the said Property, such other cause(s) of action will not be barred or affected by the term of “no liberty to file afresh” in connection with the striking out of the Third Party Notice herein. Dated this : 20th December 2023 6 Signed ….…................................................................ TEE GEOK HOCK JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM (NCVC 10) To the parties’ solicitors: 1. For the Plaintiff : Jaya Purushoturan & JJ Naidu a/l RJ Naidu Messrs JJ Naidu & Rakan-Rakan (Shah Alam) 2. For the Defendant : CS Mong & Medha Ong Ann Ting Messrs Lee HIshamuddin Allen & Gledhill (Kuala Lumpur) 3. For the Third Party : Avinder Singh Gill a/l Ranjit Singh Messrs Avinder Gill Chambers (Kuala Lumpur)

Tika 2.6.0

PA-29NCC-8-01/2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMANFAST MERIDIAN SDN BHDPENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMANSITI THASLEEM BINTI OSMAN GHANY

Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa JC masih berhak untuk meneruskan tindakan ke atas pemecahan Perjanjian Jual Beli yang dimasuki walaupun dakwaan bahawa ianya tidak sah kerana tidak disetemkan.

07/12/2023

YA Tuan Azizan bin Md. Arshad

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1d686671-a839-4057-bb89-f178fd68273a&Inline=true

07/12/2023 15:13:31 PA-29NCC-8-01/2023 Kand. 57 S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N cWZoHTmoV0C7ifF4/WgnOg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PA—29NCC—E—D1/2023 Kand. 57 2‘/12,2012 ,5 1: 2; DALAM NIAHKAMAN TINGGI MALAVA nl FULAU PINANG DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG, MALAYSIA KEEANKRAPAN NO: P -zsncc-0541112023 BER: sm THASLEEM BINTI OSMAN GNANV (No. KIP: 690305-07-5152] PENGHUYANG PENGHAKIMAN Ex-PARYE: FAST MERIDIAN SDN EHD mo. SVARIKAT: «Z915-V] ...PEInIurANG PENGHAKIMAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [LAMPIRAN 28] Fund-llululn [11 lm mempakan vayuan uleh Penghutang Penghakvman up) cemaaap kepntusan Mahkamah inn yang «era» menalak rayuan JD Iemadip kepulusan oleh Penalnng Kanan Pendaftar (PKP) yang telah menalak banlahan eemauap permohonan Nolls Kebankrapan (am clan Penvuvang Penghakvman (JC) sw cwzaurnmvocvwruwqnov ‘ mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm [2] JD Ke\ah lvdak beqzuashalr dan menwaum rayuan lemadan kepumsan Mahkamah um yang Ielah dvbenkan pada 9112023 PIhak- max dalam penghakimun Im akan dlrufuk sebagilmana kedudukan mereka an peringkat Mahkamah Tmggl Isu-llu mama [:1 Temapm pelbagai mu man dlhangkltkan dalam penghumwan xeduwua pmak sebugli Isu m-ma an M1: mu iimpmuin uugu akan msar-um) Nimun dlhm penghllrvun ml Mahknmah lelah menyusun samula mu-iiu sepam benkul (u Pengnamm-n Parselujuln max ssh (u) JD bukan pamarmn nuvang Syankat nu) EN lmak sun (In Kaupayun JD membaylr Kzrtas Kama: [4] Karla:-kanas kausa yang relevan dalam penghaxuuan Im malan sepem benkul m Parmimaan Mengemarkan Non: Kebankrapan benankh s 1 2023 [Limwan 1} Nmis Kablnkrlpan benlrikh 91.2a23[Lampiran 2] suman Dallm Kama: benlnkh 19.1 2023 [LImWan 5] sw cwzaurmnvncmruwwnav ’ um, smm n-nhnrwm .. used w my .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VIZ nfluNG W [221 Kegaglan um’ membmehkan klausa (a) maka, Permulang Pennhaklman cevsebul yang memperunlukkan hahawa 'seIan/umya drpersetlqm sskflnnya osrsnuanoerenuan maslh gage! unluk membsyar ksselumhan dan RM472,lJlII2 oa tersebuz dalam lsmpuh Ian/man mesa yang drpelsefu/w an entire P/mrm! den Defends!)-Deferldan, make keseluruhan RM47200000 (erssaur adalah man/adi lsrimrang sspsmlhnya " my Oleh kerana ma psmbayavan telah auenm. selama Ismn kurang 4 lahun lebm dan mum Panghakrman Farsevtuman, maka JC man berdasarkan kepada perenggan (.1) Pengnamman Perseiujuan Iersebul memiankan prcsnimg kebanklapan Iemadap Fenghulang Penghakiman umuk mandapalkan xemuan wang sewmlah nM472,ooo oo tersebul JD Imlak pemah memaklumkan kepada JC bahawa terdapil pembell yang bermlnal unluk membeli Kapll PHOI lersebut mlhupun bersemu Iunawa periaruuuin mass mbenk-n unmk Pengnakmun Pemamuan camnm agar Syankai Imam dapat menylapklnnya pa] Tamhahan puua, seklranya wuwd Penanjlan Kclileval tersebul (yang mana dunamny Pengnmang Panghakxman Ielah gags! umuk rnengeksmmlkan Ferjanuan Kalatera\ tersetml mahupun memasukkannya sehagal sam lerma an da\am Penghakvman Pevsewjuan tersebut alauvun uinmn dxbum kepad: Penghakiman Parsemjuan (evsebul dengan persetujuan JC Oleh yang demxkian pemaanan prosmng kehanknapan hdak beflentangan dengan ana—apa yang dndakwa oleh JD mlahan Ianya selaras dengan Penghaklnlan Perselujuan tersebut IN cwzaurmnvncmruwwnov “ -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [251 JC mak mempunyal pengekahuan berkerman dengan perlany-nan masa yang kononnya muenkan unluk syankm Ievsebut menylapkan Kapal Pug: tersebul unluk membowenkannya dijua\ kapadi Pemvutang Penghaklman dan/atau pnhak kenga yang akan mmaknumxan a\eh Femmlang wanghaman kepada Penghutang Penghakwman Sekvranya benardakman ml wuyud (yang mans dlnafikan sekemskevasnyay. maka ada\ah Iidak berasas umuk lerma lersebut max dvekodkan dw da\am Pengnaklman Persetuyuan tersebm [23] Tvada apa-aua an dakam Penghakiman Pevselujuan Iersebu! yang msnyalakan bahswa JD hanya palm membayar RM157,333 33 ways memandangkan Psnghakhnan Psrssluguan latsebut yanas sekafl memperumukkan bahawa Syankat lersebul, nevanaan Panama‘ Delendan Kedua bersena Delendan Keuga ysm Thasleem nmu Osman GhanylJD) bevsetuju unluk membayar Pemmlang Fenghakwman wang sewmlah RM472,00D 00 [171 nakwaan JD bahawa memandangkan Kap:\ Pvlat earsem Iidsk duslapkam 10 max boleh Wag: berganmng kepada Penghakiman Persetuwan lersebut akan Qecapl seharusnya memmakan llndakan barn adalah hdak tevkandung m dalam Penghaklmin Persewjuin Iersebul dan Jelas sekall herlenlangan dengannya JD tidak seharusnya dublarkanldlbenarkan umuk menuhs semma (‘r&wrrte') terrnawma Penghakiman Pecsemyuan (ersebul [za] Fenghnkxman Persaluguan tamehul yang mampamnlukkm bahewa lmdakan ham seharusnya mlanlkan unluk mendapatkan ranmm yang IN cwzaHrmnvnc7wrAIWwnov " -ma saw nnnhnrwm .. used m mm .. m»n.u-y mm: dun-mm wa nF\uNG Wm! berkanan JD ‘alas sskah sedang cub: mencrpla terma-terms baru yang berfentangan denvan Penghakuman Persetuguan (ersebut agar JD dapat Ian dari perselujuan yang mbenkan ulehnya da\am undakan dl Mahkamih Sesyen Kersebul unruk memeliskin Wang semmlah RM472,00D no kepada JC [25] Dakwaan JD behawa behau hanya nemucang 1/3 danpada wang benumlah RIM7Z,00D on dan bukannya Keseluruhan Wang benumtah RM472,ooo.oo mmanaangm Penghakwman Felsetnquan tersebmtldak msngandungl terms ‘bersesama alau berisingarf adalah max berasas kerana luntman sml lersebul adalah temadsp keugs-uqa necenuan dan kemka Penghakxman Petselnjuan (ersabul duekodkan, JD hevsena Defendanflefendan lain an dslam Iunlulan swll lersebul lelah nersemu untuk menmmrwang benumlah Rmmnuu oo kepads JC [:0] Damn kes Hnrukh Thakurdn Juhwnni I. Anor V. Bunk Slmplnun Nnlonnl [2021] a nu 401‘ dlpuluskan hahawa mom a... mlumnlamlng um lbs judgment “um 2. m Moemer m nbhganmsfm|he1udgmsnlrumava1nvmand several ur [mm 1-mly. me aelend.Im‘s nghls igumsllhn rdalnoff mm use .5 an a pm pm! seveml am :1 vmvlild far 1.. m. Imwxwe afuvnand and mu mmmum Ia sumveme mdqnunl‘ [31] Daham kes Knlunmenan Blmal Klnflenko Sun and v Fang soon L-ong (202112 Mu 234. Mahkamah Rayuan memuluskan bahawa ‘In brm summyx use and Edwm Gasman‘: us‘ he cm M Apooal had umchlded man a wdgmevu emerwad iglmsl M9 or me n-dgm:n\ oehlms, wmuul mm. amaea a mu hmmly sum mm each M me mm! mm; was um, um. kt In nnquun puma: nu ma wdgm9r|| mm and mamm ammmnmnl mny my ha nmuw bu nun Ihqwl pomun wmmv. mmep -Mn unveil. the cum ma Imvnd uldlfleram uomuuun hum mm in Sumalhvs cue ma Edwin on In use Upon mu ammma-s dicususd n me wsenl anneal nm are mvlswxlzency m mam view: evxpveued, me war! was mchned |a nandude mm 3 [udgmem emeted my payment of 3 sum of morwy mm saveval judgment dectnrs nmpnsad upon Imam me an» M lhau, . ‘um! and mm: many on hounur um mug jltdnmmldlhl‘ ma um mamy m Dunn‘ pumon um,m.vau ollvalwue shine the para: 56 s 56) [:2] nalam kes Lcmblgl Kumpulnn wnng Slmpanan Pakeljl v. Edwin cusl-n mg-pp-n mm) 1 cu an Mahkamah Pusekucuan memuluskan banawa way There was mmhte intern: of menus cmahng mw uammy .n live juugmanl mu Even m sum . ram hm 1..." Vnnan-d,1h:|wuu|d not anltlle III cum: to wncmdl mm my wu mm mm: mm... u... Ivan amen ur pmmllorl Given the pmmnmg vmarnnulzan an 44 aIIneAc1. mevew msenmg ms word -may m Ina comm judumem wauld um sumce In halve naam, -s «me muul be axpvsu word: tomal mam mm Ir-at ms Iumlny on me mu nmlmsals s m be home In equal pmpumons Mzmuvsr‘ such 7u\ved1|abI\fly mm mm mm «mm the ar\gna\ pm» M... m. x..n.up, of: woman! lor . am mud In . cmdhnl u mmmy nmedvubu -my man» sum mm pmmle ltmimm m ......:m.w mum not be lead mm m. |udgmen| due man Ibseme Msum wovfl: was In he ampnea, n unflafly mm mix a men: judgmem cauld my ammaucaw be mfened In Impose imnl‘ lubmty mm that: ‘s no nu- memkm n... .. aspecxalry so when the uabtlny mm Muses .. mug», Iupulnud by nmmn m ma ulcunuilnul, Imhlmy under an nmunl sm cwzanrmnvncmruwwnov “ mm. smm ...m.Mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII murm pm.‘ maemenx mum neeenznly be both pm! and several The auesmn an m was anwleved my me ammuwe and me mailer was rammed In on H-an Count (Juga sna rumk kes Re uohd s-ilul Azuar Inc] In; Ex P Bank Kujanma Rakyal ulalaynia and [mm a cu 135) [u] Tlmblhan pma, JD juga telah gagal unluk menunjukkan bahawa wunm sebarang lumuhan balas, lolakan -can numum anang Iemadap JO sepem menurul Seksyan amm ma lnsulvensl 1967 an oleh yang demman kmmun dakwaan yang amangmkan om: JD damm permahonan umuk mmhanlah an Maka gurmah mnang kanelunman boleh ammcux aepam da\am kes in Low, 2: mm Glbcon [1 935} I an. 134. dlpuluskzn bahawa - mm: wdgmem has been recovered sgamu several pemns p-my‘ a hankmpmy nuns: may be msuea agamsl one of me mm ‘udgmems debwvs wnmm Indumnq me mnevs ningman huj Inn JD [:41 JD membangknkan bahawa an uuak be\eh mkemukakan (erhadap JD bag: menumm tunggakan hulsng dalam Peaghaklman Petseluwan kerana JD ndak Ierllhal da\am peuamvan tersebul dan/alau da\am menylapkan Kapal Pilot yang dlpesan uleh JC Penghakwman Perseluwan tersebuladalah berdasarkan kapada kauaa unuaxan yang salah dan oleh um |untulan swu Iersebul flan Fenghakvman Persemjuan Iersebut yang rnehbalkan JD adalah sam ‘nu//ity” dan Penghaklman Pauaenuyuan Ierseoul Ildak boleh mkuzlkuasakan JD mavujuk kapaaa kes Bldllddln . IN cWZaHYlwn\/DCTWFAIWVHOV 5 ‘Nuns a.n.‘...u..Mm.w....amy..mmamn..u.m..n_.ya W bln Mohd Ilihidin I Anor v. Arab Muluyuian Finlnco and [1993] 1 ML! an. [as] Dalam maaa yang sama yuga I(apa\ Pflmyang dlpesan oxen JC lelah slap melehlhl 50% flan nanya menunggu unluk dxlengkapkan dengan peralatan dan perkakasan yang mana mempakan bahaglan kecfl se\eb1hnya masm bemm anakukan Kmewalan um mga kerana wabak cam-19 Penman Kawalan Pergerakan (‘PKP‘) yang dllaksanakan dalam maaalamhahan untuk menylupkan kapal Ptlallersebm danJC sebauknya Imak berseluju umuk perlaruman masa menyehabkan pembmaan xapal PUD! (ersebul Kevgendma d-an KIN ievsadax dl bengke\ pembmaan dl Kimpung Fermaung Lnnau Mams Snmpang Ampzl, Pevhs Could-I9 dan PKP aaaxan lldlk letpakax memandangkzn bahawa Penghaklman Perselujuln (auebut ielahpun dwrekndkarl pad: 28 3 ZDIB Iawlu, szhelumy Cm/Id»1§ dan PKP dflzksanakan [35] Dalam mass yang sama‘ JC lelsh membayar sehanyak RMIWZDGD 00 yang mans merupakan 130% danpada jurvflah harga behan wawm nmsmooo on In: dengan mas menunjukkan Iahap kemajuin kerja umuk menylapkan kapa\ tersebul hampiv keseluruharmya (e\ah selasai yang nanya menunggu umuk melsngkapkan perkakasan yang berkaitan [:11 JC aawa.arnya mengambil ahh Kapal Pilot (ersebul dan menjuamya ataupun menyambung semma pembmaannya team mereka enggan berbual demwan Memamangkan Kapa\ PHDK lersebul Izlah lehlh 60% GISVEIDIKBVI Iinya boleh duum dan boleh mendapal haswuualan ak kurang dlnplda RM:mu,unn an mernamiangkan lallap kemajuarmyu hamplr yn awzanrmyocwuwnnay ‘° Nuns a.nn nnnhnrwm be used m yam .. annnnn MIN: dun-mm wa mum pm sempuma hanya menunggu kerangkapan am perkikasan umuk dlpisang [35] Damn zumucan swll levsebui, JD dan seorang pengarah Vam drsaman sebagal nevem-nan Kedua dan Devenaan Kenya sebegal berlanggungjlwab membayar hutang Syankal JD wax pemah memanun untuk membayar sebarang kebemulangan Syankal [cw] JD ma-k paman memamm unluk membayar kehamuungan Syankat «mam kepada JC Oh-ah yang dermklan‘ ndak Irmbul rsu JD pellu membayar dun/atau menanamlrugl JC alas keqagmn Syankal Iarsubul menmpkan Kapal P>Iat Iersebul Irv adalah kerana kesemui bayamn-beyamn kemawan s-was dengun Perjanuan Jual Bali cersem amyar met: .10 kapaaa Syankal Iersehm sebagax pembina kIpa\ bukan Kansas JD [40] Hujanan JD jugs hahawa — 1.) Penghikvman Pavuaxumn ( sebul mengkehendahu [umlah wang webanylk Rm72,oo0.ou dubuyar kapada Teluln Tun Thaam Hock a. C0 sehagau ‘slakenoldaf flan hukan kapnda JC‘ my Penghaklman Persemuanterseam juga mengkehendaki jumlah lersebut dubayar kepada Tetuan Toh Theam Hock E Co IN cwzaurmnvncmruwwnov -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm sebagii 'sIakeI1oIdeI kerana menunggu lanjutan masa unmk kapnl Iersehm dlsempumakan‘ gm) Penghakrman Perseuquan Iersebm mmasuk: kerana Ierdapal penamlan xomsmx ax amara .Ic can Syankal Ielsebut unluk membenkan mesa supaya Syankal lersebul dapat menylapkan kapal (ersebm. Mahahan, JG membenlanu JD Aemapat pemnen yang bermmal unmk membelx Kapal Pact lersebul den bersetuw da\am Pengnamman Perselujuan letsebul unluk lamulan mas: bagu Syankal cenyam menynapkannya‘ (iv) Tmdakln JC memfaflkan Imdakan kebankvapan vm barlanlangan dengan persenquan kolatevefl yang membenarkan Syankat (ersebul menynapkan kapal Iersebut (V) Memandangkan Penghakvman Pevsemuan (ersebumdak menyebm sulat dan benruk kebemutnngan mu sama ads Ianggungan bersesama anau barasmgan, mnggunmawab JD kalau pun wu;-Au [yang mans dmafikan) hanya\ah salu pen-ga dlnpada RM472,ooaoo wanu RMI57,33:|.33 Dalam em km lam, JD hanya periu membayar Paguam kepada 4c se;um\ah Rm57,33a as uneuk mpegang sebagal penaluhan (‘slakanoldefj sementara menunggu kapa\ dwswapkan, din IN cwzaurmnvncmruwwnov -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm lw) Keean Psnghakxman Feraelujuan Iersebul Ienyap apma JC bersaluju membenkan penamucan masa Imluk menylapkan Perseuuuan «ersemn mahupun sebarang permohonan unluk mengenepnkan Anulian dun D.lpIun Mlnlumah (w) Penghaklmln Persemuan max sah [41] Hmahan JD le\ah menlmbmkan persoalan berkmn Penghakiman Fersemuan, sama ada wanya bulen dlkualkuasa kerana didakwa hahawa Iennuenna Iersebul ndak am! (emadap JD [42] Panama sekih. adlkih JD baleh mempemka In mu Fengnamman ymg lelah dvmasukx sscara sen dupersoalkan unpa mcmbual sebarang permohonnn untu wanya dwbaralkun Emu drkalaplkan tambahan Dull mum an dflaflkan mmndap JD [431 nalam kes vm, telah sankan bahawa Pengnamman (ersebut twdak pemih dlketepwkan Mas asas um, Penghaklman Persetujuan tersebnt masnh merupakan Pengnakman yang ssh den boleh dvkuatkuasakan bag: tujuan pedakanaan (ermasuklsh pmswdlng EN Mankamah VII menuuk kepada kss mymnk Islamic Eerhad v we Euildarssdn Bhd um» mm 7 cu :21. d\ mana Mahkarnah Rayusn, melalul VA RchanaVusu1 JCA (pada keuka nu) memuluskan bahawa IN cwzaurnmvncmruwwnov ” -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm ‘A covuenlmdev .. Ink: Iwdgmam mm cowl and wumd mum um mm m u m asade (see Pemhmaan xsv S611 and V mu Seng Propemes Sen and [I991] 1 cu ass.‘ [19i1]1CL.HRea)343, (195111 ML! 100).l(As phaln and mm“: mm lmm In: above dame om: uunun| mam, am am rnpmdem hm mmnnad lulmlly m In; Iaplllnt an me man Iuuluy ma-nw. the venpanuam wumd ha ailupnld hm» vunmq any mum mm. on MOD racmuy exnepx on me qunnlum par 1. x refiucbsd In 011 can nl mdu Em. on Ims grunmd alone we llahvmy M me firs! Iespmdml u Vmmded ~ (Svla llhal ]uga Ra An n Lim man 2 ML] 27 Dunk llohd snrl hin Dunk Hun Nu-rv Norwich wlnmennurlnsmnn (HI) 51111 and [I992] 2 ML] au) [44] Mankamah lmak akan mellhat Pengnamman Perseiujuan tersebut pads penngkat Im kerana wanya mevupakan salu Penghakrman yang ssh Fada penngkat pmsming kebankrapan, mahkamah ndak am melmal kapada bagairnana Pengnamman lersebul mperanem Bukan unggunmawab Mahkamln Am unluk menum nemula Pengnmman Pelselwuan lersehul yang maslh lagl ssh dan berkutkuasa Panduan .m dlbenkan dalam kes ‘long cm: w.| dun Lulu-ln|n V. Hock soon Sang Sdn and mm] 7 mm cu. yang memuluskan hahawa ‘Au wan, me Cuurl rs mmdefl noun emenam at zncamage any puny m M man, whtra |M psnns had agmn and mscmcm mew munsel m veood ma Cmlem .magmen| amlxllung nu ugread Iannl and mu wan-r-g Ilsa! ndwoa In Iubuoquumy upon In Iflemlouym. mm»: on mlllenge nv flaunts u ' (iv) Afidavil Snkongan oxen sm Thasleam mm Osman Ghany (JD)benankh19 1 2023 [Lamplran 6}‘ dan 4v) Amm Bmasan men Syahlv bm Syad aunan ylng dnknarknn pad: 13 2 2023 [Lamwran 91 my Afidavn No. 2 me}: sm Thasleem mm Osman Gnany yang banankh 27 2 ZD23[Lamp11an1D] Pmlidlng Mlhklmnn [51 Dlkemukakan secavi nngkas pmsmmg my Ielah beflangsung dx Mahkamah yang digunapakii berdasarkan danpada hujahn dan ndak dwpemkallnan oleh kedua-dua pmak ianu: (i) JC nan-n menyerahkan Natl: Kemnmpm benlnkh 91.202: [Lampuin 2] human: Famunlann Mengamnrknn Nam Kabankrnpzn benankh 9.1 2112: [Lampvxn :1 xecarn kadlri kn urns JD pnda 12 1 mm on Susnlan din nu‘ Penwhulang Penghaklman lelah memraukan Samar: Da\am Kamar benankh 1912023 [Lamplran 5] dan lelah memohon antara lam untuk pemItah- permtah sepem berikul. - (a) bihawa Nmvs Kebankrapan benlnkh 912023 dikaluarkan Iarhadap Panghulang Panqhakimnn msum mkekeplkun, (:2) nos, dan IN cwzaurmnvncmruwwnov -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm I451 Dalam kes Nlullyun Bankinn Emma v. Dnuk Lim Kn-nu Khim mm :4 cL.A1«9; (19921 2 cu mop) eza, yang mans memumskan 'l mu Mm lry to Iummnnza the law ham Ina -nhonuu u warm in me am 4-» - bnnklumcy cum nu pvwer In go bemud . |mgrMn| on Much the namunmr Dtocoeduwi a «mmm mmm nlvmnaa cHvIud,eo\lusInn av mm-nape uf nmzoe‘ (u) an Ivvsgmumy ov lumm mm .- no -ummam mam lav nanny hahmd me ;\AgmenL my a blnkmpmy mun muy go huhmd . wagmm n :1 us loundud on u comm which x: mm beams: 1 n emvlmry m m zmresn summvy Draw:-un. 16): hankrumq wan mavgu Behind a wdnmem and Inqmre min mmneny of memanmem even :1 an apclrmmn m net mm the pmgmem ma hem made mmu.a, and ammo nya cmm iupevm lo the nmmp«=y=uun~ [ac] Mshkamah W belseluw dengan kepulusin kes lersebul din mananma pakalnya dalam kes an hndupnrv mallkemah W sekaranu ( JD mum. penjamin hullng syuim [47] Fanghakiman Fersemuln lavsebul mas merujuk kepada De1endan~Ds1endIn dunhida auny-man mam beraungm, m-x Inyn belch niku-«kuasakan alu [umhh yang penuh dalam an yang dvkamuknkln larhldnp Defandnn-defandun lru dijallskan llgw daflam Kllun Penal Pennhaklman Pcrlelujuln yang msnyebul ‘helm, IN cwzaurmnvncmruwwnov 1‘ «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Delsndan Panama, Kedua DAN Kehga macs psngasmgan kepsda [um/ah mnang terselzutdmyafakalv bag! penaksanaan da/am 5/v " [48] Penghaklman Perselujuan benankh 28 as 2013 (emu memeraskan bahawa kegagalan memamhi klausa qa), am dim 1:2) ruaka Hausa (a) akan Ierpakaw Da\am kas Am jangka mesa «swan dmyalakan dakam klausa (a) aehmgga (9) Iawlu dalam masa 3 bulan sahaJa Apabula gagal memaluhl dan uaua penamuvan masa dalam td) maka Fcflghgkwman Peryetujuan um membolenkan ianya dlkuatkuasa sepenuhnya. my syarac hlhlwa Ianya perm dlbayar keplda Feguam sabigal ‘stake holdaf hanya lerpakal umuk tempo?! 3 bulan sanap dan (ankh nenntah Selepas uempon Iersebul vanya nduk lag: perlu dlkualkuasa sens.-as dengan kluasa (d) tersebul [sax Isu bemaivan bahawa JD bukamah peruamln adaxan twdak wag. mevan paua perlnglcal mi lm adalah kerana Penghaklman tersebut ada\ah Pengnakunan Pevselujuan din bukan Penghaklman JID alau Pengnakwman serepas bwcara lsu berkanan separate legal anm}/' adalah relevan pada permgkal sebelum Perlghakiman Perselujuan mmasuku. Penghaklman Pezsemuan yang dlmasukl uaaxan ‘alas mm rnaiepaskan JD danpada tanggungjawab membayar hulang lersehut EN yang dvkemukakan adulah bemsaskan kepada Penghakiman Pevselujuan .m an (flak Ida keparman unluk mengaslngkan jumlah hmang di anlala kesemua JD lambat [51] Daram kas mvlchanthmn all Gun n v um stun bin Slfuan 12:11 9] MLJU 1677. Mahkamah memutuskan nahama ‘[42] u .m unsbll In Igral wan m. wnlavmovu ulma Gonna! Om JD m V‘... of ma rm mm the Mod: »« 5-mumm Aavvumem don um vvfnr IE m. .m .5 . auirlmor In ha, . mu.-g an»; Comenuudwvwem me Selnemeql Agreement and Mode oi Sememem Agreement reveal mm n was nevev me men|>on m me panes to make me m a “guammnf In Sahrrs Emu. I431 The JD, mu was a vafly in me 2012 sun, had Ilium am mnsanled to am Imvni av bum ma Selflumem Agreement and comm Juagmem, wNm made .1 vary mm mm on n.c.na.m m use zmz Sun . nH be mnda Iumein ply ma mmm OI: ulme Dalemunlam in ma sun wu um JD Much tandem the JD . mm Mlmnrw me Consem Judillmnt ma lawns Mwmch the u: had ram (0 mmpw mm wneme: me oller of nmoeny au secuflly wu rdswim m «us save»- [52] Mankamaruuga mcruwk kapauu xes R0 Chok K|m SI - ax mm Duuhn Mix sun and [2021] MLJU !1uB,d\p1.nuskan banawa 1:21 Thelzwmtheaflactvlawniemudarnsnmam hubaw -xwunded by me Feaeml Court VII seven! cases Incmmng Gamnallvy Chema: V Lum Kurn Chum :. 07: And Am1he1Aw¢‘1[VSB|l1LNS 5:: men: ML-"J51 nu Grok un V L. Kuln (20041 2 cu :u1,Tnna Lei Hwu 5. Amy V Chm Ah Kw: z.Ano1ruavAw--I|w11]1 ms 143, mm: Mu 75, n... Hang May 5 Or: V Pacific Trwaaai am s cm R016] 5 cu ass, and KamI¥A1mIn Abdul Rank 5 on V Amlnih Ray! Eahad a. on (29191 6 on 419. [2019] 1LNs61a.Fc In use Hang May .v.or.V P;c\ficYmsIees am 5 Or: [2015] 5 (1.: we, a wis mm hy Mary um .ACA(ashelhu1 my syn cWZnHYmnVnCNFAlWwnOv 1’ mm. smm ...m.Mm .. flied M mm .. nrW\nnU|Y mm: dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm.‘ II n Vlniy wlllvfl and cm law was an order ume enurl Madrid by consent ov me pzmes Invahed . In men a mmn-.1 balwuen Ihme pames Ganapamy Chemzr v Lum Kum Chum a. 0rsAm AnL1IherAapeal|IG8Il1 ms 59. (195112 ML! 145 Sum . wnum om! must tumor: bsgwan N5 Mlcnntrnctu-Ixlle:1-seshn Gaoklln V L. Kuun|zuu4]2 cu am‘ (1004! a MLJ Mas Such ... mdlv mm... um eflodlve Ind Dummy on .: um. names Irwarvsd unnl Ind unhn In mm ii m and: my mm: vminnu rusorl I see me Federm Conn’: deusmn m Tong Lee H»: a Annr V on... An Km 3. Annlher Aweax new 1 ms 143, (197112 ML! 75 In an mu um mopem, um ma unless the comm order we ya am. we consent order ooema -1 u. uxopw dillbvtmg the deisrvdlnh may Vvom depanng Imm :1: mm: - ( )BN tidak sun [53] Da\am um um Jug: ma aebarang kmemngan bahawa JD wga mampunyil lumutan ulna terhldap JG yang msmurlgkinkan EN larsebul meruadl ludnk Iemlur ynng mambulehknn Ianyn dikslaptkan oleh Mahkamah mu lnl [alas sepemmlnl diganskan dallm kn Kavton no on: V Standard Churud Bunk mum some mu: uuu 13:‘ ynng memuluskan FQDSFII bavlkul‘ - Theymusl us demoed m mm Um Khlng Kmm V Malnysn Banking and man: 2 MU 29:. Vnrkmxm vlquwnmlnl undei v as at me samumny Rules men unis: me Judgnunt mm hu . mum cum not an m emu amum whnch mm. M lxuuodl the mgmun am, m-Imes to my nrudimrx mm or Elnkmpbw Nam mull be mam lryfihrlsla Home wnmm {summons I1 crumbs: now am the amenflmenl an r 13 :4 ma Bankruptcy Rules)‘ snDDOfled by an amaavn. “ sm cwzanrmnvncmruwwnov “ mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [54] Dalam kes in cm.» Wn Liam E: P Robert mm Lye Hock v. Citibank am (1999: 6 ML] £15. dlumuskan bahawa There Iva onmwu wnyuo M-Hang: nu b-nkruplcy "mm be nndu r 95 M We Ewen on ma mum aim: axlwamx uwuulnemmm‘ 21: mm min! V 1a on war grounds ms mumm u mud: under r as Iry way .24 In amaavn med vnlhm men days alter mg semoe Mme binkmpky nmica The amaavn does not ny anynmng Iboulma axmence eta mun(e«Jaxm‘se1nfllnvuns: demand The mam unnol sperm: as an appncauan In 5:! Aside me eunknM=y new mu... m. mrvllmpmuun of - «mm Mme Eankrwlcy Am 1957, um: me use mm m. bun muse n IVnoI1fldw1lundarv95nau m (an new man Swmfllvy‘ me mam am not amm ma wvv-mus oi pmvnn am oi : 2 M In: Eanhuplw Am 1967 because u does run wnaesmnd to pnnnnms av Ihe amuum acmanry due‘ 1551 Dalam kes Sllahfio bin Ahmad; ox pane um bin Yum Ahmad [znzzq MLJIJ 03725. mpuxuakan bahawa‘ 154) n m am PM Sewn-:4: Nnmnau am Ix pm. Nlmyunlulmy ./I Knlhnln [2022] MLJU 2141,memInusk|n bnhtwn [221 Mlnklmlh Afiung fllllm u sovsasnen sauna; msunmc: sun awn v KOH mm as: meal 1 MLJ sun. [was] 1 cu new 277‘ memumskan bihawa an my memnluuumlah yang lebih bsslrlndak akzn nuenucnlkznnyl din hulell dpmfla sepem dmumskan aleh Lee Hun Hoe c: (Eumeoy bahawn 'W\ll\ams and Mun Humar on 1»: Law and Pmnhue m Eankruvif-Yl19m Ed) mp 491 underma r-smug ‘Fomm men um To lnvlhdanv Pmoeedmgs‘ mm: m . mm mm Enghlh Blnklumcy M1 cm whmn u wad «mm: the null u out I 13: mm Nu pvuueedlnu m hankmplq mu be mmm.a by nwbnvm wsa umy umuumy umessmemun bélore «mm in nbperzhon .s nude to me pmammg - A71 upmvon mm suusuvmau mlnsuce has been caused by me deisa M SIN cWZaHYlwn\/DCYWFAIWVHOV 25 «W M n-nhnrwm .. used M my .. mm mm: dun-mm VII nF\uNG W wragulanty, and mat the Iruusnoe cannot be remedued by any omar Mlhal noun‘ [231 Mahkzmah Agung ma am... kzs mrux UM mane KIM V muvm amxmc aHnl1wJI 1 MLRA zau‘ M99312 MLA zen [1993] 3 cm :2: milk mnrllmm lhun mm mm.» yum um lean nknn nvlmudlkan an 0-dak -an Munuamn memmusknn upon seam -s.mn.ny, u pm! I 01 me enclouurv m-my fllpuln M mdabudmu m cm um sum co the mspovldenl ‘bated an n- ecmneuus nalwhtm and gmssvy eximlerated' wnhmn wndewemlng no palluzuhvs m [he armum Icmlly due, wt: any um BI: and affldavn dons nn|a}lv-3:1 pvmlso my m s 2 man mus mm . hlnkluplzy noun mun not as mvahdllnd by muon only Irmma um! Icnufud nu mu ..m. m mmm| an: unused: me mun Amount flue ~ [55] Dulam kes kebankrapan, mmxan hmlng larklm akan mnyatakan dalam Pellsyen Pemluung (CP)yang akan drlaHkan seleluh Lankh beriaku kebankvapan unencukan. Plda permgm ml‘ mamadu tanggungiawah JC sekall Ilgl membukukan jumlah hmang Ierkum Seklranya iumlah nmang «manna hank mamatum perunlukkan undang-undlng bag: Perinuh Fenghakwman (‘A0’) dan Panman Penanmaan CRO‘) mperoxam, mahkamah akan menollk cw ylng uwauu-an JD Ielah gagal belbual demnkan dalam mencabar BN Iersehul m cwzaurmnvncmruwwnov mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm (iv) Knupay n JD mombayar [51] JD lelan Deihuph hahawa an ndak wajar mkewuaran kerana JD berkeupayaan unluk membayar mung Jc. Bagx Isu Im‘ Mahkamah menuuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekuman IBKU kes Aflln Bank Bhd (lonnnrly knuwn u Perwlu mm Bank Ehdj [2020] 1 ML! ass, yang menyaiakan sepem benkul. 11) we own 54 Appeal 11196 M ram. In appreclah -um.-my um um snwemy mm dsbim under . 5(3)::-1 magma wvlh 3 mm of me aA must messanry relate to ms ammy to pay ms was as may beoome due .1 the lime cl hauling oflhe mm‘: pdmun mm lmelml In: sowency an um relate lo we debtors ahnmy m pay Ms mu subsequenl nu ma mum; mm AORO mum, ma no4vnnnY times In oummemummncv‘ mud nu| ‘b-Vance mm Io4vInr.y‘ nu Div! 437 12> A4 am. am Man In AORD wal ammo Iaimu um mpov-um mu. vol: mz mu-not um ha -... nflvsm Mn cunlmavnmn mm m an arm I0 ma ruuamtanf: Ibmly m any n dam: mm on xwxequem mm at Ixcumslames n 3| all. any mnnge :11 crrmmsmnm: D031 mm we any rswvtfy 01 moms by the memo: would my me demnr an apuommrty my pay me dams m mu mum wwld enable mm lo ovum an Irmuivwem oraev, hnvmg mm ma. mu paymanl am on wl: um dam nu «mm made no Plymm|m nu-vy me .mqma.n um (Isa pm Am ' [531 Mas dakwaan bahawa Kemsmpuan unluk membawv huzang levsebul, kemampusn JD mestnlah Kemampuan yang sema ada dan bukan kemampuan “mesa Iladapan azau kemampuan alas tmdakan ksmudIan' Dalam kes nu dakvraan kemampuan untuk memhayar hutang N cwzanrmvncmruwwnav ” um. smm ...m.Mm .. used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm JC Idalah berasiskan kapada pen;-man klpal lersehut yang mans Ia merupakan kemampuan “mass hadapan“ flan bukan kemampuan umuk memnayar kenka BM dwkemukakan Lnin Iln lsu (i) Terdlpamyl Po anuan sampingan [59] Dakwaan bahawa (erdapmnya penamlan sampmgan (sekwanya wujud) udak akan dapil mangatam Peuanpan Persemjuan yang Ielah dlmasukl tersebut F'erwman tersebut merupakan penanjlan yang ssh Mahkamah telah merwuk kepada Ines Yumln Rlmba (Monlauh) sun Bhd V Wnrrlor Rubber Product (M) Sdn Bhd [Z017] MLJU I924‘ yang memuluskan hanawa ‘The Camem Judgmem and me Semanem Agreement mg m no way mcons\sxe«| mm on: whey, and my. 16 no am m 3., mm the smmm Agvuamanl ma nwnprwmlod u Iupsruedld m. Comm“ Judwnqfll cvmanme ..m.m.m humour: ma pm camxmmglhl can u nau uavemod by me Selllemenl Agreement ...a no kuvpcr by on Consent Judgment Thu .3 wppma uymema parzgmph m me vennalln m. Selfluuem Agleelmnl mum mlde menmm at m. Consen(Judgmen| nnd mm chute « ‘ much oonfamai me ngleemanl um...a=r.. run and r .: Inmamanl uilhe Debi u Iwulnraa m IheComen|Judgmu||' [ea] Hwahan aleh JD bahawa behau ndak menjadv penjamm den wga Idak pemah bemulang max wag: meruadi rsu apamla pengakuan (elah dlbual (smadap kesemua nuxang yang dmmlut o\eh JC (elah mpersemuu sepenuhnya aalam Penyhakrman Persemjuan bertankh 28 us 2018 IN cwzaurmnvncmruwwnov -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm o= Zalllri Naim Bin Ismail v Ex-parts: Bank lllulmalat Malaysia and [2015] w um 11:: ‘Al M15 In [M cm: of We Ymh N919 Hvni. IX 9 VIP Km Lmn Q Nomnmrmh vap (Mmwslmnx :1 me um: av may-ma shnnfl hm Ham Hum-n>l2ow1e MLJ 455, z wdgmem mm: mm unm n n tetanus“ an] Dalam ms Fonflnn Unltnd Thuln sun arm v soumlm Funnel and mm} 1 ML) uoz; [zoos] 1 cu «on, dmyulakan bahuwa "a judgment I07 5 sum am-nnsnu a deal. wmcn men becomes due to me pmon mom :1 awed, who man becomes ms crsdnar" amanmn ken In: ad: n lernmang kepadu JC unluk marlgamhll Imdlkan larhadlp JD dengan lpa ama sakah pun Iermasuklnh unluk mumulaknn nlu pmsldlng kahankvapun unm menuntul semula hulinu yang lemmggak Iarsehuk (ii) Wabalx cavia-Is [:21 Mankaman vm nan-n mennuk keplda kes Iuvlchlnlhlrnn Gnnuun v. Ln Knk sun .5. on [24:21] 1 ms 15:1 ynng berkaihan dengnn pemakaxan Akin COVID-19 unluk menlfikan poliksanaun sesullu llnggunmlwlh knntruklual (contractual babr/mes). a: man: Mahkamlh mammuskln bahlwl 1211 A4 WI A-name, n .. nmvamm «u my n mind mat ma own 19 M n no! I Vegulltlun am an be runrbed we lay my Mrs-nl nlmnmlnn In wad luhflny av am muvdy bouuu um am at me onvmmnx M um um muse durum an cm-19 pandemic Rugard mun bu rm (0 Ma Dllrpnuu m we cnmw Ant mm 5. In vmnde cm Iempovary measures to veduue IN cwzanrmnvncmruwwnav '9 -um snn ...n.mn be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Ihe mm M comma Tm: .. pmwma by Serum an av lhe ma-wavauon ms ma znd I967 wmdx veadi Sermon m — Reward m be had to me wlwsa mm Ant m 0.. mnvpvatximn L11 - pmm. M .n An I wnltlulmn our wuuht nmmms ms vulume av umea undiflyng IhaAn1Aw>mh-vlhmpumnse or nh|ec1 ws expresnly mud m we Au or non mu be pmerrea lo a uonswclm mat wmm ml pmmme mat purpose 01 ohm‘ tnenex.-ma amenkam my Adalah 1e\as bahawa pen-uexaan berdasarkan CavId—19 bukan sesuafu yang Mullah: mam bevdasarkan kepada Imgkungan Am «menu: Dalam kes vm adalah ‘alas Ianya max larhndung bagi alasan PKP aan Ccvid-I9 kerana Pengnamman Fevseiujuan dlbuat ssbemm dimnada Cuvvd-I9 lagi din a\asan kelewalan penylapan kapal konannya bevsangkul alau berkailan dengan PKP Gan Cavtd-I9 adalah Vangsung ndik berisas. [54] JD bemujah bahlwu dull aeiam a. dmam Fauunpan gual bah mak dmempumakan, maka JC Idak wen mengualkuasakan penarulan tersebul Hluahan ml -dalah lersnsar kerana. ms-nan iesualu penanjlan um berganlung kapadn um. Ida mnya dusatamkan mu um. Mnhknmah W memjuk kepada kas Rah-Izld hln Ruuln Iwn Swur.m-L . Crndllsdn and [2|72Z]ML.J|l1D95,mpulu:k:n bahlwa. ‘nu mm." oleh n2 bnhnwn peqlnpnn Lersebm mu dheczmkzn komudun an M1 mun nvenlnaflun naqnnjmn msebul am In em..." a... nun»... mu -an-n mm bar-ul w tar-M paw...» um um dnsalem mu moruadnknn IBWYI mak sah, map. umawmau Vin; tnrlvbal aknndnkennkan new m zmmm-. sum ms 92 Ielemwya mm-n bahawa um mm; me......um.. penmly lelan dcayar elm mm: Ysu Am IN cwzanrmvncmruwwnov 3“ Nuns smm ...m.Mm .. used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm.‘ 11:) api-apa rewyang lam umxmn paml dan suav manfaat uleh Mahkamah Vang Muha ml (m) Pengmnang Fenghakvnan man memlaulkan Afidavn-Afidavn oleh sm Thasleem mum Osman Ghany yang dukrarkan pads 1912023 [Lampuran 5] dan 21 2 2023 [Lampnran 10] my Afldawl Ealzsan uleh Syahlv bin Syed Buhan berlankh I3 22023 [Lammvan 9] Lat-vhullkung kn [I] Dalam kes Wm‘ JC telah memiaflkan saiu mntutarl SWII d1 Mahkamah Sesyen Georgelawn Pmau Pinanq dnlam Guaman Sivll No PA-B52NCC- 1141312017 nuncman sum lersebur] m anvara JC (Fkamnf) din JD (Bravo Manna (M) Sdn arm (Defendan Panama). zainar hm Axum Kanm (Defendan Kedua) din sni Thas\aem hi I Osman Ghany (Defsndan Kenga — JD dalam Penghakiman mu) m Tmdakan |emadap Kellgavuga neveuuan uasebuz adalah kerana kcsemua wendan (elah memungkln suam Peqanusn Juul Eel: Iaanarlkh 17 zzuu [‘Fer1nnuan Juan Eel: |e(sebm'] yang dnandaiangam men JD dan Deiendan Kedua bag: pihak Deiendan Keflgi. sw cwzaurmnvncmruwwnov ‘ um, smm n-nhnrwm .. used w my .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VIZ nfluNG W awaken merupakinmnhla Inna dun mahkzmah scwzjlmyi ml!-lzpkan mgw sulu pcrbuzraan pemm madakan bag! samsnku mp...ggu Medus- dua pmak sen: Dakunen yang mpemkaman flan dldakwa wluud pmdazn mu mum. is Jahnmn Km. unmk .mg.m.... [221 Dalam kes Am 1:2 nan: s&avang bum seven! hvoran pchs avzu apa— has Ioknmgan flanpadu oz unmk memmukknn mm“ \m mun bumwl din mm dmuuvakan Inn Mn kzlenngan aekwnemnv an-m hes VII! yang dmmhurlun man Dz M-x mmu,..a.m kumguln lam:-iln w,......n tavsabu| Peqamun aewa my mum bun 5.» din mm. mm dkunliuaukun Dakwaan bahawa any: udak sah kecarm felah lellewal mselem adalah ndnk be...» Frmslp vmlnlah duelaskzn oxen mahkamah dalam m cMEGA sEcuRmEs sun sun v mm‘ mum am Aanm mum [zmusuu :2, hahawn ‘Yhe mm mm use mllgm hm\IIyIgIa91nan| (MFR) ms n¢| stamped ma ADC umnaau a m novrulnmpmg cl . dncumenl ma rIo| .mmur. me aacumm umau the non-sumpmg mum In Me mumrvllmlly (1! m. [znn] e um 12 II mmwmem nsefl m mu case‘ In: rmmmpmg .-.4 me MFA was nIW an Issue [cs] Dalam Ken ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BHD v BANK MALAVSIA BHD [FumI||y Klwwn n Mum Purpuu sum: and And Mullylil F ncll Bank and) v Mukhrlx aln M.IhIIh|r -nu Anor [zoos] 4 ML! 451. mamuluskln blhlwa ‘me any dusuulevmaed bymnnnmmmnun um-mga Iimauhn man many ngveememn van um duly Ihmpld undlv : 52 M um SI-mp an we The am memm a-a run dlwulzl mun me wulvlmae Igmemenll my executed by Ihem were my mums undvrlhe raid M1 [491 ‘swan 52(1) om. sump A=|1949 vmwdul Nu mllmmlm chavgz-I171: Mm duly nu be ndmmad m wmenoa Var my pumosa by my psnon having by w u wr\;em ol puma: nulhmly m sw cwzanrmnvncmruwwnov " mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm meson mama, av mu be acted upon‘ remsleved m aumcnluzled by any such person w by any Wm oifxzv, unlssz such mmmen: Vs du\y seamen (say The above Dumsrous mm on meauesm cl evwder-me In due: not m any way Iendarma nxzstznuve |mnsaax.\n as wand and mum av... Ihuuuh me sm agleemam .. H0110 bu summaa as avtdalws u aimed by am. am a.:em..u mu non no| ldvsvuly mu m. plsmlflfi can .g.mu Am mu deieudnm Yhm m ulhlv ummm hm: uruvndomx .. aammad um um dupuvud by we um dai-mam u mymgm.¢ mm, m rm» :2. pumumu pmve man the sam mremrall many was qramefl m and unlued Ivy Slzaleqy Powerhouse Sun am and vasduly guammeed by mm meflrstznd second de4emanL as ayemmv In: wmpany' [651 Mahkamah memuluslcan bahawa ac masm bemak unluk meneruskan nndakan ks am pemecahan Fenanjnan Jua\ sen yang dimisukv wakaunun dakwaan banawa nanya mak ssh kerana um diselemkan Kulmpulln [en Dahrn kes Rn Tun Sun m: E: Fun In nyan Blnking Bcrhld (201911 LNS16!3.mahkamah mamuluskan bahawa 135] Vnm mmnm mm ma cam! ally: . pvubecllvl mle m hlnkmplny multen mm um um ml: yy nul .a much «a max be me Imevaih 0! me uvdmur pem.men bu| Chou mm. debtor Re Txxnn Jamnmv, Ex :5 Emmy Fmamz arm [man]! on Ray: 557, [M912 cm 1057 Namnnr, nun nmn mm, ilmun n. mm. In mum In-um Conn mould not condom flu Iltnny allppllnlliulll mm by m. m. mulch In my yum mu hon: am. In! my. uunhnlylmpudnd n. mu. hy ml 4: Mn: mu. N cwzaurmnvncmruwwnov " um. Snr1n\n-nhnrwmbe used m mm .. mm-y mm: m.y.y. y.. nF\uNG pm [:61 n u not only lnjudicioun In inundlh thy mu mm u-nil:-I and Iulmtrilnnuus awllcanam tn the mum": or minus. n 1. unpnnnlplld to involumzl-ily drag along the opposing pally‘ (gamma mbenkani [ea] Dalam kes Suvwlri I/p Ainuddln »/Abdul Aziz all Ainuddln [2000] 5 IIILJ 391, dlputuskan hahawa -rm pulvula m the cum order a la nu: mm Imus mm ma Deimdanu‘ mum Who 5 ma Pu-mm whom me learned su hndloum against to My man Ihe Defenflarws mama um be alvv-Had Io chew mam’ [es] Lavrhavn Isu yang lelnh mhnngmxan uleh P -x JD mg: (elah mpemmnzngxan aan Ianya max memlhlk kepldl JD Perlsytiharan Kepuluun [70] Rayuan dllolnk Kepmusan Penokang Kanan Pendaflar dikekal din msahkan Km sabanylk RMSJIDDOG mbayav c\eh Pmyu (JD) kepada Responden (JC) |enakluk kapada alakalor AZIZAN nmsmu w.y...n.m&. Kc mmunm. rinégl (3) Palm: Flnanu sumnkn plan 941.2: D / IN cwzanrmvncmruwwnav 3‘ Wane s.n.‘...u..Mm.w....nmy...mummymm..u.m...n_.m W Pguamura bugi Pnmiunng Fcngiukiman; Shamshm Em Jamil‘ Nlshanm Kauv I/p Eawlnder Slngh Teluan Pvesgrave a Mamhews Tmgkal 1. No. 2, Lehun Paula: moo Pulau Pmang Puuunmclra rum Fonuhmnnu Punnhlklmun: Sm Nurazwam am Zulkeflee Tetuln Shahabudm 3. Ram: E65. Nunhpoml Offices. Mid Valley cvry, No 1, Medan and mu ucara. 59200 Kuala Lumpun wnayan Persexuman Kua\a Lumpul undangmndang yang diru'uk: Am Insolveny 1967 Keskes yang diru'uk: 1 Bank Simpnnan uasional v Axil Lino Enmuinmenc Sdn and 5. on [2n17] MLJU 541 2 Lu Eak Soon @ Lu Pulx choon v RHE Bank Ehd (200911 MLJ 162 3 sowruian Gonml lnlunncu Sdn Bhd v. Koh Tiln Bee [1988] 1 CLJ Rep 4. RI: Tlah Mgu Hung: Ex P: vnp Klu Ll:n Q Nam n .n v-p (Adminillrllrix of The Estate of Molllmud Slur: bin Ma]! Huanln) [2000] 1 ms 197 5 Huuxn Thakurdu Jnnwuni & Anor v. sank simpanan Naslonal [2021] B Mu 407 SIN CWZAHYIWDVDCTWFA/WWIOV 3‘ Nnln s.n.‘...u..Mn...n....nmy..nnmnywnm..u.M.n.m W s Kuiunneraan Eintai Kinaanko Sdn Bhd v Fang Soon Leong 1202112 MLJ 234 7 Llmblgl Klllllpulln Wlnu Sirllplrllrl Fohrll v. Edwln Cl Ninappan (20211 7 cm 523 5 Ra Mohfl saliul Azuar Illa Malaysia and [mm s CLJ 785 Ex P sank Karl anu Rakyal 9 R0 Low, Ex Pan. Gibsnn [1955] 1 o E 734 la Badiaddln bin ulund ulaiiidin ax Anon v. Arab Malaysian Finance and [1998] 1 MLJ 393 I1 Mzybank Islamic Borhad v we auilne-s sun BM al Ann: [2617] 7 CLJ 127 12 Re An Lim 1196712 MLJ 276; Daluk Muhd sari bin Dunk Hlii Nuar v Numlch wlmtiertnur lnsuranca (M) Sdn BM [1992] 2 Mu 344 13 ‘lung cine w dan uin—lain v. Hock Soon Song Sdn and [2010] 7 MLJ sa 14 Malayan laanklng Berhad v. Daluk Lim Khang Khlm [1992] 3 CLJ 1449‘ [1s92]2 CLJ (Rep)82E 15 Ravlcnanmiian all Gum n v Mat snail bin satuzn [2019] MLJU1677 16 RI ciiok Kim sin; ox pana Dunhln Mia S417! and [2021] MLJU 2166 17 Kaplan No Oci v sundam cnanad Bank Malay a 5-mad [2004] MLJU 733 1! Ra on-an Wu Llllll Ex P Ruben Tang Ly: Huck v. cmbnnk BM [1999] s MLJ 615 SIN CWZHHYVWDVDCTWFAIWWVOV 35 Nnln Sailalila-nnaiwlllbeusedmvafltmenilfllnalllyMvvlsnnu-nanlvnaFlLING W ls Shllllit hill Ahmad: ax pm: Azizi bln van: Al-mm [2022] MLlu 03725 20 For: s-lvm]. Nalnnchlvlynln; ax pm. N.:.y.n-umy .1: Knsmun [2u22] MLJU 2141 21 min Bank and [lommiy immm - Forwlrl Allin Bank and) [2020] 2 MLJ 659 22. nmnn Rlmha (Manama) sun arm v Wnrriar Rubber Pmfluct (M) Sdn Bhll [2017] MLJU 1924 2: Per: z-mrl Nlim ain Ismall v Ex-pl . Bank Mllnnulnl Mlllyl - Ehd[2u15]1DM|.J193 24.PonnIrl united Tneam San arm v Sollfllem Finance and [zims] 2 MLJ 502. [2uos]l CLJ 1057 25 Rnvichallllllran Gal-nun v. Lee Knk sun 5 (Jr: [2021] 1 LNS 1551 25. Ruhllzad bill Rezuan iwn swoon-Lea Dndil sdn and [2022] MLJU 1955 27 Alliance Bank Maluysin aha (Follnaly Knuwrl u Mimi Pummo Bank and Aim Mnuylia French Bank and) v Mllkhrlz am Malllmir Ind Allor [zoos] A MLJ 451 25 Ra Tm son Kim; Ex Pam Mniaynn Banking Bemad [2019] 1 LNS I533 29 savwari all: Ainuddin v Abliul Azix ail Ainuddin [2000] 5 MLJ 391 SIN cwzaurnmvocvilruwqnov " Nnln s..i.i M... M“ be USQG .2 my .. m.i-y MW; mm. VII AFVLING W [a1 JC lam: membayar uerenaan Panama sshanyak RM472,oou no yang mana merupakan sow. danpad: mmllh harg: behin ianu Rmsaumoou Narmm Ievdinaf kelewalin dalam menylipkan Kapal Pnlottevsebul [91 JC tldak hersetmu unluk periaruumn maaa menyehabkan pembmaan Kips‘ Pwlm letsebm lalgemalsdan kmutersadausrapleblh darn sum di bengkel pemhnnaan a. Kampung Pemmang Lvnau Mauls Slmplng Ampat, Fems mgaacugas menyxapkan Kapal Pilot tenebul (urul lelgendma dan menjadl rumxl dwsebabkan oleh Coma-19 flan Fermvah Kawalan Pergerakan (‘PKP‘) [10] semaan ken anecapkan umuk pemcaraaan din kesemua pmak Isiah beraehuu unmk menyalasaurannya (anpa bicari dan anu Pengnamman Perselujuan beninkh 13 3.1018 wenghakuman Perseluman tersebul) dangan klausa-klauaa sepam bevlkut (a) Defendan-De4endan berseluju umuk membsyar Flamhl wing sejumlah Rlnggfl Malaysia Empat Rains Tujull Fuluh Dua Rlbu (RM472,D00.0U) sahqa ds\arvI masa (ma (3) bman dan lankh Pangnamman Pevseflmuan VII (b) wang se]um!ah mnggn Malaysxa Empal Rams mun Puluh Dua Rlbu (RM472,000.00) aana;a mu dnbayar kepedl Plamm melalun Fsguammranya, Teluan Tnh Thelm Huck & Co sebagax pemegang penaruhan (stakeholder) IN awzaarmvncwuwanay -ma Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m mm In: mm-y MIN: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (ca Seknanya Defendan~Delend:n ma: mambayiv Wang squrvflah Rmgml Ma\ays1a Empal Rams Tujuh Puluh Due mm (RM472 am an) dalam masa mga 13) bulan flan «am Penghaklman Perselujuan tersebul. maka salu lawman masa akin dlbankan kapada Da1sndan- nevendan axaa budi bmara Plalnlrf my 5e\an]u|nya dxperselujux sekiranya Delandan»De4end:n masm gagal unluk membayar keseluruhan wang sejumlah Ringgit Malaysia Empa4 Ratus mun Puluh ma Rlbu (RMHZUUU nu; lelsebul dalam tampon Ianjutan mesa yang dlpelselujm an amara Plalrml dan Defendan- Defendan, maka kasevumr-an jumfah Ringgit Ma\ays4a Empal Ralus Tu]uh Puluh Dua mm (RM472,0!!D oo) nersanm akan menjadl lemutang sapammnya. (2) man pennlah mengana: kos Fada akmr Penghaklman Persetujuan larsebul jugs mengandungx K\auss Penal yang aipavaamuu nleh kesemua pmakuauu 'JIka kamu, Defsndan Panama. Ksdua dan Kanga yang dmamakan dalsm hndakan ml uaak msvIa1umPerIntah Inn maka kamu buleh dvkenskan pmses pevaksanaan bagw maksud memaksa kamu memauminya “ SIN cWZaHYlwn\/DCTWFAIWVHOV 6 ma saw n-nhnrwm .. used w my .. mm mm: dun-mm VII .nuNG W [I1] Namlm. selelah masa bevlalu unluk penqhiklman lelsebut dvvanml‘ maria sehalang bayaran dlbual uleh kasemua netenuan maka JC1e\ah memfallkan prusuing kebankmpan lamadap JD umuk mendapalkan Wing sejumrah Ringgit Ma\ays\a Empae Rains mun Puvuh Dua Rlhu (RM471000 nu) yang telah mpeuseuquu unluk dlbayar sepem mam Penghaklman Pwsetwuan lersehul yang muktamad‘ sah dan (idnk pemah dlkelevlkan atau dtgamung oleh puhakazlhax lerlmal Rznquun Human Jc [111 oxen katanl Had: bayamn «mum oleh Penwhutang Panghakuman. makl Psmmtang Penghakxman berhak umuk memfallkan pmsldlng kebankravan Ramadan Fenghulang Penghaklman bevdasarkan kepada Kenna-Ierma yang telah dlpelselujw dw dalam Pengmmman Perseluiuan tersehul [Ia] Penghaklman tevsebul adalah Penghaklman muklamad dan san Kegagalan unruk membual bayavan, akan rnembenkan nnk kepada JC unluk menunlul kesamvuhan nutang iersebut danpada keaemua Dafandan hanawa aakwaamaakwaan berkenaan dengan tunzuvan swll |ersebu1 ada\ah max relevan .1. dalam proswdlng kebankrapnn Ini Dalam api keidaan ;ugn, Pengnulang Penghakuman mempakan mu pmak an dalam Panghaklman Ferseiujuan levsebul dan dengan nu adalah max berasa: un|uk Fenghuvang Penghakunan Van den kewaupannya sepem yang felah dIpersa1u;mdm|\am Pengnakwmnn Pevsetuwan lersabm [141 naaa narangan hag: JC memmtut nulang xeriehul dallm Aurmah yang panuh nan lldak perm memhuat pembahaguan dalam parka-davan secara purala a. amava kesemua Defendan (erfibal Irv kerana dalam BN‘ [unflah keseluruhan men dnunnn terhadsp kesemua De4enuan Penanjian Juan Bell (ensebut ‘alas sekah menunwkkan nanawa ianya eeuan ananaacangan. cleh JD sendm dan oleh nu dakwaan JD nanawa bellau max terlnbat dn da\am pensrmsn (ersebul dan/alau damm menywapkin Kapal Pwlal yang ulpesan aleh JC adalah bdak rele»/an same sekalu [:5] JC bemak umuk menunlul tunggakan nmang Izrsebul melalul an dan bukan rnemam Kanggungjiwab JC unluk mendapankan 1-man msenux me\aIui Ptfuualan kapal yang mak map earaaaun lerlebuh dahulu Pengnakunan bahawa Penuunang Pengnaklman men menglmbnl elm Kapal PHD! lersebut dnn meruuelnya acau menysmbung Iemula pembmsannyl aaalan mak berasas mamandangkan ml hukamah aalu ayarax mu lermn m dalam Fanghakiman Persemuan Ievsebul us: Kenka Pengnamman Persalmuan lsrsebul anekodxan, 4:41 berkeniin mnang syankac mask pemah aubangkukan Malan xeuga-mga Delandan an dalam tumman sun tensebul man herselwu untuk menjelaskan wang squmlah RM472,ooo.oo lusebut kepadi Pemlncang Penqnaknnan Dakwaan sebaliknya km: hanyalah sslu fikvan lerkamudian dan benuat unmk menyusahkan Pemmlang Penghaklman seiain umuk mematahkan l‘L1eIea() Dmsldlng kebankrapan inn nndakan Penghutang Penghakiman damn membangkflkan dakwaan-dakwaan tersebul sekavang Ianu lebmkurang 5 (shun selepas Fenghakiman Persauwan Iersebut mrekadkan JC rneruluk kevada kes Bank Simnllun Nuionul v Axis Um Emeruinmunt Sdn Bhd & on [2011] MLJU an [11] naaa bayaran mm: oleh m Kepada JC jelas sekalu menunjukkan hahawa JD ma Van dan kewaupan sepem yang Ielah dnpevselum dx dalam Penghaklman Perselujuan Iersebut nan membangknkan dakwaan» dakwaan remeh nan lldak berasas [181 Mahkamah W lwdak boteh mengenepukzn din/atau membalalkan pmuamg kebanktapan Im hanya karana Pangnucang Penghaklman mempemkaxkan keesahan Psnghaklman Parssnquan lersebm memandangkzn sehlngga kw Penghaklman Persemjunn (ersebul merupakan sam Pengnamman yang sah din muklamad Mahkamah inn. bukamah lomm untuk JD memvenlbcawkan Penahakmuan Persewjuan lersebul JC celan marujuk kepada kss Lu an Soon Q Ln Pnk Choon v RHE Bank and [mm] 1 ML! 132 am kn Swenign Gonural lruuruncu Sdn Bhd v. Koh T|.In Boellillj I cu mp. [19] Damn Kes Re: mm Ilgee Hang: Ex F: Van Klu um @ Norhashlmall VIP (Adminlsllalrix M The Eaule ov Monamad Sharm hm mji Hunnln) [zoom 1 LNS 191, memmuskan banawa. “n shumd be nulad mm In: mam of a an has In be loumed upon a (ma\ jmgmevn m . mm order nu: - veflazned m 5 3(|)1\7BankNv'I-‘1 An 1951, m pnrlmulv Ihe pmvnso margin In u. Imunl use, m. can:-n| omer Iunulmn p-ymm by the m cl . aunnmed sum :21 mmmn n milllmenh vmwa-nu rm plvmem av mm: m the event maerm Clalfly‘ m.aw mswwu um um: aim: JC and me ummy Mme JD n .5 umevue IN cwzaurnmvocmruwwnav -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm nnlhe mm mum: omar (sea Hamn bm Muhd laud v Central Slwmies morumus) and [mm Cu 251RaoL [1932] cu 2934193212 um 94) - [201 Panghlklman Perumuln nemnm banana zarmnenna dalam Penghiklman Perseuuuan larsebul sahimsnyl umaca secure Keseluruhan wamam percnggan Ia) Pengnakvman Fersadujuln leraebm dengzn jemsnya manyltakan n-new: "Deranaan-batsman omamw untuk mambayal ksparla Flamm Wang squmlah R/w72,oaa an da/um mass nga bulan flan Iankh Ponghakiman Perstlu/uan mr‘ da peranggan an Fangha Imam Pevsemuln lauebm pull menyalakln hlhlwa 'warIg seiumlah RMI72,0I1fl00 nandaklah drbsyar kaaada Plamlvl, melalui peguumcmmya, Tsluan Tan Thaam Hook 5 Cu selzagai psmagang pens/I/nan ('slaI<9noIdef)" [21] Tiada bayaran dnenma cga bman dan «amm Penghakwman‘ memandangkan wang squrulah RM412,ooa co (elah gagaw muayu nleh Penghufang Penghakvman dalam Iempeh uga bulan, make perenggan (n) Penghaknman Persetujuan nersebm memperumukkan bahawa’ “sekrranyu De/endsmbefsndan gagal membayar wang sejumlah RM472,0oo 00 da/am masa bga nuran den Iankn Penvhnkimun Perseluluarf, maka sazu Ian/uran mesa akan dibsnkan kepsda Defender:-Delendan alas bud: mcara Plamm’ Wmaupun lempoh mas: yang lama Ieiah herlalu. Kinda baylrin mahupun bayiran sabahlgian mwac kaplda JC IN cwzanrmvncmruwwnov ‘“ Nuns smm ...m.Mm .. used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm.‘

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

A-05-201-06/2023

PERAYU CHAN KOK MING RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya

Notice of preliminary objection on two grounds - The appeal is incompetent - The appeal has been rendered academic - Section 50 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Jurisdiction to hear and determine criminal appeals - Section 3 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 – Deifinition of the word "decision" - The right of appeal against any decision of the court in respect of criminal matter does not include any ruling made in the course of a trial or hearing of any cause or matter which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties - The order of the High Court to allow the prosecution's application for review and further order to set aside the Sessions Court’s ruling that the appellant's passport be temporary released, does not amount to disposal of rights of the parties - The orders of the High Court are not “decision" that has the effect of finally determining the rights of the appellant within the definition under section 3 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and therefore is not appealable - There are compelling justification for this Honourable Court to exercise its jurisdiction to hear the appeal on its merits - The preliminary objection raised by respondent is without merits and accordingly, the Court dismiss the respondent’s objection - The learned judge had failed to sufficiently consider the significance concept of the appellant business in feng shui - The appellant has never failed to appear in court for his ongoing criminal trial - The Court also recognised that the order sought by the appellant has gone stale - To strike a balance between the risk of the appellant fleeing and fundamental right under the Federal Constitution to the freedom of movement, liberty and presumption of innocence - Supporting documents such as flight itinerary or accommodation particulars must be submitted to the Sessions Court and failure to furnish the required documents will result in refusal to regain temporary release of his passport - Upon compliance, the applicant international passport will then be released to the appellant and the passport will need to returned to the Sessions Court.

07/12/2023

YA Dato' Azmi Bin AriffinKorumYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin AbdullahYA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=6c1c02a4-a4d4-403c-95a2-f32076b3608c&Inline=true

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: A-05-201-06/2023 BETWEEN CHAN KOK MING - APPELLANT AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - RESPONDENT [In the Matter of the High Court of Malaya at Ipoh In Perak Criminal Revision No. AA-43-3-04/2023 Between Chan Kok Ming - Appellant And Public Prosecutor - Respondent] 07/12/2023 08:18:36 A-05-201-06/2023 Kand. 20 S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 CORUM HADHARIAH BINTI SYED ISMAIL, JCA AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH, JCA AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, JCA Introduction [1] The appellant was charged at the Ipoh Sessions Court for filing false claims on Good and Services Tax refunds amounting to RM481,417.50 under section 89(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2014. [2] The appellant has been released on bail and the criminal charges that have been brought against him are currently being heard before the Ipoh Sessions Judge. As at 8/9/2023, the trial is still at the prosecution stage and 48 prosecution witnesses had testified in the trial. Bail was allowed in the sum of RM20,000.00 with one surety subject to the following conditions: (i) the applicant international passport to be surrendered to the court; and (ii) the applicant is to report to the Royal Malaysian Customs Department on a monthly basis. [3] On 28/3/2023, the appellant filed an application at the lpoh Sessions Court (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No: AA-64-12-08/2022) for temporary release of his international passport from 14/7/2023 until S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 17/7/2023 so that he could travel to Singapore to handle his business affairs. [4] On 27/4/2023, the learned Sessions Court Judge allowed the appellant's application and ordered that the passport be returned on or before 27/7/2023. [5] On the same day, the prosecution via their letter dated 27/4/2023 made an application for revision under section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the decision of the lpoh Sessions Court Judge in granting the appellant's application for temporary release of his international passport, to the lpoh High Court. [6] On 29/5/2023, the learned High Court Judge allowed the prosecution's application for review and set aside the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge. [7] Aggrieved, on 8/7/2023 via enclosure 1, the appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. High Court Decision [8] The learned High Court Judge In his grounds of judgment, which we now reproduce, had this to say: “[17] Pertuduhan terhadap Responden adalah berikutan tindakan Responden memperguna 60 orang Orang Kena Cukai ("OKC") untuk membuat pernyataan atau catatan palsu berhubung cukai input dengan niat untuk memperoleh kredit atau tuntutan balik bagi S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 cukai. Pertuduhan terhadap Responden adalah serius kerana jika sabit kesalahan membawa hukuman penjara maksimum lima tahun atau denda sehingga 20 kali ganda daripada amaun cukai atau kedua-duanya, jika sabit kesalahan. [18] Mahkamah ini telah memberi pertimbangan bahawa pertuduhan yang melibatkan Responden berada di peringkat kes pendakwaan sambung perbicaraan. Dalam keadaan Responden sedang mempunyai kes sambung perbicaraan di mana 30 orang saksi telah dipanggil memberi keterangan yang mana Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa hak Responden yang telah disekat oleh Mahkamah Sesyen untuk menghadiri urusan perniagaan di Singapura perlulah dipertahankan. Tidak boleh dinafikan bahawa pertuduhan jenayah terhadap Responden adalah merupakan salah satu kes yang melibatkan kepentingan awam kerana ianya melibatkan hasil negara yang secara tidak langsung menjejaskan kesejahteraan rakyat. [19] Terdapat beberapa keputusan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dan Mahkamah Persekutuan berhubung permohonan pelepasan sementara pasport Tertuduh untuk tujuan ke luar negara sama ada bagi tujuan urusan ibadat dan rawatan di luar negara melibatkan individu yang didakwa bagi kes berprofil tinggi dan berkepentingan awam. Mahkamah telah menolak permohonan pelepas sementara pasport bagi kes-kes berikut: (i) PP v. Dato' Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, (Mahkamah Rayuan Jenayah No.W-05-226-05/2019 dan Mahkamah Persekutuan Rayuan Jenayah No.W-0S(L)-124- S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 05/2019), permohonan pasport untuk mengerjakan umrah di Mekah. (ii) PP v. Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor (Mahkamah Rayuan Rayuan Jenayah No. W-05-68-02/2019; Mahkamah Tinggi - Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansor v. Pendakwa Raya [2019] MLJU 658), permohonan pasport untuk mendaftar anak di Universiti di Indonesia. [20] Peguam terpelajar Responden menegaskan bahawa Responden sebenarnya mempunyai 'deserving grounds' untuk ke Singapura bagi tujuan urusan perniagaan. Tiada sebab untuk pihak Pemohon membantah sedangkan ianya telah dibenarkan untuk kes-kes lain yang secara jelas menunjukkan pertuduhan yang lebih serius dari kes Responden. Selain daripada itu, Responden adalah merupakan seorang 'sifu feng shui' yang memiliki kepakaran dan pengetahuan peribadi dalam perniagaan beliau. Responden harus hadir secara sendiri ke tempat atau premis di mana khidmat 'feng shui' beliau diperlukan bagi menilai elemen-elemen 'feng shui' sebelum dapat memberikan nasihat. [21] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa permohonan tersebut tidak disokong dengan bukti yang kukuh. Responden gagal menunjukkan terdapat keperluan mendesak untuk menghadiri urusan perniagaan yang penting di Singapura. Walaupun terdapat surat yang dieskibitkan untuk menunjukkan bahawa pelawaan oleh syarikat di Singapura, namun ianya bukanlah satu kecemasan atau keperluan yang mendesak untuk Responden ke Singapura dan berurusan dengan syarikat di Singapura. Responden S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 sepatutnya telah sedia maklum bahawa pasportnya ditahan di Mahkamah kerana mempunyai pertuduhan jenayah yang serius dan berat. Peluang perniagaan yang dijalankan oleh syarikat Responden masih ada dan boleh dibuat di dalam negara. [22] Di zaman yang serba moden dan berteknologi tinggi ini, kehadiran secara fizikal untuk menjalankan urusan perniagaan bukanlah satu keperluan yang mendesak. lanya boleh dibuat secara berkomunikasi melalui emel yang beleh disertakan dengan gambar-gambar, talipon bimbit (whatapps) dan secara "video call" yang boleh menjimatkan masa dan kewangan. [23] Di samping itu, hak Responden untuk mendapatkan pasport yang telah diperintahkan untuk diserahkan kepada Mahkamah bukan merupakan hak mutlak Responden. Responden tidak boleh diberikan kelonggaran untuk mendapatkan semula pasport dengan sewenang- wenangnya atas urusan perniagaan yang boleh dilakukan kemudian setelah perbicaraan selesai dan memihak kepada Responden. [25] Berlandaskan kepada prinsip undang-undang di atas, boleh diperhatikan bahawa Mahkamah telah memberikan penekanan dan pertimbangan utama apabila melibatkan Responden yang terlibat dalam siasatan kes jenayah apatah lagi yang sedang menghadapi pertuduhan jenayah seperti di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini. [26] Responden sepatutnya telah sedia maklum bahawa pasportnya ditahan di Mahkamah kerana mempunyai pertuduhan S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 jenayah. Responden sepatutnya berurusan dengan syarikat di dalam negara yang tidak memerlukan Responden meninggalkan Malaysia kerana peluang perniagaan yang dijalankan oleh syarikat Responden masih ada dan boleh dibuat di dalam negara. [27] Mahkamah sepatutnya berwaspada dalam membenarkan permohonan Pemohon untuk mendapatkan pasportnya untuk keluar negara atas urusan perniagaan. Sedangkan dalam keadaan di mana permohonan perlepasan passport atas sebab mendapatkan rawatan bagi kesihatan, Mahkamah sangatlah berhati-hati dalam membenarkan permohonan sedemikian (rujuk kes Public Prosecutor v. Kamal Hisham Bin Ja'afar [2015] MLJU 1209 dan kes PP v. Dato' Sri Anwar bin Ibrahim (1998) 4 AMR 3878. [28] Sehubungan dengan itu, berdasarkan afidavit sokongan Responden, tujuan Responden memohon untuk ke luar negara bukanlah sesuatu yang sangat dituntut untuk Responden meneruskan kelangsungan hidup tetapi ianya merupakan pilihan Responden sendiri yang boleh ditangguhkan selepas perbicaraan selesai. [29] Peguambela terpelajar Responden menegaskan bahawa tiada sebarang bukti yang menunjukkan bahawa kewujudan Responden sebagai “flight risk". Responden di dalam permohonan di Mahkamah Sesyen telah menyatakan kesediaan beliau untuk memberi aku janji di dalam afidavit-afidavitnya untuk memberikan rekod tempahan hotel di Singapura bagi simpanan rekod Mahkamah untuk mengetahui lokasi keberadaan beliau di S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Singapura semasa urusniaga beliau dan pihak Responden telah menghujahkan adalah logik dan wajar rekod tempahan ini diberikan selepas Mahkamah membenarkan permohonan Responden. [30] Menjadi perhatian Mahkamah ini bahawa pada peringkat awalnya, Mahkamah Sesyen berpendapat bahawa wujudnya "flight risk' di pihak Responden maka pasport Responden ditahan dan atas alasan tersebut pergerakan Responden perlu ada had dan batasnya. Maka beban di atas pihak Responden untuk membuktikan bahawa tidak akan berlaku "flight risk". [31] Mahkamah ini perhatikan bahawa Responden tidak memberikan sebarang maklumat atau butir-butir terperinci berkaitan tempat tinggal atau lokasi sepanjang tempoh beliau akan berada di Singapura. Besar kemungkinan Responden berupaya untuk menghilang diri tanpa boleh dikesan amatlah tinggi. Sekiranya ini berlaku, ianya akan menyebabkan kes pihak pendakwaan tergendala, tidak boleh diteruskan tanpa kehadiran Responden di Mahkamah dan boleh mengakibatkan perbicaraan kes Responden menjurus ke arah dilepaskan tanpa dibebaskan (DNAA). [32] Sehubungan dengan itu, amat tidak digalakkan passport antarabangsa Responden dilepaskan untuk mengelak sebarang kebocoran dalam menegakkan keadilan terhadap Pemohon dan juga kepentingan awam yang mana pertuduhan terhadap Responden adalah kes yang melibatkan kehilangan hasil negara disebabkan tuntutan cukai pulang balik palsu. S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [33] Maka, berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah membenarkan permohonan semakan kehakiman ini dan perintah oleh HMS yang melepaskan pasport Responden diketepikan. Pasport hendaklah dikembalikan kepada Mahkamah untuk simpanan. Preliminary Objection [9] In the present appeals before us, the respondent, on 9/10/2023 has filed a notice of preliminary objection via enclosure 11 premised on two grounds: (i) the appeal is incompetent; and (ii) the appeal has been rendered academic. The Relevant Provision of Law [10] Section 50 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 provides as follows: “50. Jurisdiction to hear and determine criminal appeals (1) Subject to any rules regulating the proceedings of the Court of Appeal in respect of Criminal appeals the Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal against any decision made by the High Court: (a) in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; and S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (b) in the exercise of its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction in respect of any Criminal matter decided by the Sessions Court. (2) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal with the leave of the Court of Appeal, against any decision of the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction in respect of any Criminal matter decided by a Magistrate's Court but such appeal shall be confined to only questions of law which have arisen in the course of the appeal or revision and the determination of which by the High Court has affected the event of the appeal or revision. (2A)... (3)... (4).... [11] Section 3 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 defines the word "decision" as: "decision means judgment, sentence or order, but does not include any ruling made in the course of a trial or hearing of any cause of matter which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties.” Our Decisions [12] We shall now consider the preliminary objection. S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [13] The wording of section 3 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 are clear and unequivocal where the right of appeal against any decision of the court in respect of criminal matter does not include any ruling made in the course of a trial or hearing of any cause or matter which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties (See Syarikat Tingan Lumber Sdn Bhd v. Takang Timber Sdn Bhd [2003] 2 CLJ 177; [2003] 2 MLJ 495; Mohamad Ridzuan Zamhor v. PP [2018] 4 CLJ 315; [2018] 2 AMR 17). [14] The Court of Appeal in Dato' Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim v. PP [1999] 1 CLJ 537, where NH Chan JCA (as he then was) summed up the way in which the definition of "decision" in section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is to be applied to a particular circumstance. The court at page 549-555 said: “This new definition of “decision”, as in the amendment, does not include a judgment or order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties on the matters in dispute. In other words, what has been excluded from the meaning of the word “decision” is the type of judgments and orders which is termed “interlocutory” by Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn, Vol. 26, para. 506 at p. 240, which reads: 506. Interlocutory judgments and orders. An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but either (1) is made before judgment, and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure, or (2) is made after judgment, and merely directs how the declarations of right already given in the final judgment are to be worked out, is termed ‘interlocutory’. S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 An interlocutory order, even though not conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. Shortly stated, what the amendment means is that a judgment or order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but is made pendente lite, and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, is not a “decision” within the meaning of that word in the current version of s. 3 Courts of Judicature Act, and therefore is not appealable. It makes no difference that such a judgment or order is final, that is to say conclusive, as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. For instance, an order granting or refusing bail is final (conclusive) as to the application with which it deals but it is still an order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties. Such an order is made before judgment or sentence and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute. A judgment or order, even though not conclusive (final) of the main dispute, may be conclusive (final) as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. In this way, an interlocutory judgment or order may be conclusive (final) as to the subordinate matter with which it deals even though it is not conclusive (final) of the main dispute. The real distinction is between, (for want of a better word) what is called final judgments and orders and interlocutory judgments and orders. In general, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed “final”: see 26 Halsbury’s Laws of England, supra, para. 505, p. 238. Actually, the use of the term “final” is tautological as all judgments and orders are final. The term (“final”) is used for the purpose of distinguishing between judgments and orders and “interlocutory” judgments and orders. The difference S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 is that judgments and orders which are not termed “interlocutory” judgments and orders are appealable under the new meaning of the word “decision” as defined in s. 3 by the 1998 amendment. In other words, judgments and orders which determine the principal matter in question are termed “final” judgments and orders, and they are appealable. But, those judgments and orders which give no final decision on the matters in dispute (which are termed “interlocutory” judgments and orders) are now no longer appealable.” So that the question in the instant appeal is: Is the order of the High Court as the court of first instance refusing bail appealable to the Court of Appeal in the present case? The answer will depend on whether the order refusing bail to the appellant is a “ruling made in the course of a trial or hearing of any cause or matter which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties If the bail was refused during the process of the appellant’s trial, then, it is not appealable as such refusal would not have the effect of finally determining his rights. A decision made pending the trial of the charges against the appellant is not, in our considered opinion, a decision (ruling) that had the effect of finally determining the rights of the appellant. It is only the outcome of the trial that would have the effect of finally disposing of his rights. A decision on bail (by the court of first instance), whether the grant or refusal of it, will not finally determine the rights of the appellant in the outcome of his trial. That being so, the order of the High Court in refusing to admit the appellant to bail was not appealable to the Court of Appeal. S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [15] Justice NH Chan JCA judgment was quoted with approval in Ahmad Zubair Hj Murshid v. PP [2014] 9 CLJ 289, where Raus Sharif PCA (as he then was), delivering the judgement of the court, stated as follows: [37] The position on the newly amended s. 3 of the CJA has been clearly set out in the decision of this court in the case of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP [2010] 9 CLJ 625 at p. 636 where the court pointed out the underlying reasons for the amendment to the definition of “decision” in s. 3 of the CJA which came into effect on 31 July 1998 in the following manner: [24] The underlying reason behind the amendment to the definition of “decision” in s. 3 of the CJA is to stop parties from stalling a trial before the trial court by filing appeal after appeal on rulings made by the trial court in the course of a trial. Apart from that, the definition of “decision” by itself is sufficiently clear and it is the court’s duty to give effect to the same. Justice demands that cases should move without unnecessary interruption to their final conclusion. [38] From the above explanation given by this court in the case of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP (supra) it is obvious that Parliament is not oblivious to appeals which tend to stall of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP (supra) it is obvious that Parliament is not oblivious to appeals which tend to stall proceedings and delay speedy disposal of cases. The new definition of the word decision in the amended s.3 of the CJA which we have laid emphasis to in the preceding paragraph does not include a judgment, order or ruling which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties on the matters in dispute. With the amended s.3 of the CJA, appeals filed based on S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 technical rulings which are interlocutory in nature are now things of the past. Such appeals are incompetent to be laid before the appellate court as it is clearly precluded by law. [ 39] In this instant case the appellant had applied before the High Court to quash the charges and order an acquittal against him. The application was dismissed. The appellant had also applied before the Sessions Court for the charges to be quashed and prayed that a discharge not amounting to acquittal to be ordered against him. The application was also dismissed. The way we perceive it, the orders of the courts below would connote that the matter should proceed for trial as the charges preferred against the appellant still stand. Clearly the decision not to strike out the charges before the commencement of the trial as was done in this instant case does not amount to disposal of the rights of the parties. Since the order gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, it is not a “decision” within the definition under s. 3 of the CJA and therefore is not appealable. [40] It was for the above reasons we are hold that this appeal is on a matter which is incompetent to be laid before this court and was therefore struck out.” [16] Guided by the above authorities, the order of the High Court to allow the prosecution's application for review and further order to set aside the Sessions Court’s ruling that the appellant's passport be temporary released, does not amount to disposal of rights of the parties. Clearly, the orders of the High Court are not “decision" that has the effect of finally S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 determining the rights of the appellant within the definition under section 3 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and therefore is not appealable. [17] Reverting back to the instant case, the application for temporary release of the passport is to enable the appellant to travel to Singapore on 13/7/2023 to 18/7/2023. When the notice of appeal was filed to the Court of Appeal on 8/7/2023, the appeal has become academic at the time the hearing came before us on 27/10/2023 by virtue of effluxion of time. [18] The respondent argued that the order sought by the appellant would be an exercise of futility as there is no longer any "live" issue before this Honourable Court. Hence, there is no compelling justification for this Honourable Court to exercise its jurisdiction to hear the appeal on its merits. [19] The respondent further contended that there was only a bare averment in the appellant's affidavits that he would be travelling to Singapore on the given dates, without any flight itinerary or accommodation particulars attached. Failure to furnish such important particulars may not satisfy the Court on possible concerns on flight risk. Even though, the appellant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the fact remains that the appellant is facing not only serious but numerous charges involving huge amount of money for making false claims under the Goods and Services Tax Act 2014. On that score alone, the appeal should be struck out or dismissed in limine. [20] On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submitted at length to persuade us that the High Court sitting on appeal had fallen into error in dismissing the decision of the Sessions Court when he fail to S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 consider the concept of the appellant business in feng shui where the appellant will be required to be at the location in person for professional consultation or advised. The ground for the application is set out in his affidavit in support affirmed on 28/3/2023 (enclosure 6 RR Vol. 2 pages 7- 13) [21] Having considered the submissions and the authorities, we find that there are compelling justification for this Honourable Court to exercise its jurisdiction to hear the appeal on its merits. The court can use its own discretion to make such an order when it consider appropriate, perhaps in exceptional circumstances, bearing in mind the purpose or object behind the insertion of the newly amended section 3 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964. We therefore find that the preliminary objection raised by respondent is without merits and accordingly, we dismiss the respondent’s objection. [22] It is undeniable that the learned appeal judge had dealt extensively on the issue throughly to support his finding. Whilst we could not disagree with what the learned appeal judge had said in his judgment that with the help of modern technology, the appellant can be at his location without actually being in person at the site. With respect, we find that the learned judge had failed to sufficiently consider the significance concept of the appellant business in feng shui. The appellant as an expert adviser will have to be on-site survey to visualise, gather external surrounding information for a better engagement, advice, analysis, recommendations and to avoid any pitfalls as much as possible. Engagement in meeting with clients is vital in order to lay out strategic and development plan in bringing successful positive outcome for their clients. S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [23] We takes cognisance that the charges preferred against the appellant still stand. However, the appellant has never failed to appear in court for his ongoing criminal trial. We also recognised that the order sought by the appellant has gone stale. [24] Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the appellant informed us that the appellant need to travel to Singapore from November 1 to 5, 2023 on a business trip. He then orally applied for the appellant passport to be temporarily released on the given dates and undertakes to returned the document a few days after the trip. Learned Deputy, however objected to the appellant’s application. [25] In this situation, all relevant factor, established legal principles as well as prevailing circumstances must properly be considered and evaluated to ensure fairness. In exercising its discretion judiciously, it is important for us to strike a balance between the risk of the appellant fleeing when he is still on trial facing criminal charges and his fundamental right under the Federal Constitution to the freedom of movement, liberty and presumption of innocence. Each case is to be decided on a case to case basis. [26] In balancing the rights of the applicant and the interest of the State, we wish to refer to the dictum of Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) in the case of Lee Kwan Woh v. PP [ 2009 ] 5 CLJ 219 where His Lordship held: [8]…In our view, it is the duty of a court to adopt a prismatic approach when interpreting the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part II of the Constitution. When light passes through a prism S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 it reveals its constituent colours. In the same way, the prismatic interpretive approach will reveal to the court the rights submerged in the concepts employed by the several provisions under Part II. Indeed the prismatic interpretation of the Constitution gives life to abstract concepts such as "life" and "personal liberty" in art. 5(1). [12] …The effect of art. 8(1) is to ensure that legislative, administrative and judicial action is objectively fair. It also houses within it the doctrine of proportionality which is the test to be used in determining whether any form of state action (executive, legislative, or judicial) is arbitrary or excessive when it is asserted that a fundamental right is alleged to have been infringed. [27] And for ourselves, we are prepared to say that being a feng shui expert, who depend on his professional skill for his livelihood, he has a business duty to perform but these duties must not clash with the duty of court to proceed with the trial. Hence, to bar him now from leaving the country when he has shown to us valid and legitimate reason to be in Singapore for a feng shui business plan would be unfair to him. The ends of justice will not be met by preventing the appellant from leaving Malaysia at this stage. In addition, the respondent has not shown any evidence of him being a flight risk when he is out of the court’s jurisdiction. [28] Having appraised ourselves of the relevant provision of the law, the documentary evidence before us, the oral and written submission made by the both parties, objectively and from all angles, we unanimously find that the learned High Court Judge has not given sufficient judicial appreciation when exercising its revisionary jurisdiction that warrants S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 appellate intervention. We therefore, set aside the decision of the learned High Court Judge. The appeal is allowed subject to the following condition: (i) supporting documents such as flight itinerary or accommodation particulars must be submitted to the Sessions Court on or before 30/10/2023. Failure to furnish the required documents will result in refusal to regain temporary release of his passport; and (ii) upon compliance with the above, the applicant international passport will then be released to the appellant on 30/10/2023. The passport will need to returned to the Sessions Court on or before 10/11/2023. Date: 7 December 2023 - sgd - Azmi bin Ariffin Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 Counsel For the Appellant : (1) Encik Amrick Singh Sandhu (2) Encik Sandeep Singh a/l Jit Singh [Naran Singh & Co.] For the Respondents : Ng Siew Wee (Deputy Public Prosecutor) S/N pAIcbNSkPECVovMgdrNgjA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JA-42R-3-08/2022

PERAYU Pendakwa Raya RESPONDEN Amir Shariffuddin Bin Abd Raub

Rayuan Jenayah daripada keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen- Melepas dan membebaskan tertuduh-tertuduh-di akhir kes pembelaan-Pertuduhan-pertuduhan di bawah S.16(a)(B) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (ASPRM) 2009- S.4(1)(a) Akta Pencegahan Penggubahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan 2001 (AMLATFAPUA)- menerima wang suapan sebagai ganjaran menukarkan status bumiputera kepada bukan bumiputera dan mengurangkan caj kepada Kerajaan Negeri Johor- Kes responden bahawa ianya fi khidmat konsultasi- tiada elemen "influence peddling"atau menjual pengaruh dibuktiikan-tidak bertentangan dengan Polisi awam Kerajaan Negeri Johor-Anggapan di bawah S.50(1) ASPRM dan inferen di bawah S4(2) AMLATFAPUA berjaya dipatahkan-HMS tidak khilaf- Rayuan ditolak.

07/12/2023

YA Puan Noor Hayati Binti Haji Mat

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=40af50c1-f08d-4d89-9651-b1786cf58763&Inline=true

07/12/2023 09:43:41 JA-42R-3-08/2022 Kand. 229 S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wVCvQI3wiU2WUbF4bPWHYw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal .n—A2R—3—oa/2022 Kand. 229 zmmnzs navus 4; DALAM MAHKAMAH runes: MALAVA DI JOHOR swan DALAM NEGERI JOHOR DARUL rnxzm RAYUAN JENAVAH ND.: JA-42R-J-DB/2022 .lA42R-5-OGIZOZZ FENDAKWA RAVA DAN mm SHARIFFUDDIN am ABD RAUE AHMAD FAUZAN HAYIM am AED umr ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pandahmuan [11 Pan: 2142019 Hakxm Mahkamah Sesyen mus) lelah mebpaskan dan memkzehaskan mm: Shamlufldm hm Abd Raub. Responder: Panama (R1). Abdul Lam bun aanm @ Nnr Sebandl. Respnnden Kedua (R2) dan Ahmad Fauzan Hanm hm Abd Lam, Responder: Kehga um m am Kes pendakwazn Twmbalan Pendakwaraya mm) mevayu ke Mahkamah Tmggw dzn rayuan meveka lelah dlbenarkan pafla 711 2021 mmana Hakwm Mahkamah Tmggw (mm berpendapal mm Pendakwaan lalah heuaya membukukan Hes puma /ems dan kesemua Responds“ mpanggu unluk memnexz rim [2] Selelah mendengav katerangan kes pembe\aan pada 1a2u22, HMS memmusxsn pembeman benaya msmatahkan anggapan flnbawah s so ASPRM dzn selemsnya menlmbmkan keraguan yang munasabzh x IN wcym1mu1wux:F4bPwHvw -um Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. m van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VIZ mum puns! Ievhzdap ks: Penflakwaan Kelwgamgz Responds" aekalu lagw nexan unepeskan dan dlhebaskan dan kesemua uermduhan ke ems mereka [3] IN admin rayuan levhadap kevutusan lelsahul aleh TPR Pads 20 ID 2022 rzyuan Iarhadav R2 GWEHK hank dan TPR Ielah meneruskan rayuannya tsmadap RI den R3 sahaja Rinykasan Fcrtudulun-Pnnudnhau [41 R1 (Blah emu» hsvsarna—zszma R2 dangan 33 penumman m bawah 5 <5 1:; 15) Akta Suruharuaya Psnoeganan Rasnzh Malaysia zone (ASPRM) R1 ma man dfluduh flengan 1 leg perluduhan an bawah a 4(1)(a) Ana Penoegnhan Pengubahzn Wang Harem flan Penaegahan Pembwayaan Keganasan 2am MMLAYFPUAA) Manama R2 diluduh dengan 33 panuduhan suhahal m hswah s ZE11j(c)ASPRM dan 13 lag! penuduhan amawah 34(I)(a) flan (by AMLATFPUAA sexamsnya R3 cfltuduh dengan 4 penuduhzn m bawah a 4(1)(n) darn (nymmrrvum. 15] Bag! muan memudahkan mum den asas «akca kes Pendakwian‘ mperlumnkan :1. hawah sawan sa|u dznpada penuauhan-penuaunan lemadap semua Responden Sanzval panuduhln Vengkap haleh dwujuk ax muka sum em, Rekod Rayuan ma IA flan a [51 Permduhan Iemadap R1 dam R2- 5 16(a){B)ASPRM 'Bahaw: kanm pad: n2u4 mu m Maybank mam smm, Cnwlngln umn Perflanayang betalamzldmo 5aan7 Jn\lnSusur Dewala saw, um. Pemanz‘ dawn a. .n Jorm aavw, aaum Megun Jnrmn mun scum rasunh manenma salu mapan‘ new mg lzuwmlih RM wuomaoa aanaaaa Ahmad Kim‘ Inn Omman mehluw oak uos aux Bum-:1 lzewvamtmt mm mm Syankal Eta Baum: Deva!-1pmenlSdII and 2. dalam akaun maynm Ksllmu: Baum muhk zm Axam 5 so, No Auun 5515s3512eA4 sebagau upah um um kamu flan Am law am am @ my saaam Feogemu 2 am .~c.qm..uzwuanavwm «ma saw n-nhnrwm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum am (1) R1 wangsuna Udak bemndak senaga. perunmng da\am em kala sebenar, den (2) R1 msmpunyav huhungan balk dengan R2 am. bemmax Iebagaw arang pevanlaraan unluk R2 0 HMS hevpenuapataxasan (1HeIah henlya divalahkan me\z\ui kelemngan pegawal penyiasm kes AMLATFPUAA den kes rasuah (spa dan spas; sen: szksvsaksw danpafla syankal pemalu yang benelulu bahawa R1 benindak marualankan N93: sebagal xonsunan ham pmak Dfimalu-Damalu H Bagl mm 42;, hubungan [walk semala-mam antara R1 dan R2 tidak belmzkna permohmlzn umuk pelepzsan Vol bumvnuiera Kevan: Ia! awam aan Dengurangan sumhangan yang dlumskan men RI bag: pmak pemnju wan amsnaman ms\a\uv pembauzn rzsuzh k) Aaaxan mamam penamuanlakla HMS bahawa hubungan mm RI dan R2‘ pka belnl sekalwpun «mu boleh mampengamlu kepmusan knleklfl Jzwalznkuzsa Pemmahan flan Kerajaan Tempanan (JPKY) bsrwebut Syik Iaha|a max mencukupt Keputusan JPKT perlu msahkan aleh EXCO spas jugi mengalakan walaupun bavang pelmohanan Ixdak lengkap, JPKT masm wen mammbang psrmohonan yang dvkemukexun Jnka dlvemahkan uaua Mina-mane saksv yang dlpanggil member! xenmngzn menymakan hahawa memka mehhal R1 ada benumpa secava penhadl dengzn R2 pada mana-mama mass flan member: rasuah kapada R2 sabagal domngan dzn/upah umuk mendapalkan kemmsan bag: pevmohonzn Demam yang dikemukakzn unluk JPKT sw .~c.qm..uzwum.vwm «-um smm ...m.mm be used M mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm I) D» da\am keadaan wm Dandakwaan lelah gagal membuknkzn hahawa oemex yang mseoulkin an dsham penuaunan- penuduhan an bawah :15 (z)(E) ASPRM zoos dwenma sebagav salu suapan‘ maka anggapan dw hawah ssom ASFRM 2009 temyala uaax levpakaw Jlkspun unggapen dw bawah seam ASPRM 2009 terpakal‘ was memumskan Ianya Ielah mpaxanxan oleh pmak pembexaan samasa kes Dendakwaan lagv. nI)Berken:an Isu samada spa‘ adalah liken saenayan, HMS berpendapa| sw adalzh seomng vakan sepenayah D1 dalam keadaan nmax oandakwaan lwdak daval mengemukakan kelerangan wkongsn keyed: dikwian sum bahawa Wang yang perm dmzyar pemaju Immk mendapaikan kehnusan Denukaran status bumipmera kepada Von awnm aazmn un|uk R2 memluskan. make HMS manulak knerangan yang dibsnkan man sm Tanpa kalsrangan SP31 mnak Pendakwaan max mempunyax ke|emngan Vim unmk memhuklwkan penuduhan mu, 15-21‘ mm dan 32442 n) Dvsebzbkan pendakwazn gagax membuknkan bahawa cek— wk vanu auupuskan oren R! «an R2 sen: uuanma alall R3 sebagmmana dlsenaraman dw dawn penuduhan ke alas am maslngmasmg mempakan haml danpada aklivm haram dan reterusnya kesalahan subahal manenma rasuah (kesalahan predxkalh maka ma kasalanan penggubahan wing havam yang auakuknn Lfleh R1‘ R2 dzn as n syn .~c.qm..uzwum.vwm mm s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm n. nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 07 D‘ alas kegagaxan Pembuklnan oleh Pandakwaan malas. maka HMS memuluskan kes pnma lame gagal amuxnxan ke alas kesemua vemmuhan dan R1, R2 uan R3 dllepas dan mhebaskan xanpa aupanggu urnuk manmaxa dm mum.-n mum M-nkun-n nngm anarinalm ku Prim: Iuie [151 HMT wan berpendapatsepem hsnkm a) Bag\ penuduhan dlbiwah sI515)(B) Akla swam. wanya |=rpaka\ he alas m man (idak wmud kecacalan dmam pertuduhan nanya kerana Pamkavan laknlan “Degawav hzdan avm Pavllmen menggunakan nasa ‘man.a—m3na orsng” yang bukan dxkhaskan kapada peqawzw hadzn mm saha;a Manakals hag! wsu pendakwaan menggunakan perkataan ‘dan‘ bukan “atau' dalam 33 penuaunan, HMT herpendapm penggunaan manaavlana perka|aan levsebumdak memnlejudwskan pembelaan b) Mengenaw kepumsan HMS menanma kelevangan bahavm Wang dflenma R1 sebagal n kena-Keqs xansuuau flan bnkan suapan‘ um berpendapal, ms max lumen (erburu-bum fls\sm mananma kelurangan saksr-saksl panaakwaan mauan perm melvhal ketatangan sexemmg yang menlurus kepada psnglvbalan am. penenmaan wang suapan yang meruam [eras kssemua penudunan namadap R1 c) Pendakwaan nalan memhawa kepada Demzuan HMT kepulusan Mahkamah Persekmuan dalum kes Morony Mihiwznyn Sdn am -1 Dala’Sna1ryI EskayAbduII=n (1015; 5 cu 242 flan kas Mahkamah Rayuan, Juhn Ambrose v Pots! Anthony [M17] s cu 495 dart HMT memmusksn bahawa hndakan R1 yang .5 N wcvqumuzwunnbvwnvw ma saw ...n.mm be used m mm ma mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm memnengamm Demaw Devumahan unmk mambuat panuananan pmepasan kuula bum: flan pengurangan sumbangan kapada Tabung Pammahan Megan Juhor mam) melalui R2 se\aku Pengerum JPKT pada kenlxa I|u |=num\ah kepzda men/uzl pengnmn flan bercanggan flengan pohsx swam R1 lelah bemndak sabsgmu rupa bag! meyakmkan pemamfiemaju perumahan‘ bellau memvunyax hubungzn yang rzpal dengan R2 aeliku vsnasms: JPKT d7 HMTJu9a berpanaapax verbualan R1 a-mm rwancemarkan nama hawk perkmdmalan awam dan R1 menganmn kesempanan umuk memvemleh laedah kewangan nw berpendapal aaxaxan menehh kesemruhan xes Dendakwaan nan lmdak Ianduk R1 dapauan dlswmpmkan mempunym mat .anax aan Wang yang dvbayar olah pemaprpemagu pemmahzn mempakan wang suapan bag: maksufl lakrflan s 3 ASPRM e) Bag: R2 pma, mm bevpendapal bahawa Pendskwsan penu membukukan R2 lelah bekenasama dengan m bagw menlayskan kesulnhan R1 menenma wang suapan dallvada pemajlrpemaju pemmahan Ankara ketelangm saksl pendakwaan mengesahkzn wzng suapzn yang dlbayar nleh pemaw-pemaju perumihan (slah dvhayar kepada R2 me\zFui Syankat Naf Penlawans MLAF) Kemudlan ALAF mengeluarkzn cek mnai kepadz pekerja ALAF Selemsnya wang Iunaw duerahkan xeuaua svsa unluk dlsxmpan dw dalam M baa yang mane R2 dan R3 mempunya. akses den dlsahkan juga SP2 adz menggunzkan wang Ievsebul yang msimpan aw damn peh hey u an .~c.am..uzwuanavwnvw «-ma s.n.‘ n-nhnrwm be used m mm In: nrW\nnU|:I mm: flan-mm VII mum v-mm n HMT rnenaapaxn sebelum R1 Iuvhhal dsngan musan membamlknn wang suapan, sum!-sursi yang mnanxar ks aanagian Perumahan max mendapal sehzrang maklumhmas Namun keadaan bembah dsngan |\ha—\|h: zpablla sma| permahonan dmanlaraleh R1 R2 yang menenma sum danpada R1 akan memmrlkan sum! |eIsehu| uniuk nngauan sP49 (Kama Samausaha Eahagan Perumahan) Selerusrwa surzl I|u dxbawa xe Mesyuarac JPKT yana dméllgemxvkan ulah R2 HMT1uru( memmbangkan keadaan yang mans lemapusural permohonan yang max malun namun R2 hdak mengmdahkarmya dan Aems memmskan den mums dwhawa ke Mesyuaral JKPK HMT herpenflzpzn wa dnakukan semala-mam RI Ie\ah memhen keyaklnan kepada pamampsmayu permohunan bahawa nermunonan axan dlluluskan Make. R2 Ialah menenma laadah kewangan melzhn pensunanaean yang dnakukan bersama R! g) HMT bevpendapat HMS gagz\ memmbangkan kelemngan pendakwaan yang Jelas manunlukkan wan; yang menjam asas penuduhan lelhadap R1, R2 nan R3 adiflah berpunca danpada akuvm hzvam HMT bevpendapat pendzkwaan benaya membuklxkan kes puma ram (erhadap samua pammunan ks atas R1‘ R2 flan R3 flan mengakas kepuhaan HMS serta marrlarimahkan R1. R2 dan R3 nntuk membeka rim ke Mas yemua pemmunan av nadapan HMS yang samz Ringkann kes Pemhelazn [m Saya man menehu kalarangan R1‘ R2 dan R3 dalam Rekod Rayuan yang dwatlkan flan bmeh mswnpunkan pemhelaan merek: aualan sepem berikul syn wcym:mu1wm:F4aPwHvw «-um s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. m1mn.HIy mm: dun-mm VII mum pm a RI mempakan Pengarah Gan Perundmg Harlanah kepads Syankal sxs Gruuu Sdn Ehd dan |eIah lama berkemmpung flan Ierlvbat danaan aklwm yang mehlasxkan kantraklm dan psmawan hananah Behnu mempunyal Iewamexaxang sehsgau seomng am- panmk dan mempunyal kemzhwan mengenm lalacara pennonanan ‘Bum: release” din “pengmangan kadal ca. Denukuran (araf (arsenal Km adalah skvm bavu yang dIperkena\kan men Ketapan Negen John! bag! Mush menaanankan dana kavada Tabung Perumahan Negen Juhor “Eunu release‘ sdahh berkawan flengan permohcnan psmanh pernaw pemmahan kepada Keraiaan Negen Juhor umuk menukzv status bumvvldara sasualu hallanah kepada snams bukan hurmpmers :7 Mangiknn em lflh Demalu verm mambua| kenas kena ham memasukkan pannananan unluk mpmses blah Pemrnanen Negeri Johur m hzwah penladbiran dan seliaan EXCO Perumahan dan Keralasn Tampalan Negen Johor Pemmhonan yang mmasukkan Ievsebut akan guexm oleh Pepabal Pemmanan Negen yang juga akan menwmakan kenas kerja bag: annncangkan oxen seuausana Eahaglan Pemmahan gmama sama EXCO Pemmahan sahemm amen sebarang xewumsan anau max wnuk dlhzwa ke dmam Mesyuaral Jawalankusa Femmahan darn Keralian Temvatan Mesyuaval vu dwanggulaw oleh EXCO Pammahsn. Sehausahs ><ara;aan Naaen Johor dan hamplr semua Exmsxm ean kelua—kelua Jahalan sebamm kavutusan masyuarat dnbawa ka dalam Masyuaral Excn Kerayaan Negen Kemumannya, semul kepmusan Iersebm akan gmawa ke dz\zm Mesyuavat Excn s<e.a,aan Negen yang 15 an .~c.em..uzwuan.vwm «we em n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm VII anum v-vrm dwanggalaw Meh Memen Eesar Jnnnn Exm Kerzuian Jonor, Sehausaha Keva.aan Megan, Pegawawegzwav undang—undang Negen Janan Pegawaw Kewangan Negen Jahor‘ Bendahan Negen John: sena Ke|ua—kema Jabalan Kerqaan Megan Dengan kepakaran yang ids pads R1, ramavpamaju pemmahan yang msmpunyaw rnasaxan berkenaln prases levuhut mendapatkan kludma| konsuham R1 Dalam masa yang sama R1 mengenauan n xansunau am pamnamavannya bevgznumg kepada kesenusan masauan (1 av. beldasankan success rats perahlsan pangurangan kadar sumhzngan yang dapat amnanguan) Sebemm pemaw-pemaiu melanuk R1 sehzgai konsmlan, RI pemah memhual heberapa pennonunan umuk penukaran slams burmpulera uada seknar Oklubev zma din permonananpennohanan Kelsebut (elah fllluluskan. R1 mga mengzlakan hzhawz hehau max pemah memben saaamng Jamman permononan akan dlluluskan .HasH n konsuflasw my yuga mm: mgunakan uleh R» Imluk menymnhsng kepada Eadan Pamubungan UMNO Negen Juhar din Persaman sown Sepak Megan Jahor Mengenzu huhungan R1 uan R2 yang sahng mangenaln R1 mengalakan Dehau mengenah R2 sekwar lamm mu yang mans kenka Ilu kaduadua mavaka mempakan dw kalangan kumrakmr ke\asAyang same-sama berssmg mamnlwn dan mencarl Prqak danpada kzvajaan dan swasla Dwsehabkan bekeua dalam bmang yang sama‘ R1 dan R2 mula barkawan an szmpmg 17 an wcyqmnu1wux:F4aPwHvw "Nuns snnnw n-nhnrwm be used m mm ms nnnmun mm: dun-mm wa mum v-mm bevkongsv mzklumal uan ma temang mmek dan pemara yang nerman saktar pemmnaan I R: ada\ah anzk R2 dan mempzkan pengarzh ALAF 52;ak zma Fade mate ilu R3 msxth nemar dan hanya am sebzgal pengavah mum 2m7 Pemadmran syankm mkandalnkan o\eh Encik Sawfuzxaman dan Enmk Rnslee — spas dan spse xemngga 2017‘ namun dllangkip 1e|e\ah 2 man akm sebzgal nengmh Syankal /-uav Psnlawirvs mamvunyaw pemagzw masaabh kewangan dwmsna 2 saksl pembewsan, sm flan sus man dlpanggfl umuk menqesahkan keadaan kewangan syankal Perluduhan lemaflnp R3 fldalih alas kapaalhnya sebegal pengamh SyankalA!a1 Penlawans yang man menerima Vang yang dikatakan nan hem: awvm yang R2 zk sah dan R1 menerum Alann HMS diaknir kn Fomholun us} oxen kersna HMT wan memmuskan ads kes pnma lacrs den anggapan slamlan s an ASPRM Ierpzkaw (emadap RI‘ hermakna HMT berpuas nan nanawa RI te\ah menenma satu suapan yang mmnma ascara rasuah sehmgga dlbuknkan sebahknys RI hendsklah menyanguav anggapan (ersebm dengan membenkan pen;e\asun ‘Luur sum ham (mnwervtexplarvatbn) mangenzw penuaunan |ers.ebm [191 Eehan km: bevahh kepaua R1 unmk menyanslkal uan mamalahkan anggapan alas Imbangan kanarangxauan 1: sn .~c.qm..uzwum.vwny.y "Nuns smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: m.n.n y.. mum pm HMS berPendaDa| R1 benaya mamalahkan anggapan lauabutdan vakca benkul. 3 m lehh Iemnm dawn maang umsan pemhangunan hananah sekama law. an lahun dan mempakan searang pemnmng (xonsmczn) yang menenma n are: pa-«mumaexnnya n Pendakwaan dalam mengalakan n lelsehul sdalah saw suavin man mengzukan |eon memuax pengamh (sales a/mrmsnca zuau m/ruence uedanny) Isu mv hanya dmmtmkzn mpenngkzx rayuan dmauapan HMT a-¢\nngka« kes pendakwaan‘ maxs HMS Ialah mellhzl semula kenerangan sP23. spza, sP29 dan spa: semasa K95 Pandakwaan dilim mamvemmbangkan kesemruhin kes sehemm memhual kepulusan z: HMS berpendapat ksnerangan pemnexaan hukan filwan (erkemudian zsnemmugm atau penafian (mars denial) kerzna kexerangan mereka dsakmvg aleh kewangan saks>-sates: (evmasuk saksmaksw mpanngka ks: pendakwaan mg. a. HMS mengaxakan, «eon rnfluancs nsdd/W9 tfleh Pendakwaan adalah salu andalan (ammpnon) flan bukan laku lm duakun men sw hahawa Ianya adalzh andaiannya saha‘a sedangkan wing yang dllenma le\ah mnuxuxsn ashagal n knnsukasx dafl mgasxxmamax yang dllakukan nleh R1 2 HMS berpendapa| adalah menjzdl sa|u keadaan yang janggm (awkward) nka rayuan varhaflap pambebasan R2 dwlank balvk sedangkan m dwkatakan bevsuhnhal dsngan R2 dawn wsu influence peddling ml walaupun HMS melmm mi sehagal sam crrcumslanlral svldsrrcs sahma I Mengenaw pemmuhnn AMLATFPLIAA lerhadap RI‘ Pendakwaan petlu buklikan melzmpaui keraguan munasabah .9 sw .~c.qm..uzwum.vwm «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm hahawa wing yang flnenma adalah nun an akuvm harzm (5411)) R1 mengalakan nasn wane yang mperuleh adalah den sumber pendayatan yang sah NMS m=mu|uskan kesemua Wang yang drlenma bukan flan ammo yang hdak sfih dun 9993!: pemmkan nana adulah sah Kegagakan mambuklikzn kesalahan pma.xe« menyebahknn perluduhan dvhawah AMLATFPUAA lvada zszs unluk berdvi lag: - mwkan «em amuan xapaaa xen PPV Charm Yuk Ming am) uuuwa. Mengenm R2. rayuan |arhadzp uembebasannya lelah mlank bahk oleh Pmak Pendakwaan psda 15112022 maka HMS berpendapm Fendakwaan lalah mengambwl maklum dan belsemju dangan ks: pembalaan darn bersaluju dengan alasan nngkas yang (Shh mbenxan a\eh HMS dalam membual kepuluszn penankan bahk rayuan |e:sehu| Menganai perluduhsn xemauap Ra, Pendakwaan pevlu membuxnxan xes semngga melampam keraguan munssabah CV2?! kevanz HMS memuluskzn baham kes rasuah (kes pramken) gagm dvbuknkan maka kes AMLATFPUAA hdak men herflln lag! (/airs) 1..-mm pma, R3 ads: msmbenkan ke|erangan bahawa wang dwsuma ada\ah dan peqanjlan pennam danger: R1 Mika‘ wing msebul belsialus wzng sah flan bukan ham akuvm haram [211 Kenumsan hahaws wwud slemen mnusncs Pedd/my man RI dalam menggunakan pengamh R2 lelah dlpumskan Laleh HMT‘ maka saya um akan menyenluh alau menyemak samula keplflusan |eIseb1A (hha| kes Azmi Osman V pp (21215) 5 cu us) Rujukan Ievhadap uapacan 2n sw .~c.qm..uzwum.vwm «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm ummuua Pemmahan can Kalapan Tlmplhn mw Juhnr mehkukln apaapananum yang sebeunmyndengan badinawam uumuammuumux mamapman mman pe4:va«n1E um! rumah xmsm 2 lmgkm Yype A :2 un mmalu kluslxv 2 nngki|Type D‘ |5urm ruman um. 2 unguanyp. n‘ 11 unit mmah Huilav 2 Make! Typo c dll|13 um mmnh umm 2 Imgkal was 2 a... s lnthumlpmzrl mama. pembglw mm darn penguringan bayavan wing sumbangan Yabursg Puwuahan Niven Juhur l7ifiIFm1ek Yimln Eco Baum‘ Muknm mm mm Bahm din eengan Wu kamu Han mumm ulu Kesalanan dx Nwah nkxym 1s(I)(E) Ml: Summrllnva Feoaealhan Raiuan mm zoos flan heleh dmuknm .1. Damn xaluyun 2: AMI ylng sum“ [7] Psmmman Ian-Iadap R1 — 5 4(1}(a) AMLAYFPL/AA -mm knmu mm :5 Mwemhev 2m: an 2: Dan: 2014 u. Mnhayin Bxnkmg Eemm Ciwmqin |.irk\n Perdana Nu ssau, Sulur um" Puvdlrm 1 um-n Pavdana‘ dalam Dinah Juhorfinmu. m «mm Negsn Jena: Dam! Tlknm. man mzlwhitkan am duhm pengubahan wing Mum mm Knnuksl ylng mulwbalkan mm dmpad: aklwm Mum mm pelupusan wing barlummn m 3.500 can on mam mm (7) upmg mk mum Bnnkm Bemaa mu ‘ mk mom. 156577 n..,...m.y. am am mom 2 cu bcmnmlmt mass mqman um moon on 3 nek tmmmlmt 3:755»: bew1«m\ah nu zaomu on ; nek bemomhuv mm u..1..mx.n m mama on 5 wk bomnmhut mama u..1..mx.». am am moon 5 ..x nmm..2zs42 bznummh am saomu no 1 uek new-ummauzzaoa mm» m zmwau no mum zux Azam 5. ca, numhnr um ssisfiasoaazn yang man: we mempukun >muum.anmxumramaznm mu, klmu rsum..=v.m.n sumu ksalahan m bzwlh Seksyen 4101:) Am Fancsaalun Peniubahzn sm wcvqumuzwunnavwuvw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dnuumnl VII mum pom! lersehul selepas W nanya sekaflar perbmczmgan hag: myuan penyexaaan mengapa wanya velevan dalam kepuhtsan aaya mengenaw rzyuan W [22] HMT neran memuluskan wuiudnyz Influence peddling‘ warm R1 menflflunakan venganm R2 unluk manaapaman kalmusan, muruadvkan wang xonsunas: yang mpelmeh adalah wang suapsn kerans wuwd ma! gahal mp hak R1 HMT juga memumskan bahawa R2 ma» bekeuaszma dengan R1 nagx meruayaksn kesshhan RI Juga |e\ah mpumaxan bahaw: R2 man menenma raaaan kewangan me\a¥uI pensunanaxan yang dflakukan barszma R1 Makz akhimya mpumskan, Wang yang duenma cevemmana dalam nenuaunan adalah wang daripada akhvm harem [23] lm aaaxan poslsmya aamasa kas dlbanlangkan wnaaapan HMT dan ke||ga—nga Raaponaan |e\ah dvparmiahkan unluk rnenmaxa din HMS memumskan pambe\aan mereka menu-man kevida aim vemelasan yang hmeh dnenma uumk mematahkan anggapan mnawan 5 5a [241 D: haflapan saya, lerdapal hznya 2 rayuan Temanap R1, dlbawah 51513) dan R3 dvhawah AMLATFPUAA Rayuan (erhadan R2 man mlank bank. [25] TPR barmuan, xsnpa R2‘ Penuduhan mhadap R1 dsn R3 masm holeh bemm aengan sermm nan mak akan memhenkan kesan kepada layman namadap R1 darn R3 Pada pendapzi aaya rmmgkm wm henar ukz R2 udak ammun nayak flan awa¥ din Iekadarsanrang saksl Pandakwazn [26] Fakva kewuyudan R2 hdak bmah manggap asmg alau hdak velevan kerana pengamh yang mkaxaxan fllgunakan auan R1 adalah pengamh R2 Wang yang dflenma dan mmzsukkan dz\am akaun ALAF yang xemumannya m masukkan aalam akaun R3 (malavm cek) asahwa 2. am wcym1mu1wm:F4aPwHvw «ma a.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm ma mm-y mm: dun-mm y.. muNG v-max anenma oxen R2 Unluk membenmk narauf kes pendakwaan Ierhadap R1 flan R3, ketarangan R2 adalah mevan [271 Dan peruelasan yang mnenkan ok-ah R1 da\am pemneuaannya paaa nnnangan ksbarangkallany msnjsliskan kemungkman yang aan (valid) hanawa wsng yang anenma adalah dan servls Konsultasv RI dalam umsan mg man menyalam manz—mana pemnmkkan undangdlrvdang Urusan mendavilkan Denguransian kadar ca; Danukaran «am |ersebul ada\ah saw uvusan yang mnenarkan (lafimmals) nauu salu paluang atau permahanan yang mnevenkan aleh Kemjaan Negen flan dasar yang «enn mereka senmn wmudkan [25] Apakan kesan penankkan bahk vayuan R2 Ierhadap kes R1 dan R3? says nerpenaapan yang pasnnya. penankkan nsnx rayuan Iemaflap R2 naga bearing alau kesan semasa kes W dlpumskan men nuns lm kuanay Dada masa ceraenun ms sudah membual penuauan ketevangan pembelaan dam xenganga Respanden sanamsnya nms (Iflak bolsh mangaI|kzn kepumsan YPR unluk manavvk bahk rayuan daham alasan hehaug kerana kepulusan tevhadav xea te\ah dvbuat Iebm awal. [291 Perasaan awkward HMS nrnnul aenab heuau menyemsxan anasannya se\epa.5 mendapa! Ianu vayuan dunk bank yang mane naak perm dlnyztakan da\am a\asan panghaklmannya karana wanyz bukan sa|u fakla aiau keadaan yang wulud samasa belxau membuat keoulusan membebaskan xeuga-ma henuduh [301 Oleh yang demlhuan, saya nerpanaapen kenyntaan aaaemunan oxen HMS (hevasa ‘awkvlmnfj odaldah |ar]um\ah kepzda salu sz\ah zvah 1ImsdrrucborI)dalam belnau memuluskan kes um Luanan HMS lrll ma max memadlksn alasan behzu mxanegonxan sebagaw nmspeamng yudgmsn: syn wcyqumu1wunF4nPwHvw "Mme a.nn ...n.mn be used m mm a. nrW\nnU|Y mm: dun-mm wa nnum Wm! 21 [341 sunggumum henna, pananxan bahk rayuan Aamadap R2 my ada member: kesan kepada rayuan R1 dan R3 flmadapun say: flan seq: keslnambungzn narzul kes pandakwaan Saya mengzfakan Im kerzna kepuhlsan galapasan HMS (emadap R2 kekal. Eermakna, TPR te\ah gags! membuknkan kes sahmgga melampam keraguan yang munssahah (emadip R2 Mnka‘ (akin bahawa suapan yang mkacaxan dilenmn man R1 dan R2 gagm mbukum Iamadap R2 R2 juga max dibukflkzn bersubahal dengin R1 uan R2 «max fllhuknkun menenma wang flan aklrvm heram melalm cek—oek syznkal ALAF saya memjuk kepada kes Douglu Ding Jangan v Korljnn Nlgwi Slnwak (24:21; 7 cu as: sebaaan vanduan vnnup yang dlsrnpulksn an perenggan 3 kepulusan kes sepem henkut ‘(N am: aweahnu ivamslllteaecmon mm: mm Cuun afluwvnw para 250) Mine auxamanme dmm. me mspomem: mus! bedeemad In aaaaam. mun cam wbstamwn finding mind that me zppaHants and/or Ihoen mom may vevresenmafl mqmrad and/orcmalad ¢ommun:\ «ca nverme cweared ms ma xubnznnve finding m 11:1 could um be reversed av "4 um: wmmm hawg vevheuvd bywayova subsunnve apnea! undarr same nu aynmapneauna mm. M: dacmun. ms uevsvmaenu we uslnvbefl em aamam-u um me aeasmwa. wrung and oughuo be vevvrsed or 5:1 and: (Pave 40)’ [:21 Keadzan im (hanawa rayuan lemadap R2 dilank balikj max wujud dmadapan HMS semau bellsu membual Kepulusan Dlpenngkal rayuan. Ianya saw penemszn pemmaan Says boleh mempemmbangkan, bukzn sakadzv szrnada HMS belul dalam memhua| sesualu kawulusannya‘ Imam sqaunmnna pembexaan R1 uan R3 |arkesan dengsn slams kepumsan mmakmr kes Renaakwaan lemadap R2 [33] paadlrng yang dahulunya dvkarlxan dengan pengllbatan R2 yang mana Dalam scenario im ‘ugz, saya peflu mellhat kesan evemen rn/mam 2: am .~c.qm..uzwuan.vwm «ma Snr1n\nnnhnrwH\I>e used m mm In: mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum v-vrm kw, Hams sumber venaavuh vnv hdak Vim ¢-nemka: Perbmcangan mengenm kes Momng Mzhlwangsa akan says senluh kemufllan fla\Im alasan says: 1/Eferpart mm‘; judgment) [:4] Mengenaw manzn TPR bzhwa HMS lelah menyemak semula (rswsro kmmsan um ksrina menem semuls kelarangan dan sak» saksl pendakwasn. flan pengamalan says, was belul dawn membual pemlaian semma secara makslmum sebemm memuluskan Pendakwaan gzgal membukhkan kes melampzm karzguzn munasahah [as] samamangnya, HMS pevlu mahhif kembah knarangan mu iecara keselumhan lermasuk dx penngkal Pendakwaan Dengan hev|7ua| demikwan, (idak bermzknz beliau Ie\ah rm/1:1! kepnfluszn prlma lame yang man dvbual ulah HMT mu jslas dan a\asan HMS yang max lag! menyennm mwsu yam Nmbul ax pénngkatpnma me. [35] Dawn kes Manlmaran Arnas v PP(2fl14) 1 ms nu, walaupun Mahkamah Rayuan mengatakan bahawi ma \agA kapafluan \m|uk merska msnyemak kamhah kepulusan puma fame yang amuanoxsn Pane! Mahkamah Rayuan mg terdahulu darn hanfi perm msllhat kepnda kelevangan pembehaan samafla wanya baqaya merumbulkan kavaguan |emsdaD xes pendakwsan narmm Mahkamah Rayuan mg: mengambnl pemauan flan mengeszhkzn pemzkanan pelunmkkan 5 152A Kamm Talacara Jenayah dan kauulusan kes PP V. Mnhd Radzi bin Abu am; 12041515 MLJ 393 Siva Deuk pereman yang herkan [211 W: were mmdM at In: pmvwswon eisechan um an In: Cvxmxlm Fmmduve Gods wmch Iaquuss me mm! In cumrdav :H In awduwn at In: oonduswon m mam msexmgewauw nen:essanVYerILav\ the wnsduanan oflhedevenae m m. hghl m 0.. pmszwhuns mg n ma hath made .1... by m. Fadnm Com m ma casa or PP V mm: mm hm ADM saknrizoasy 5 am as: whev: gr 1: sum (Ms. :4 sw .~c.qm..uzwum.vwm «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm we mun. uuun a mlmmum eviluinan mm: avxdamz phund buium mm» umemmnpvouwuon saw‘ cam zaawnumnmaza pm. hue usehasnalbeenmmeaul wlshmldioqunlheiccusnfl mm: m. mm mm: m. man my muduchnn : maxmwm wxmzlmn m m. evmenee comes w 01: eunclusmn max a pm: Var.-e ms: nu been mm. but n mu! c.I\l hr :2. animal w Ina accux-d mm was In mam sdem. me awn muflpvuaeed aommum Vnsmtapecuoms can my Ihan V:-nssus me wmence mm m dalzmwm vmamar m. Dresenunun had eiubhshed ms case beyond reasmable mm me Absence ul -my evidence lmm the amused Iha| ugh . rexsnnlbls mum on me woucuuarv: can rwvdns me nnma rm case an: max Vs eslshhshed beyund masnruue um: - [371 Says: sendm wga «max am memhmzangkan aapamn pnma ram HMT ksvanz prlnslp yang dipuluskan dalam kes Axmi Osman mengwkal saya Mahkamah Rayuin tdalam ks: Azmr Osman) lelah sacara spusifik rnenyebul bahawa dapacan Hakim Mahkamah finggl (erflahum ndak boleh dwsemak semula nleh Hakim Mahkamah Ylnggv yang levkemuman dan nanya hanyi bnleh duahkan (alfinnod) alau dnolak (overruled) ulah Mahkamah Yang Vebm lmggl Saya penk kepumsan tetsebm ‘I251 wxm respect‘ we in: at was wen max um Ieamed HCJ2 had Med men us msmmea me findmfi: all!» may «cm whn ma amm III: ucusefl (D nnlnr enmuemmoan mo luuvmargas. orvappsd Yhedamvnannssue Lhaluugm |n gum: me ncm mm! ‘H nealwu mm . xmAnlIun01l|7Ils m lzecama ms pveflmmiry mun musvn! "man, I): 111: «an um what lire Hcu made mac daemon rm mm: m be canea me mm was calvymg nul ms npvaum .w.samn Gnmed um ma mg» Cami ‘ummcnnn 1; cnovunvave vnwg nu; muss xmevem .. (Hal cancuvl .. (he Vac! Ihal a Hmh cm mu: mm: avenma anmhar mg» Conn Judve Mm run mldu . dlmlun :l m. <:nu:u\ mg: :1 Dreaeedhvgs m use same case m we wnlaxl at m: app“! below: us the mm ma metered me iwusefs aelence In be mm in ...m« nu ma lmr dvargu I-vaflsd agavul mm ‘mm wnmmn m man man purpome am, 2; sm wcvm:mu1wux:F4aPwHvw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! um by the HCJ2 is having been cammnled hymn Ham mm raspacl Ines mums own ovboveah xlmum men: he an aapaal agamel me «mm mm Hm: nu mm was :5 much .5 a H-gn com Aldus’: decmnn flue: um mm m; bvamururnllav wag: mm: mgn Cami mm, 1-,, maxim: mm, rmthav does .1 he wun Ms brclhet ur svsw wave of me man com to memm Ms daaunn m um. um: us: m . sm.m. mw Dravmlmg M W: mu‘ m. Ms M me HCJ2 :5 only man ca 5:: whamer me deienee meme as Wed hm Auacaedeu m ueunm: . reasaname mu: m me puma /we cue .. mm by me HCJ1 mappeaw by the proscenium Wnh mpea (ms must be maimed smnan .. mm: Inc owner mm». mnua be 5 WI! emmuylfl by the Cum! errivveaw m Sula»man‘s can lsnpval Coovumatzelurwdwcnun aonnnles um and .5 mm noes noladmn rm yermwl mum-\ memdmfl av -mnuw-n each Wuefx decision Dmy . mghnr apDIa\ mam nan dsslwb omrv or amm- . >4-an cums dwsren‘ [as] Walau nagamnapun, dz-flam memhuat penllaxan Kepu|us.an ms, saw bavpendapzl liadz kerilapan men HMS ma panalmzn semula dlhual terhadap kesemruhan xeeevangan mu, levmisuk xeoeranaan bukn dalam kes pendakwian Salem kzs mnlmmn Anus yang dvujuk an alas, say: iuga menuuk keyada kas any swu An VPPIZGZJI 1 LNS 11421 dimana Muhkamah Rayuan mengesahknn kepanuan Im sebagavmsn: mtnwah [I7] Yhe Veamed mlwdwe omecliy vsmmea mmsaf arms duly al In: am: an the cum. can Much 1: M m. Cum m cmmdar wlumur me aelanca mm bv the nweuam ma cast a Ieasonuhle mm m we pvuucmms use u u mqmmd umir . 452A 94 the cmmm Fmcmuva cm. Ann m ...m».g ms mncflon Ihe ma! cm must wnssded an me evidence aauucm belme u, Indudmg muse adducsd mmng me proseculmrfs sane Sue Md Znmuddm Raulsn v mu: PmsucuIav{2H12/ 4 cu 21 Fe, /2013]: ML./ m.:2m1a um: :51 - [391 Tech mg: dmujahkan namm nuns lush kmlal kerins menggunakan 2 beban berbna unluk m psmhelaan Say: aapau umuk memalzhkan an-ugapan mbarwih s so‘ heban yang dvgunakan nlah HMS zs sm .~c.qm..uzwu.mvwm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm aaarah Dada mmangan ketwavallgkahan dzn unmk rnemutuskan kes mam: kes pembelaan, HMS merwuk kepada beban melampaul kevaguan munasabah, dzn vu adalah beml (nquk kes Moomln am Szdxkalllulluh VPP 12:71:) MLJU 1721 dan PP V Vuvanj{19E.v)2 MLJ 89) [401 Manaensl Kapulusan HMS yang memuluskan n kcnsuflasl yang dnenma‘ mm suapan, saya menenrna keputusnn aw yang mengalakan, due )0 Influence pend/mg, the sum rscelvsd was mm on mrsnnon whrch (antamourmo a corruprmcm (mm kas Mumny) Saya hanya akan menelm samadza anggapan :24.-m msangxar. on me balance af probabmlres (vuiuk kes PF v. Yuvln/‘ (ma) 1 ms 115) dan salerusrwi samana mu kas melamviuv keriguan munasabah Ie\ah mbukuxan alah TPR [41] Adakah pengataan kewuludzn elemen memum pengnmh m. (e\ah msangkar (pmvsdlo the contran/)7 Saya menemu kularangan pembelaan R1, R2‘ R3 dan jug: saks\—saks\ pendakwaan ynng lam, (armama saksu» saksi pemzw rumah Szya jug: memhaca kelerangan 5!‘-'55 dun sP55 yang mengumkan kewangan syankal Arav yang a‘ penandalangan bevsama dengan R3 Saya ,ugaxe<anmeIman keterangan mum kes pemiakwaan dari semuz szksrszkst mm memaharm "mm 'IJ<an sebagzw m pemberaan uan mm melvhat samaaa wmud peruelasan alau keraguan yang munasahah bani)/a flmmbulkan. [42] Say: uapan, secara ksselunmalmya‘ dan keadaan ram kes yang dwkemukakan‘ pevbuzlan yang dikamkan menenma Wang suapan sebagalmana dihmahkan man TPR bukan sa|u patbuzlan Izsuah yang mlakukan dengsn jabs men RI (rm! 5 szmgm farvmm act ofancsprmg gmhficarton an ma par! arm; 2: N .~c.qm..uzwum.vwm um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm my wnu aaaxan xarana, bukan sshala aan kalerangan pemzaaaan latapt N93 darn saksr-saksw Dendakwaan sendvl udak menafikan bahawa R1 sememangnya menjalznkan pemnumaxan sabagaw kansullan dzn dia dxkenaln Nah pemaprpemajn dalam wang vm. my Dmm. rm mengallh pemanan saya Kevan: dapavan HMT Yang mengalakan wuyuu elemen Influence peaanng yang memhawa kepada kepmusan uaknn yang (erpala|av_ bahzwa Ianya sam pemuman yang rnempunyaw ma| yanan dan mamburukkan Insmusw pcrkmdmalan awam [45] Benav. mengwkut kes Muong rmawangn psvlakuan manna‘ psngsrvh ulka \1Ibuk|Akan)marupakan sam perbuilfln yang benemangan flengan pohsl awam hzwah a ma) Akla Kunlvak1950\znms rneruadlkan peuznuzn ztau kumrak yang dwuwk flalam kas Izerkanaan Isrham (void) [45] Dalam membmcangkan xes Morong Mnnawangn ml. taya mengmgalkan dm sayu, sekah Iagly hahawa aaya mak akan menyemak davatan Hm xardanmu. saya nanya Ikan mehhal iamada pemaaxaan R1 yang mengstakan n yang dwenma admin din khwdmalkansnmasw yang ssh menglkul pallsw yang dvbuzl man Kemjaan Negen amuknkan Elan sabavknya [471 Saya rnenami secara lemenncl kers Murung Mlhawingsa dan hdak akan mempanumnkan pankan dam kes lersehm secara panyang Vehar (emu paaa pemahzman saya, Isu yang mmncangkan nemsa. kepada szmada ' an agrasmsn! la pmvvds aamcas m Influence ma dscrsron of a pm: ascmon maker to award a contract I: a contract opposed In pun/m pa/toy as defined under s 24(9) arms Contact: Act 1950 and [rs] Merefizre von1"— pevsnggan :7. 2. am wcym1mu1wm:F4aPwHvw «-ma my n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. nrW\nnU|Y mm: m.n.n wa mum v-may Mahkamah mengalakan [451 Mshkamah Persakutuan I315?! memwx kapada gamaga. unflang— undang kes flu Enguand flan jug: mm; dengan memes dan Iervenncv (sxtensma/yy mam mangakm din msnqssahkan bahnma mnuanee peddling bukan Vagx saw kesflahan (mm) a. Mzlzyswa (nquk pemnggnn 45; Namun‘ dawn memhlncangkan lenlang "public policy“, pslenggan 55 sepem benkur [551 Onma aumorlfy nflhusa um Plump! mm Ihaflm possmre Iodedune me lolhwuni nnnaptes undeflymi «ms ms :24 mus nanny mulsganevafly undsswimalhalapusun m aposmemousae nersanahnfluelvce m ommn 1 cam: for malher smm mnk: n fwuncml Dlurge lur umng such umuenci‘ pamculany w m. mammary mvavexlwm not he appamm, am mu m .3 undtslrlme for Inlzrmemlnes m mug: Var usmg vmuuncn m chum D-wnvu.1s uvwnev mum: «mm parwns m 3 pubflc poiIuov\' [491 Dan semusnya Mankaman Pariukuluan man mengalakan sepem a-aawah. yang mans (emh dlveuk uan «mm oleh TPR da\am huiallznnya sehagaw nas menggunz pakaw ekamen in/(uarvce peddling‘ [75] Ssmcm 24 1x a wmficlnun at m. Engfiih Common Law nmerom. ax us century in Mailman Nhuc voucy am a num a. um um munuy nr vllunbh cumdulttnn, u. un III: nnilllnn and Inl-ml to moan" a bcmm mm m Govunmom. :5 Inc sax. M mnum. -ng-mm cauupuon Ind undumlnea mu: Dmlfldnncn :.. hi Gav-mmnnl. lumen 15 Inlmlcal In puwc In!-ml n was muasmmus m mm lha| ‘when me iwemmenlafluuub Ihemsewes me nu mums allhe wmashrezd Dunne: at mmmg comma: ov pvnpds to Iran names men w/My (ms pramoe ‘s acvevixme xn Maaysxa ma hence such ankemsu m use a pmm gum cnnlxclx Ind ur slandmg mm canam gm/ammzm nlfiuals m my be pruwve mnlrans owrom; urmm as aaamsxnumc Douay m Mamysxu‘ —Penekanan mlambah 1; sm .~c.qm..uzwum.vwm mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [501 Eevsandsrkan nas an alas, TPR nennnan bahawa pemua|an m mengglmzkan penganm R2 adalah baflanlangin dengan nohsn awam yang mana boleh merwms kepafla perbuacan rasuan (endangers conupllon) [511 Dangan mengaphkaswkan pandangan yang dlutarakan dalam kes Alemng Mlhawanys: dan dan kalarangan pembalaan. aaya aapan zpa yang dllakukan ulah R1, Iaflu mempromoswkan an. nenau, aalam lingkungan (anus) xndusln rnelmanxan kanlraktar flan pamajuan hananahy bahawa hallau mempunyzw pangetahuan atau kelebman dzhm urusan mendapalkan yeuguringin kadir sumhsnniny max boleh dxkalakan dsngarue1a1ysa|u perbualan mg menyalam pohsw awam [521 Dan kosaluruhan pernaxasan yang dxbuat cleh pemhemany saya oerpanaapat, sekadar dlbuklvkan R1 manganzh R2. yang memnakan samang EXCO hdak mencukupw umux mengalakan RI te\sh menggunakan pengamn R2 dangan mat jahal kerzna perbuatan yang mkalakan max nannorax tersebm auaxan pexanaan yang an R1 sebagav perundmg/knnsullan dan flalam kepakanin hehau sekwan Iarnn Fakm ml lelah menynngkal, alas imbzngan kebzlangkzfizn, hahawz pevlakuan R1 lerssbul Ieuumlah kanada naemnaax pengamn R2 Maka. vanmasan R1 hahawa wang yang dxlenma ada\ah n konsunasl. amen dnenma [531 Dz\zm kelerangan pembalaan jugay meveka mengulangx ram bahawa xarayaan Nageri Juhur (e\ah mewmudkan ggnsn memhenalkan permuhonan “Bum! rsleiss" dan pengnrangan ca. dan ><era.aan Megan ks atas pemaw-pemaw perumahan Maka pevhualan R1 menyedxakan kmdma| nasxhal dawn penyedwaan dnkumen bukznlah salu pevbualan yang herlen|angzn dengan vchm awam kerana new tersebul an an wcym:mu1wm:F4aPwHvw "Nuns s.nn ...n.mn be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mm; m.n.n y.. mum am WEHE Hlrnm an Penmvahan remmysan Kegamsan 2am (Am 91 :1 my wee. dlhukum m human Sakxyen am Akvz yum sam- [sl Psrmduhan Isrh-idap R2 — s 25(UIr:I ASFRM din s 4(1)(a)darI nu AMLATFFUAA -amw. knmu pad: o2u42m4_ em M-yam Is\am\c Berhld Cuwmaan Lamn Perm: yang bmilamat m Na 5 din 7‘ Jahn Smut Duwzll Sam. Llmn Fenian. duhm Dueuh John! Bahm‘ dalum Neqeu Johan smgm Fengemu Jawalankuua Pemmlhan am Kaagnn nmpm. Nlgun mm man berwbuhat dengln Amusnannmm bxrmbd me No rap 73o52Ln2r 5255 yang ucavl usulh mm: mmm ulu mm, mm wxrvg bequmlnh RM smegma on danpada Ahmad mm bm OIt1m:n,mt\almoek uos Bank Eamm bamnmbur M9754 mmk Syankm Em mm De~4e\opm:nl Sun am ke dalam mun Mayhauk mam Bamad zm Ann: 2 Cu‘ Nu Akaun ssvssasvzou mm meodlpalkin mumsan pelapasan «a unit Iumah mm. 2 zmgm Yypl A, <2 um mmlh mm 2 «Wm mu u, is um! mmlh bduslar 2 nnilm type r2. H mm Nmah xmu 2 angxan Type c an 13 mm Iumzh kmslu 2 uwkzl was E dun G M Immwnulsm ksuldn nembeh mm flan pehgumvgan bi‘/avan wane sumhzngan rmmg Fsnlulhan Negev! Auhar mm Fvmek Eon amuc Mum mm. Jahur am. yang mm kesalahan huebm mm mm... mm pemutzalulan klmu din denqnn um knmu mun nmkmn sum kssalahan yani bmah «mm». m bawah seksyen 25 (1 M An: Sumhamlya Fumzgalurl Rnsulh Mxhyu: may mum beunml seksyen 1: (H151 din sakffan 24 Amym uma “ ‘Bahama kamu inlata n Dlxembor 2m din 25 D99: 2014 m Mz\a~/an B.umnv Eemm Cnwnngun man mam m No ssrnn, Susur LIMA Perdana 1. mm F-vdana, dalam Dazvzh mmzv an...‘ m dzlam Nbaeujunnr mm mm, mm melmalkan am daham pena-mam wing havam mum rvanuksw yang m.«n=1m huwl danplda xkxmn hnrnm mm velunuxan my uenu-man rm A.ssu,aoa no ma\a\m mm» was um um cek Malayan Earmng ammo mm 1 oexhenwmmr awzu banumih RM soamo no sm wcvmzmuzwunnavwuvw mm. smm ...m.mm .. .2... w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! sememannnya dwumdkan Fad: masa (ersebul uan nuga mzslh benerusan samngga nan W [541 Saw bevpendapal‘ pka TPR mengalakan pemang yang mamm oxen R1 xaqunnan kepada sasualu lmdakan yang akan menjajasksn kemaswanaxan awam maka nenu mbuxukan banawa vanya satu pevbuzlan yang smnn Tldak ada cadangan annual Kepafla mans-mans saksu pendakwazn hzhawa R1 lalah mallnglmakan penganm R2 da\am mendavalkan nersemiuan Demalu-wsmaiu melanhk R1 sebagaw kansunanrpemnamg Ma\ah kesemua saksn pemaw-pemaiu mengesahkan hzhawz bayzvan yang dmuzl ke dalam akaun Zul Alan: 5 Co adalah bayavan V1 konsullansx temadav Xena-kana konsmtan yang mnuan aleh R1 Kalerangan mereka menyokong pembexaan RI Make‘ szya narpanaapac, lakla bahzwa R1 mempunyal ke\ebman bemandmg yang lam udak maruamxan benau bersaxan alau mempunyaw ma| pnayzh (hsvmg am/amage ave! ma other does not make a person gumy ol cnmmal mtsnlron) [551 Saya mevwuk kepada mama raxuah menglkm deflnasl dzri pevunmksn undang-udang flan nas unaangmang yang sedxa mamap Dmam kes PP V Datuk H/‘ Harun Bin Nj Idris [Nn.2)[15§7] 1 ML] 15, maksud Delbuatan rzsuah adalah 'CnrmpI' main: duvrlg an an buvnwmg [hat on. an dun Ixwmng‘ am, so Mn avu ieehnis and any .n-amen: “ rm my many Kam V RsqI1957] ML./ we ‘purpnsmy flumg an ictwmch ma xaw fmmds' [551 samaa. pana pengumngan an, adahh sesuslu yang manglkm undangdmdang (legal), sayz memmk kepada kelerangan snksw-saksw flan hlqahan Dwhabpwhak dan mendapah Dada damn keflarangan szkswszksi yang menyebm Wlxsw nengurangan ca; den pelepasan Mama Burmpulera 31 am .~c.qm..uzwuan.vwm "Nuns s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm n. nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm wa muNG v-mm levsabm mam/a\abv undang-undang U//sgal) alau herlemangan dengan mans-mans pemnlukkan undang-undsng Maka xanya saw pufisw yang szh‘ dlbenmkan dan memam amalan men Kerqaan Negsn Johov walzupun selepas R1 mpenuuun alas keszkahan berkinnyn [57] TM: Juga barman bahawa Responder: ndak pm disabllkan danger: kesalahan predwkel (unluk keulahan AMLATFPUAA) namun seya nerpenaapag salah sa|u e\emen asas untuk kesflihan panggubahan wing hzvam adalah R1 dan as mengelahul hahawa wnng yang dmenma ada\ah flan akuvm haram Elemen Dengetalluan vm ndak Wag: umbm pk: was pemelasan bahawa Wang yang mcanma ada\ah bukan rasuah, |elam n yang dmenarkan [sa] Maka. selelah menehli kslerangan R1 dan R3 dalam pembalaan maaka, says aapau angnapan mhawah s 5D11)ASPRM |e|ah beuaya palahkan aleh R1 R3 juga |eIah mematahkan maven dlbawah way AMLATFAPUA dan ma kekmlafan mpmak HMS dalam menanma Dsruelasan mereka [59] Eemasarkan alasan sepemmana dlhmcangkan m atzs‘ saya berpendapal, uada kekhilalan dari segw \mdang—undang dllakukan aleh HMS dalam membual kepulusan pebpasan um, mzkz dengan WU rayuan nmyu dltolnk den penmah Pemhebasan aan Dewpasan R1 flan R3 me?! was a. kekalkan Eervaflkh 4 Dwsernber znza moon mun am HAJI mm Pesummayi Ks aklman Mahkamah Tinggv Ma\aya Johnr Eahru 2: N .~c.qm..uzwum.vwm um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Perwakuan-— Bag! pmak Perayu nmhalan Pendzkwz Raya Sunmamayz Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysxa lbu Pepahm Sumhsruaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malays‘: Bihagxan Perlmdangzn dan Pendakwaan mas cs, Elnk c, No 2 mun Wawasan Presml 1 52250 Putrajsyi Eagw pihak Responder!-Resnandan Azwzd Ihszn a. Ca Na 0501, Jalan Pad: Ema: 115 um Business Canlrs Bandar sam Uda atzun Jonor emu, Jnlwr sw .~c.qm..uzwum.vwm mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 2 cek bemomhov some bzdumrah nu saomu oo 3 cek bemomhoc um: eanvmwzn am scum no A cek bemamhuv 3.94461 ham-man um s4m,oou no 5 ask bumumbL7v4l1551I Demnvnulu RM ammo an 5 xxx hsmambur 447551 I hev|um\lh RM zmmo an 7 oek Demumbur405§3IDG1um\lh RM we mean a aek berwambur mass: bequmlah am mane on 9 wk bemcmbcr 41 2202 wmmuan ma moon on «a aek bemnmbor um: benulvnah RM 71500 as M mk hnmumbuv mans ber1um\in RM ammo no :2 uek mmmnomszuv benurman nu maoom 13 m bemnmbol 412221 benumlah RM 14 can no «A rek aemumwuazm bequmlah ma Iatwoooo <5 cek bvnwmbol «mo boqumlah nu: 1354100 no as ask mmmmuszas ueqummn m m use on :7 ask bemnmmzr :1 am befiumhh rm am nun no muhk zm Alan! 5 cu number Ikaun sstssasrmw um 551593512544 yam mam 1: m-mpakzn mu dnnpada akuvm mum din nlan m.‘ klmu Harv mtllkukin sum maanan a‘ man Seksyeh mm) Am moeaanan Pulgubahan Wang Hxrxm .1." Pencegalun Fembtaynn Kngaruun mm mm em) mg men dmukum m hzwah samm am An: yang sauna’ [91 Farmdulmn tsmadup R3 — 5 4(1)(a) 1137! (D) AMLATFPL/AA ‘Bahawa kalw pm 13 M. mu m am Muzm:|:| Cawzngan Juhcv Jay: Nnmbor :1 Jahn Ros Meruh 2/2n. mm Johm Jnya «mm Daemh ./aha aamu, m dxhm Megan Juhnr mm Taknm «gun meuenml wing n=m.m.n 5 sm wcvqumuzwunnavwuvw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! RM 30 am on mehaluu sewewfw cek cm: am Emmi cek hemombol 335345 m\|\ksyamalAAaIPnmaw:lu San am, yang dvmasukknnkedmuu .IkI\mB.nnk Muamaamm aen»mwo1uwuu2sw<o yana maruvlkan nasu danpada amm mum flan men ym, Knmu naun ntemkukin mm kcslmhan dv bnwah semen awn) Ana Puucaaahan pengunanan wang Hiram din panes;-n.n Pemlulylln Kennnasnn mm mm 513) ynrw buleh dlhukum ay bawah semen A(lD Am ya»: same‘ Pelisyen Rayuan [101 Alasan Iayuan adanan Iapemmana dalam Petlsyall Rayuan yang dwfzflkan dan secari nngkasnya, Fsrayu menglfskan aapem hervkm 1 Anggapen s 50(1) saga: drpalahkan men Respanden 2 ms menggunakan 2 heban pemnuunan yang berbeza dalnm memhum pemlawan keselunman kes penmaxaan 3 Responder: ganal menyangxax elemen “Influence pedd/mg’ 4 HMS menyamak semula (ravrsrl) uapacan dan kepulusan HMT yang memuxuskan (erdapal kezemngan kes prune laws 5 HMS memulusknn 6 yang mxenrna bukan suapan s Kesalahan m den R3 aamh hemsmgan dengan kesalzhan oleh R2 7 Kelemngan ke alas R1 manunjukkzn suapan yang mcemna ada\ah rasuah. 3 Wang yang mxenma me» R3 dlperoleh uan new aklwm yang ndak sah am wcyqumu1wm:F4aPwHvw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: flan-mm VII mum Wm! Pambelsan R1 darn R2 ads\ah man Kerkemudlan dan penaflankosnng m Dapalan HMS bahawa Ferayu berselulu dengan kes Penmexaan ada\ah wekuhasw dan hdak relaven hanya kerana Perayu menanx blllk rayuan lsmadsp R2 Analisa flan Danaoan [111 Salzagal mihkamah yang mendsngar rayuan, sflilah undan9' undang manlap unluk says belpendman hdak msngganggu kapulusan yang |e|ah um-m uleh mahkamah parhlcaraan melainkan lamyala kaputusin (ersebul msruvhnym saxsn gran‘ hdak menuruk underla- unaany flan Ierdapat kelerangan kuat yang menuruukkan hanawa ms nelan khilal an dalam manflaw ketarangan yang te\ah mmnukakan Samara Darblcaraan (mm kei vo my son v‘ Public Frosuutal (19991 4 sm 101) [12] ms Ie\ah herpemang unmk mzmbuat pengzmzlan, mendengar dan mampummbangkan xnmmnxu saksnssksx, make kalebman Kenebut perlu says benkan Pemmbangan yang wmar Saw menquk kepada kes Amri Ibnhim A Anal V. PP [2917] 1 CLJ 511 dlmanz Mahkamah Fersekuluan |eIah menyatakzn sapem benkut 151) u \s cm. \zw man m. m av me man may: as m lie cledlbwlxly no . mm: must he awen Brave: wmahv am cmwsudarzhmv An appeuzla mun snaum ha skw n msnm-nng Inch findmfi emu amvefl II by me mauudee me had me aauanuge or seemg and hezmg me wlmeu unlzls mam were subslarmar Ind mmveflwg mum «urmmveeyna' [<31 Mengenaw prmslp yang samz‘ dalam kes pw Hun Sun y. um’ Yip Ye: Fao[2D11) a Am 52, Mahkamah Rayuan |eIah memmuskan syn .~c.qm..uzwum.vwm «-um smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm ‘When Iiueflndmg ailtueuvlmflgeb lulu-al hawcver lhe!:c1find=(:deusmn mm x.. .1 mvm an lanes! ...v... m. dnasmn at the 91:1 fivvdwg vs wavmy wrong Yhe Hndmus M ran: at (ha um! um: an my be veveued when v: 45 pmmvew demunslulzdm me npveunlz cuun mu: m Iry vensan cl some nnnarecflau at mix-dIr:I:1\cm or ultverwwn the wave mm‘! m inn-plmg vvv. avmevtl much he av :11: an away: or us) vvv nsseqsmsi Ind evamalm K71: evmeoce mevmae vvu Izksn mm Icmunl lama mallar mm. M av we uughl not to have um vm awaunn or Vausd «u like min scuoum some matter mm vv. av she mum In have taken me zmmvvg Luv 4c; vn unmvstlkenw -epeuvs mm In: evwdenne vtxzw uv hum m. unsalnladmy masons gwan w mu Man cm aocemmg n, max he or shn cannot have um pmperudvanlaue aims av hsrhuvmfl Seen and heim Ilse wvlnessts. nr my Vnsnlir asvuevuege Ms velar! av vvvavvvvu and dervmanour. Ihau in alher cxmwvvsmlueswhxm Indlmle mm m: evvflevwe avme wllnzxs wvvvuv he mum acmplad vs l\€IH1!dVbI5,IIVl1HH:lIlVCI Mme [hast wnnussex have ovv was ueunleral mmvaemmmevy uwav an umme answer‘ [M] Dawn memhual penllzuan (emaflap rayuan vvvv, saya oevavv (elusnn avasavv HMS diuarmqkal kes pendakwaan, a\asan HMY dan sslemsnya aflssan HMS dlakmr kes pemnavaavv Penelmsn vvvv max bermakiud unluk menyemak semma zlau revisit kepumsan HMT‘ Ieflapl sekadar unluk pemahaman vemevan kepulusarvkepulusan yang te\ah avman Rmgkasan alasan-alasan av abs ads\ah aspen: banku| nunnmv urns diakhiv ku Fondnkwnn I15] HMS man memuluskin sapem benkut 3) Bag: perluduhan avnawavv s (6(a)(E), m hdak avmauvv sebagav pegawav alau men manz—manz hadan a|au pelbadanan yang svn .~c.qm..uzwu.mvwm mm. s.vv.v mvvmvwm .. LAIQ4 w my v... mvmvv-y mm: dun-mm wn mum v-mm flnsenaralkan an bawah defimsv ‘hzdan awam‘ menuml :3 ASPRM znns Olen nu m bukan mempakan semang egen alau pegawal badan awzm 1;) Fmak pendzkwzzn |elzh khflafmenggunakan S16(a)AB) ASPRM zoos unluk memakw: R1 Seksyen |ersehuI (Idik Kerpakav ke alas m msenenxan R1 max bulah diluduh a. bawah panmlukkzn talsehul maka nz hdak bole» dukatakan bersubahal melakukan kesalahan yzng rnzna R1 dlpenuduhkan umux bersubahat meslwlah (erdapil kesalahan menanma rusuan aver. pegawai hadan awam yang mlakukan aleh pesamh mama (prmcrp/9 arremsr) wamu R1 cy Ans s\asan Im saha;a R1 dan R2 pamn auepasxan flanpada perluduhan menenmalhersuhahal menenmz rasuah lanpa dipanggll umuk memnexa dm Memandangkan hada keialahan premxex (prswears oflsncss) dflakukan clah R1 dan R2‘ maka kasalahan penggubahan wang haram ke alas R1, R2 dan R3 Vangsung max bo\eh aunzngmm Dalnm keadaan nersehut kelwgarllga mereka pugs udak sapalulnya mpanggn unmk mambeka dm bag: kesamhan panggubahan Wang hzram :1) Sarevusnya RI flan R2 dl<a(akarI mempnskan cekak yang msruvakan hzsll akuvm havam‘ manskah R3 mkaxakan menenme cek-cek has-I anew havam (ersehm umux n kesavanan pengubahan wing harzm‘ pmak membu pendakwaan menirah memmjukkan bahawa R1 flan R2 melupuskannya din R3 manenma cemex hasil aklmu haram, dan cekmk nemenaan adalah hasnl aktwru havam sekmya pw-ax vendakwazn gagal membukhkan xesawanan 2 sw .~c.qm..uzwum.vwm mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm manenma/benuhihal menenma suapan dllakukan nlah R1 dan R2 maka wax nmnm kesavanan penggubahan wang haram 2) Pembelaan R1, R2 dan R3 lelah dludangkan kepsda asks»- Saks! pendakwaan yang n.a«ana\ bzhawz wang—wang yang dilemma nu bukan msrupakan mapan, iatapl sabahknya merupakan wang n kansuilan mg drbuyar oxen pemayu-pemsyu kepada R1 sebagal halasan pavkhwdmztan yang mbenkan men R1 kavada Pumaiu-Demaw levsabui unmk menaauankan kemlusan vebpasan status lo! bumlpmera kepads lot awam R1 man uikacakan memben mnyux ajar dzn menyedlakan kenas kena sebagaimana yang mkenenaakn aleh pmak Derkuasa negen bagw mnax Demaju r) Tumpuin HMS menjums kepnda kesalnhan menenma suipan yang mana pka sakwanya kasalahan W gagal mbukukan‘ maka xsu berkafl suhahal melikukan Keaalahan menenma suipan yang dlkalakan dilakukan nleh R2 adalah (idak umbm gj Kelamngan swza dan spas serla saksrsaksl pendakwaan yang lam yeuaa mammiukkan pembayaran kepada R1 bukan hanujuan sebaaau suspan malah n-erupakan n xonsuuan ham perkmdmman yang amenkan oxen R1 dalam memhanlu menyekasaikan masaxan pevepasan Im bummulela yang lldak (equal kepada status Icl awam nu TPR (slab berhwan nanawa spa sahafi bsyaran yang dnenma men m wamupun diben nama vi konsullan ianya (clap Ierjumlah kepada suanan. TPR mengemukakan 2 alasan dz\zm menyanakan bahawa wang aawarn akaun (ersebm mpemnem melahu genenmann suapan, xawlu m an wcyqumu1wm:F4ePwHvw «ma snnnw n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. annmun mm: dun-mm y.. mum v-mm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

NA-12BNCvC-14-05/2023

PERAYU PARAMASIVAM A/L SELVARAJU RESPONDEN AIMAN FAIZ BIN ABDUL MUIN

Perayu/Defendan memfailkan Notis Permohonan (Lampiran 3) di bawah Aturan 3 kaedah 5 dan Aturan 55 Kaedah 2 / Kaedah 3 (4) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 untuk Perayu/Defendan diberikan perlanjutan masa bagi memfailkan Notis Rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap sebahagian keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen bertarikh 18.1.2023 iaitu terhadap isu kuantum di dalam guaman No. NB-A53KJ-263-12/2021

07/12/2023

YA Puan Wan Fadhilah Nor Wan Idris

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4e5c2dd2-3c60-4bfe-be8a-cf6347d8cda7&Inline=true

07/12/2023 16:29:43 NA-12BNCvC-14-05/2023 Kand. 11 S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 0i1cTmA8/kuis9jR9jNpw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal m\—12ancvc—1¢—u5/2n23 Kand. 11 JV);/2224 ,5-19 :13 DI mum MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SEREMBAN DALAM NEGERI NEGERI szuauum NO. KES: NA-I:ar4cvc»IM5/znza ANTARA PARAMASIVAM AIL SELVARAJU .‘ ysmvu DAN AIMAM FAIZ am ABDUL MUIN mnzswonusu ALASAN FENGHAKIMAN remssunum 1 Perl‘/u/Dafsmian memaankan Nohs Permohanan 1LarIIn\Ian 3) m hawan Aturan 3 kaedah 5 Han Alurzn 55 Kaedah 2 1 Kasdah 3 14) Kaedzh—Kaedah Mahkzmnh 2:212 Imluk Psvayu/Defendan mhankan peflaruulan masa hag: memfavlkan Nous Ravyusn ke Mahkamah Tlnggi mnaaap sabahagvan kapuwsan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen benarikh 1512023 warm Kemadsp wsu kuamum di dalam gunman Nu NE—A53K.J—26l12/2021 2 Fsda 1992n2a. Mahkamah memuluskan bahawa psrmuhunzn Pevayu/Delendan dx Iampuan 3 |ersebu( dnalak dengan kos RNMUOD 3 max berpuashall dengan kepmusin Cersebul‘ PafayulDafendan Ielzh memt.-man Imus rzyuan IN 4 Llnluk kemudahnn‘ keduadua pmak akan mmjuk da\am kapasm meveka yang asal semasa an Mahkamah Sesyan iarm sebagai P\amn1dan nevenaan KRONOLOGI xss 5. was Rayuin ml berbangkn dallpada salu nunman kevnmangan man rays yang meumaman P\amM dzn Defendan Pada mvznza. selelah perbicaraaan sdesai dijalankan‘ Ham Mahkamah Sesyen tnrpelajar (HMS) |eIIh membenkan keputusannya yang membenarkan funlulnn Plamul 6 max bsrvuashah uangan sebahagwan aanpaaa kevulusan museum, pmak Plamm telah memlallkan Nous Rayunn |ernadap kepulusan HMS unluk isu kuanlum sahajz Fmak Delandan wgz luizk berpuzsnam dengan kepulusan ms lerhsdap wsu kuamum aan mm bercaflang untuk memfallkan Nails Rnyuan silang Iemadap Isu berkenaan 7 Fade 2132023, plhak Deiendan Iallh dtselahkan aengan saw salman vekod rayuan cleh plhak mamm Manglkul pemnnuxan an havmh A 55 xe KKM zmz, sekwanya plhak nmenazn bevniak unluk mamczilxan nous Izyuan sllang maka‘ nous raynan silang lelsshm hendzklah dflawlkan dalam tempoh 14 her: danpada mum penenmaan raked rayuan danvida P\amM. N .mr.m«mw.unw um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm nlal Plamul umuk menank balvk Nnlis Rayuin rnaruka. Tmdakan um telah mampwjudiskan Defandan kemnn Deiendan «em dmamkan haknya unluk mangamukakan mm: rayuan silang. 35 Eukan ilu sanaja, peguam oeveman Mu! menynuken bahawa semasa emnew berhnnsung, belvau ndak dvbsnkzn dengan mass yang mencukupx unluk mendapitkin arahan danpada anavguarnnya berkenaan dengan pemmhonan Plalnul umuk menank balnk nous rayuarmya sebelum Tuan ma manmavaxkan nous rayuan Iersehul 37 Dalam memuluskan perkara Am, mahkamah msnuuk kspadi sesw ueviaw benankh 5 4 ma yang mkanaankan Men Tuan PKP larpalqar Unluk labm JBVES. Mahkamzh telah merujuk kepada cangkap layav sesl e-rewew ssbagalmana dweksmbu MZF-( afidavn balann Devanaan Hzmpivan a) 35 Nlengvkut oaman e-renew Uarssbu|. mahkamah mandapan bahawa plhak Pnammaxan mengemukakan pennehonannnya untuk menank bihk Nuns Rayuzn |e:sebu| kepada Mahkamzh seawal pukul e as pay: Pads pukw no 25 my. Peguam Derenaan man munml mm. sasvwew un|uk merekndksn kenadvan heliau (slap! hdak msmben sebararlg raspnn szma aaa nersemu man membanlah lelhadap permohonsn Msmlfl unluk menank bahk Nuns Rayuan Iarsebu| 39 Panel Dukm 12.35 henqahan, luau PKF walah memberikan penmannya memnamlkan nous vayuan larsebul memundsrvgkan nan: sehavang respan dlrakndkan men plhak Delendan u n m1crmAarmsmRwNnw ma Sum ...n.. WW he used m mm n. mnn.u-y mm; m.n.n vn mum pm on Manelm canacananacan yang levdapal aw sesi mamaw Inseam, Mshknmah uevpanaangan bahawn kahman Daguam Davandan mengenal xagagaxan peguam Plamuf rnemaklumkan heh-u Iehm swal mengenal panankan blhk Nous Rzyuan lelssbul adzhh max bemsas 41 Peguam Defenflan lehh dlmaklumkan ae.ak awn mengenal permohonan Plalnlif unluk manank Ixahk nous rzyuan lersehul. \ e sejak pukul 836 vam Manama, Tuan PKP hanya benindak rnemkudkan pennlah pemhnlahn Nohs Rnyuan naraebm paaa wakhl oenganan 42 Pm panuangan mahkamah‘ mi bermaknzpeguam Delendan man dlbenkan dengan masa yang msncukum unluk mannuk pelkzva ml kepzda anaxguarnm unluk mendapalkan aranan sauna ads namapat bamahan daripada pmak Dafundan Iemadzp pamamnan Plalmll unluk menank bank nous rayuan fieaehul 43. Pada penngkan Inn Mahkaman berpandangan bahawa respan yang nngkss aanpaaa Dmak Dsfendan yang menumukxan hanlahzn mereka temadap pevmahormn im sudah memadm unluk ruan PKP mengambul maklum parkara lersebut aagannanaaun. sehlngga pukul 1235 xanganan. mhak navanaan gagal unluk memben sebalang respon 44 Farm dungatkan bahawa m an teknmom yang salba cangglh flan pamas inn sebarang findakan unluk mendapmkan aruhantevkinl flanpada anakguam umuk Isu yang jelas Gan (idak rumn sepeni an yang nemapax dmam kas W: I8 sama aaa merska mempunyaw hantahan lemzdap permnhunan unluk rnenank ballk rayuan ml lxfleh dI|7ua| damn (smpuh masa yang sangat smglcak :2 N m1cYmAa!msmRwNnw ma s.nn In-nhnv M“ be used m mm a. nflmnnflly mm; dun-mm VII .mm mm A5 Manxaman satsmanyl blrpandangzn bzhawa nrwdakan luau PKP yang hanya mambenkan xapumsannya pada puxuw 12.35 «sngmn selalzh pegullrw Deferwdarw memasukkan kehadwvanrwya pada pukul m 25 pagl benrwakna man PKP tewah mambarw maria yang mamadaw dan merwcukupl \m|uk peguam Deaenaan menaapmxan aranan «smm darlpadz arwakguzm memka 45 Mas awasamalasarw Mahkurrwah bervandangan bamwa kapuluszrw PKP unmx membatakarw Nntws Rayuan (uvsabul «swan dnbual aawam kehidwvlrw kadua-dna psguam Plawmwl dan Defendan dan larwpa sebalarwg bamanan darwpada pwhik nswsnasn owsn nu. awagasw peguam naoanaan aanawa pemhahlan Nahs Rayuan «susbm «swan msnwswasxan hak nawanuan unluk memfailkan n vayuarw adawah twdak barman! dan max hevaus 47 sauawixnya Mzhkamah berpandarwgan pembavalan nous rayuan wensmu «swan msnwswaskan nax Dafurwdan umuk merayu alas kepmusan «ms, wanya adilah belpunca dirwpada xsswwapan bahama seklrarwya dan kelalawzn a. max peguam Deferwdan dawam mengendawkan hrwdaknrw mw as Adawarw merwwadw pnrwswp undangundang yang n-an«ap bahuwa keswwayan darw kelalaxzn peguam max «mwan dijadwkan alasan urwluk menyakcng ssbsrang permohcnan umux pewaluutan masa, apatah wagw nxa «um sebararwg Denlewasan yang munasabalw yang «awan dibenkan unmk xswswman Ievsebm u N nwwcrmAawxuwsmRwNnw ma s.n.w navwhnw M“ as used m mm a. nwwnwruwwly uwwnws dun-vwnnl VII .n«.nc wnxw 49 Mahkamnh sekall lag: menuuk kapzda kes Pemwx Prsslu sun Ehd v. Damax amen Sdn and pman was any yang Isiah memuluskan I 121] /n ma Feoeral coun case nrcma Hua Sawmrfl Co Sdn and v Tuan Vuao/I nrn Tuan Mohamed 1197:] 1 ms 15, [mo] 1 Mu 59, the appananz reuse to ssrvs men mince ol appeal wllhin me prsscribsd onemnm perm, The Fsdsral Cour! msnmea we appq//anrs app/icauon tor an sxlsrmon of time and held as faltaws. - -1: rs necessary m wnslder whetnel saecw lesvs show! be given in ma me me arreawz rn support 0/ the Home arrnonen rs ma: ulMI Fan say snaa, M9 app/rcanrs so/mar In paragraph 15, Mr Foo say Ghee sand that hum February 9, 1973 mm: March 25, 1973 ne was noun a pmpsrand norms/stats olmmd m conduct his olfce work Inn was because ne was persorrauy mvoh/ed rn matter: much have nothing to do mm are app/reanrs use In such a stat» nfmind rre sard ns madvurlenlly ommed to mstmcl ma am to serve me name nu ma respondent or me raspaneanrs sa/mars Mom Is g gm ggrnrmon ma: an an or. nnlico was due to m ucnors mi:-nk-. Mudlass no :11 me: such misfikn is not . mm; M gunning smial gin rna: must be :17 far me obvious reason ma: 1! rs m7! pusstbla to draw a drvldmg nne bemean a mtslafim wnren can support me sxslcise 0/ n drscrezronary power and mat man cannot A rmslake rs a rnrszake whatever may be me reason turn- 1: N m1crmAarxmsmRwNnw we Sum ...m.. M“ be used m mm a. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum WM 12:] Funnel m the sass al Tan Chat Ham v M Sam; cnoon [1380 1 LNS 151 [1981] 1 MLJ 271, the appellant med MSW appeal our ol me Is their so/lcllnrs had mlspfacsd me me In dlsmlssmg me Bppllcalvorl lor an sxtansmn or me. ms calm made the lullowmg observallon - "It was an Mgolrm snli mm; mo ggylnnx m -mm, muemahlt alllmm gg mun that me gym gpggul was mad wlmin an aim: Emgul for brlngim the mag; won mg an m: lllo was mlmla .. Thurs are numerous rspofled declxluns, Dom my and m England dea/mg mm the palm m rsm m Mfs case The casss show Ms! live cam! has a dlscrnllon m m mans! whlcn must be exerclsedllldpcla/ly sllw mnsldenlvg all me clrcumslancss anne case my also show ms! [or an appllcahun lo extend nine to sucoead llvsls musme clmllmslancss wmcn wananl ms exsrclss alme own‘: dlscrallorl m lavomanne app/rcalvf. Then? 15 5/505 long /ms nl cases whlch snow Iurmer that - minke or ovmggm on an Ear! M mg lggllclnfs salicllnr or on me an gl mg golicitofs clerk Is not a nmlclun gmund for gr.InliI_Ig an -ml-alon vlfinlu 2:: file 5 mm olngg-I or . m_Imor:m.1um or gotiflon olggfllt [291 In Van Van Yeik v Jemgglv Pengadllan Sam Pula mam A AnoI[1fl§l 2 cu 52: 1199512 MLJ 54, ms cum 9/ Appeal new as lollows ~ "The glarlnng In dlsmlssalo/an app/lcallnn forextsnslon alums ls very much a alsmllonmy malren bu! m lhls lnsmnce we wen; loan: [0 sxslclss our dlscrsllon m lavour or me appllczinl, pamculafly as no rszxalvab/9 and sccsplable exp/anatiun had been glven rm me lbw weeks'o9Iay T71; omlnlorl In Ill: an .5 N m1cYmAalmsfllRfilNnw mm Sum IHIWDIY WW be used M mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm r I no v nan: can hire! bu ducrih-d as an aceggbla e1_rgI-nltIon"." so Berdasarkan olamwlorm dx am, aaanan ‘alas hahawa kesilanan pmax neguam Mak balsh dqadlkan mssan un|uk Mihkamah IVII membenaman nemlnhonan unluk pedamulan mas: 51 Mahkamah ‘uga menuapau bahawa uaaa aebarang anasan yang memuaskan yang |s\2h mbenkan nleh peguam Dedendun unmk memelaskan kagagilan prhaknya memlallkan nmislayunn snanglersebul aalam Iempoh masa yang dlletapksn sebagavmana yang dvpevunlukkan da|amA 55 x 5 KKM 52 Mahkamah Auga mendapam bahawa paguzm Delendan few: gaga\ unluk bemndak dengan cekap unmk memhen Ieipon yang sepalutnya xepaua PKP yang bermgaa lerhadap pelmohonan pmak Flsmhl untuk menank ballk nous rnyuan pads sea: uaysew. 53 fiada sebarani venjelasan dlbenkan mengapa peguam neienuan gagal umuk menmenkan sebarang reason nag. mhak oevannan Milaupun berdasalkan camsn e.-rawaw, peguam Dalendan mampunyai masa Ieblh dari 2 ‘am unmk berlmdzk bag: pmak anakguamnya. 54 Kagagaxan pmak ueoenaan unluk msmbenluan peruelasan yang munasabah (emndap kehdakpamhan msreka dalzm msmfaflkan nulls rayuandzham Iempah yang mcavapxan bermakna bshawa uada asas yang kukuh unluk mahkamah mempeklmbangkan pennonanan Im 16 N m1crmAarxmsmRwNnw ma Sum ...n.. M“ be used m mm a. nflmnaflly mm; dun-mm vn mum Wm! 55. Mahkzmah msmjnk kapada kes Zanna Mohd Ali v Urwersrfi Mmaysta Fahann [2o2311 ms 1552 cm mana amyanam - [14] men ksrana um a/nan pm munasibah [al_Ig man kelewnun nu berhku min :1! ms kullngn gguam sukar umuk 4ifl'mbangnn oluh Mahkamah im 56 senemsnya, Mahkamah merujuk kepafli pennohonan Detenflin di |ampiran 3 iauu parmahonan umuk periarwlan masa memfaflkan nails rayuan mmadup kebulusan HMS Dada I8 1 2023 57 Mengwkm Aluran 55 kaedsh 2‘ sehnrang pemoanan nous rayuan ke Mzhkzmah nnggi Ilendaklzh dflaksznakan dalam lempoh 14 han nan (ankh penman d\k9\uan<an Eevdasarkan perunmkan um, xanxn akmrun|uk Defendan memfzilkan Nous Rzyuan ada\an [Jane 1 Febman 2023, lempw da\zm kas ml. Dalandan hanyz memlaflkzn Nuns Rzyuzn pada 19 Me! 2023 mm sebpas new 4 man danpada lankh Yupul pemiavlan nous vayuan tersehnl se Mahkirnah mandavan bihawa |ardapa| kalawalan yang me\ampau mpmax Delendsn dalam memfsulkan ms rayuan xarsemn, Eukan nu sahaja‘ Mahkamah [Inga mandapau hahawa kelewalan (avsebul annlah berpunca danpada kesdzpan pvhak Delendan senmri dan nada sebarang pengelasan yang munatabah yang Ielah dnbenkan unluk manpxaskan kasflapan (ersebm 59 Mahkamah ‘ngn menuapam hahawu um men! dalam nous rayuan im Rayuan adalah (erhadap kuanlum Eagawrnznzplm Mzhkamah n N m1crmAarxmsmRwNnw mm Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm menaapau mum Kawmsan HMS unluk Isu kuanlum (shah amuan Inenggunakan panaexamn yana betul Saman awad yang dibenarkan ada\ah berdasalkan prmswp undangmndang dan msokang ousn kalmingln-kularallgan dokuman an Mahkamah menyedan hanawa Mamuaman mempunyaw oummcava dw Axum 3 kaedah 5 KKM umuk mambenkan pelaryulan mars: kepafla Devenaan unluk mavaum nous rayuan cemmn dlluar tnmpoh mas: Bagalmanapun‘ Ianya nams dlgunukan dengan noman-mm lanpa membeiakzngkan |anggung;awab yang Cedelnk pm seunp pmak unmk menlnanhkin Dnnslv undang-undang den Kaedah—Kaedzh Mankamah dlpatum sc Mahkamall marujuk kepada kes Ong Guan Track 5. Dis v Hmas Kaswn [1952] cu (rev) 515 NC yang manyalakan — -n .s am we the filsninnclple rs mar the rules or Cour! mus! prime fame be obeyed mu m order to ,usMy an mamon or lime‘ mm muslbe some matsria/on which me court can exem/:9 /ts drscrebarv m lavour allhe sun/can! Fwothsrwtss the party m breach of ms rubs would have an urvhflsrsd ngnz :9 extension of am wmcn would defeat the very purpose and obmcl a/H19 rules on Vmulafian period‘ 92 bmwa (lads sebab yang kukuh unluk Mahkzmah VN menggnnakan Berdasarkan :\asan—a\asan di mas, Mahkamzh berpandangan bumhlcaranya unluk membsnarksn psrmohonan navenaan an Vamplran 3 1: N .mr.m«mw.unw um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm KONKLUSI as Oleh mu‘ Mahkamah Im menmtuskan bahawa parmohonin Delendan di Larnwran 3 umuk salu pevmohnnan penanman masa memlnllkan Nous Rayuan adllih unoxak uangau kas RIMDDO was UHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MANKAMAH YINGGI SEREMEAN NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL xuusus BERTARIKH : s DISEMEER 2023 KAUNSEL BAGI PINAK PERAVU : TETUAN NMCKER a.AssocIATEs NO 312"“ noo‘ mum DESK TAMAN DESA. 55100 KUALA LUMPUR KAUMSEL ms: PIHAK RESPONDEN: TETUAN ARIFFABU EAKAR a. co No a, TINGKAT SATU JALAN 1/1 TAMAN AMPANG TINGGI 72000 KUALA PILAH NEGER! SEMBIMN s Fadafi 4 2023‘ saw ism eveviewumuk vengumsan kes berkenaan dengnn Nous Rayuan ml lam: mmapm an hadipin Panolmlg Kanan Psndaflar Mahkarnzh Wnggw Sevemban (PKH Pad: sesw erevnew msenun ueguam-veguam yang mamakvlv Plalnm dan Defendan lelah memasukkan kehadllan meneka 9 Dalam seal a-revuew barkenaan. naguam P\zm|fl lelah memnhnn uneuk manank balvk Non: Rlyuan ml Peguam Deiendzn man mevekodkan kehadwarmya ke dalam sesw ceuenux «emu msk mambarikan ssbarang Indlkasw sama ada busenqu zlau mempunyan bamahan (srhafllp penankan bank um Iayuan lemabul. Lehih kuranq dun (2; jam selepis peguim neaenaan merakndkan kenamrannya. man FKP man membenarkan permnhnnan plhak Flammunluk menank bank mus rayuan |enebu1 dan selaminya membalalkan Nu|‘5 Rayuan tevsebul co. Pada Denngkal im‘ pihak Devenazn masm bslum memfailksn mnmun vayuan ulang mereka Polmullanan La-npim. 3 u Ms\a pemnonanmpmaxoerenuan memnnonunnuxmbenm pevlamulan mas: hag: mam n Nuns Rayuan ks Mahkamah firing: terhadav sebanagan kepulusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen benarikh 131 2023 mm Iamadap Isu kuanlum ax dalam guaman No ~a—A5aK.A-253-<2/2021 N m1crmAarxmsmRwNnw mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Ahun-JI-an pumohonnn 12 Defendan bemadang umuk mamlallkan nous rzyuarl slkang tzerhudap noms rnyuan yang lelah dlisllkan o\eh Plamlfl Bananmanavun‘ pada 642023. dalam 595: e— w, nails vayuan (ersebm Ielah dnbaxalkan oxen Mahkaman ans permehonan mzmm yang Ielall menzlik bank nous rayuan cersehul 13. um rayuan «mam tmah dlbalalkzn mar. Mahkamah sebelum pmk Defendan sempal menaapuuun arahan darlpada auakguamnya 14 Akizal da pembahalan Mums Rayuan \ersebul. Defendnn cam: dmafilun haknya umuk msmvaukan N045 Rayuan ng tevhadap kepumsan HMS benankh «a1 2023 nersebm cs Pmsk P\amm man gagal memaklumkan Devenaan lebm awal berkennan rum Flmnlwl unluk menank balvk myuin mereka Sekvvirvya Is\ah dvmaklumkan Vebm awal, maka Delendzn mu mengamml langkah ssgarl -mmx memvaukan Mm Rayuan 1s Alas alasan—a\aszn dl ms, mumm «emaxsa memlallksn nuns rzyuan yang balu wabupun |(-smpnh unmk bechual demman Ielah luplll Jnw-pan flan plhlk Plnlnlll 17 Plamlrf sesungguhnya percaya bahnwa pennononan uecenasn adalzh hdak bemlanl dzn Iznya adalan sam pevcubaan Llmllk mawenaankan mm Mahkamah N m1crmAarxmsmRwNnw mm Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm 1a mam menemang keras lumadap permohonan pefianjman masa a\eh wenaan anas man pevmahnnan an Lamplran 3 In: (em: unamn dlluav Iempah masa din nave:-«an lelah mengammr tampon masa Ierlalu lama unluk fallkan Nous Rayuan Im 19 Tmdakan man PKP membalalkan nous rayuzn pzda sea. a pada 542023 |elzh am-nan menglkul pewluran din dmam kehadiran peguam Davenuan Oleh nu ma isu bahawa keomuun msebut Ielah amuax (anpa mengambnkvra ksvanlingan dan hak Delendan PERTIMBANGAN DAN PENILMAN MANKAMAN 2n Vsu yang hams mpmuskan dalam parmuhonan im adalah sama aaa panuamnan Demman an Lammran 3 unluk melaruulkzn camps» memhflkan Non: Rayuan (erhzdap kepumsan HMS Kuala Man heflankh we 1 2:22: aaauan nan:-em dam dnaknng man alasarralasan yang kukuh 21 Pevunmkan undangumang yang terpakm den mengawal seha pemlzulan Nana Rayuan lemadau manz-man: kepumsan Mahkamah Rendah ke Mahkamah nngg. aflalah Aluran ss Kaedah 2 KaedzVrKaadaI1 Mahkamah 2012 22 m bawah perunlukan Vm. sebarang nous vayuan nandaldah mcanxan da\am nampah mass 14 nan dan Lankh kepumaan yang hendzk dlrayu Inrsebm Eenkul drlumnkan Aluran 55 Kaedah 2 Kasdah-Kaadah Mahkimih 2a12 “llppcal to he by I!-Ilearlnv on nodes (0. 55 r. 1; N m1armAarxmsmRwNnw ma Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm a. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm Au appeals to M9 High com shallba by wayonweanng ma shall be nmngm by giving n name aiappeul wtlhm lmmeen dayx rmrn the am oftha doc»:/on appemsd nom “ 23 Mznakala unluk permohmlan pewanjncan masa memlawlkan ms rayuan anuar Iempoh mass, unaongnnaang yang Ierpakan adalah Aluran 3 kaedah 5 KKM 2012 — Extension mm (0 :1, r. 5) 5. m The cam my. on such terms as :2 mm: nm, by under extend or ahndge me penod wrzrnn Much a person »s Iequnea ol authorized by mass Rules or by snyjudgmem, omeunaneczmn‘ m do any set In anypvoceedmgs (2) ms Court may extend any such ponod as ralsrvod 2.2 II! paragraph (1) although we nppncnnon for extension is no! made unlrl alter the axpnnnnn ormarpenod (3; me perm wnrnn men a person rs ruquned by mess Rules or by any order or drrsclron, In ssrvs, me or amend any Needing or olhsr dacumen! may be extended by oonssn! rn wnlmg wvthoul an uraeranne Court new mode Iormafpumuse 24 pnnsnz undangundang bevkanan pevleruulan mzsa unmk menuauxan Mm Rayuan man mpmnskan aleh Mahkamah Rayuzn «mam kes Pemwx Prastu sun am v Damax Bvstan sun End[2u19l1 ms 574 sscem henku! - 12111: Is [me mm the gmnnng an axronsnon or we I3‘ at me dlscrelnm olmls Cmm nn MBF Finance and V Al/um Em Sslleh & Am2I[2DI72] 2 cm 133‘ 12002) 1 MLJ 497 n vlms mlslalla new s syn m1crmAarkmsmRwNnw Nuns snn ...m.mn be used m mm .. mmnnflly mm: dun-mm VI] mum pm "The grarlla/sxtsrlsmn oflrms was msmmnery to be exert/ssd by the wage m each parlfcularcsse, but the [actors to be canxtderad wars, 1 an mm min - u 1: Ma chlncu nlrha nggnl su.:m.1im- and Q m u-gm ogggmmg 3; mg mg mg kg mgnngm n m (see P 503543)" [nquk [uga [ms Bank Umma (Malaysia) and v Srslsm Brs Kompmsr Sdn BM 9 Or: (19940 4 Cu 347) 25 Bevdusarkan alarm dw Mas‘ lsk\or~tnku)r yang hams dlambllkna aleh Mankamah dalam memuluskan sama aria unluk mambenarkan pevmahnnan peflanjulan masa msmvaukan nous rayuan duluar (smpoh mas: yang (e\ah anexapkan adalah, 7 (ampuh kwewatan |eIsebul, u) sohalrsebab bevlakunya kehwatan, 1 same ada rayuan adalah bermenl dan M Drejudvs kn arts naenaan semanya permahonan Im max mbenarkan 26 Selemsnya. Mzhkamah marwuk kspada kas Zanna Mohd Au v Umvelslh Malaysia Pahanfl [2023] 1 ms msz mmana kes levsebul wga man meruluk kepllda kes Pemwl Preslu sun and v Damaw Ewstari Sdn am [2019] 1 ms 574 flan memumskan sepem benku| I -1131 Bag! merumbangkan sesualu permohunalv Ielsebut Mankamalv melujuk kepada kes PERTIWI PRESTLI sum BHD u DAMN EISTARI sou BHD (supra) m mm Mallkamah Rayuan Is/ah merwuk kapada kis vso you ram 1/ ./EMAAH 7 sw nncrmAarmsmRwNnw -ms Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm PENGAD/LAN sswa, pumu FINANG .4 AND}? /ma] 2 ML./ 54 yang memumskm sepsm benkul ' the gmmmg or dtsmrssel clan application /0: exzenmn al nme rs very much a mscvarranary matter. bu! m this mstance‘ we wm roam lo sxeruse our msmuon m /svour arms apnncanz Pdmculariy as na rnasonahle ma nccgflhle exgllnlflan Iudbean given our the four waits‘ debt The omission in en. an of: solicitor M In vim'I.InI can hAn1I|( nu manna Is an -cm:-an 27 Berdasarkan alarm on was‘ dilam menenmkan snma ad: umuk membenavkan pevmahunzn pevlaruman masa mamlallkan nous rzyuan Iarsabut Mahkamamuga dvkshendakl -mm melmal same ada pemohon tze\ah mengemukakan masan yang kukuh flan munasahah uan Vayak nnluk mpemmnangkan 23 Menehlx afidavvt sokongan pemonon dw lampvan 4 dan armvn bahasan pemahnn uuampuan :3. Mahkaman mandzpah alasawalzszn yang amenkan nlah pamnhon un|uk ksbwitzn larsabul auaxan. L Mamandangkan plhak mamm man memiallkan nuns vayuan‘ maka Deiendan am msmrauuan nous rayusn snang seoagaumana penmlukan A55 k a manandangkan Pihak Defbndan Aug: akan memyu he alas tsu yang sama mu kuzmum N m1crmAarxmsmRwNnw mm Sum IHIVVDIY WW be used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm u finaakan Plamflyang |elah menank ba\B< nmis myuan lecsebnl Llnpa mmaklumkan Defendan lubm zwll Ia\ah manaflkan hak Defendan unluk memiankan nuns myuan sueng Ii. Mamzmiangkan lampah unmk memtaukan Iayuan telah Iupun maka, Defendan xe-paksa menwaukan permahonzn penanjman masa sepem m Lamplvan 3 29 Esrdasarkzn alasanaaaan m mas‘ Mnnkamih merumuakan bahawa mhak Deiendan menyatakan hahawa puma mama kepada kauawacan aaram pemvanan um rayuan Iersebul adzlah dlsebahkan olehllndakan pihak Pramm yang telah menank balvk Nuns Riyuan muraka Ianpa memaklumkan Defendzn Iebm awa\ yang sekuhgus menyebabkan Delsndan kshllangan hak umuk mamcanxan Nmis Rayuan sflang Nun: Rayuan suang an Undangmndang flan pmmw yang mangawal pemianan Nolis Rayuzn sllang ada\ah sebagalmana pemmuxan A 55 k a KKM 2012 yang berbunyl - ‘Notice olcmss appeal (0 55, I 9; 1; s A rsspondsnfm an appeal may wnnm rauneen days lrom one date nfssrvlce on m o/me rscold ofappee/, ma a name alums: appeal m me my» Court and serve upon the appellant a dupllcam wpy al me notice m Form V13 Mn! he mlsnds to contend on ma hearing olme appeal rm: me decision oltno cuun below should be varied ' N m1crmAarmsmRwNnw ma Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm a. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm 31 Mengikul pemmukan an ms, Delendnn nenaaknan menmxan nous rlyuan suana ks Mahkimall dalim ivmpoh 14 han sawapas dlurahkan dengan sahnan rekad rayuan oleh pmak pmnur 32 Bevdasarkan iakla yang telah mkemukaxan ke mahkamih. mhak oevenaan Ielah dxserahkan uengan salu salmon rekod nyuan oxen when Plawnlfl pad: 21 3 2023 men mu nlsnglkul penmluksn A 55 k a d\ alas, sekiranya mhak Defiendan bemiat unmk rnenuemukakan um Rzyuan suang ke alas rayuan benebul. mm nuns rayuan illang bmenaan hendaklah dllailkan da\am lempch 14 hnri dun (ankh penenmaan nuns rayuan danpada P\zm|\l lni belmakna Iempoh lelsebul sepammyz lama! ma 5 4.2023. 33 Bagaimanapun‘ semasa pmswding evevwew mjalankan dw hadapan man PK? Dada e4.2u2a, uada sebarang kslerangan yang man alkemukakan yang menumukkan bahawa nous rayuan suing le\ah anamn walaupun |empoh pemvanan man man: pm Han sebelumnya Iarlu plda 5 4 2023 34 lm bevmakna Iemapa| kegagalan dlpmak Delendan umuk msmfallkan nous rayuan sllzng Iarsebm dalam |empnh mzsa yang |elah anenankan. walaupun kelewatan tersebul nanya senan Dalandan Iidak dimaklumknn nn-ng-mi nial Plaimll umuk mlnnlik balik Mom Rnyuln 35. Selerusnyln Mahkamah akan mamblncangkan nmngenan nu pembawan Nous Rayuan Peguam Delendan berhwah bahawa poguam Wawmhelah gagax unmk memnuumxan kepada bellau Iebm awn! Iemang m N nncrmAarmsmRwNnw nan s.nn In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvVfl\ruU|y mm; dun-mm vn mum pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-29NCC-7-01/2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMANFAST MERIDIAN SDN BHDPENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMANZAINOL BIN ABDUL KARIM

Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa JC masih berhak untuk meneruskan tindakan ke atas pemecahan Perjanjian Jual Beli yang dimasuki walaupun dakwaan bahawa ianya tidak sah kerana tidak disetemkan.

07/12/2023

YA Tuan Azizan bin Md. Arshad

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=dc5f6853-c76b-4576-a6d4-a28e29950f93&Inline=true

07/12/2023 15:21:49 PA-29NCC-7-01/2023 Kand. 56 S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PA—29NCC—7—D1/2023 Kand. 56 2‘/12,2012 ,5 2, 4'4 DALAM IIIAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI Puuu PINANG DALAM IIEGERI PULAU PINANG. MALAYSIA KEBANKRAPAN No: PA-29Ncc-7—o1I2n23 BER: ZAINOL am ABDUL KARIM W0. KIF: 660114412-5597] PENGNUTANG FENGNAKIMAN Ex-PARTE: FAST MERIDIAN SDN BHD INO. SYARIKAT: 482316-VI .....PEMlUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [LAMPIRAN 11] Plnflllmluln [11 lm mempakan rayuan alah Penghulang Pengnaklman (my cemaaap keputusan mahkamah W Vang telah menmak rayuan JD lemadav kepulusan meh Fenolong Kanan Penuanar (PK?) my ceran menalak bamahan (emadap permohonan Nmns Kebanknapan (EN) o\eh Pemmtang Penghaklman uc) sw uznnsvwxwmu Kxuxzunm ‘ mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm [21 JD telah max berpuashall dan memfavlkan rayuan cemaaap kepulusan Mahkamah W yang man dibeman pad: 911 2023 Pma|(- pmak dalam penghiklman ml akan dirujuk sabagaimina kedudukan mereka m permgkat Mahkamah ‘finggu lsu-Isu mm: [:1] Terdapal pelbagaw Isu telah dtbungkrlkan da\am panghujahan kedua-dua pmax seblgaw Isu ucama dun jug: mu sampmgln uugl am dnsnfuh) Nimun dnlnm pengnmman W Mahklmah telah manyusun semula iiu-wan IGPGRI bankut my Penghakumln Parsamuan max sah (ii) JD hukan pemamm hulang Syankal ( p an mak sah nu) Keuplylan JD rnambaynv Kmas Kausa: [4] ><enas»xenas kausa yang rerevan dalam penghakiman um adalah sepem benkul (i) Fermmlasn Mengeluankan Nous Kebankrapan benankh 9 1 zuza [Lamplran 1] no Nous Kehankravan bervankh 91 2023 [LImpirIn 21 (m) Sam-n nalam Kamar bemnkn 19 1 2023 [Lamniran 5] sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 1 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [22] Keglglan um membnlehkan JC menvuatkuasakan Hausa (a) Pengnaman lersebut yang memperuntukkan bahawa "Se/amulnya dtpersefu/m sekrranya Dekandan-Delendan masrh gagalunluk msmbayar kese/uruhan den‘ RMl72,0I70 oo telsehul da/am tampon ranmran mesa yang dipelssn/jut dr anlsra Pram dan Dersndarpoerendan, make kese/umhan RM472,oooaa lersenu! ads/ah men/sdr tslmltang sepenuhnya " 12:] Oleh kerana «ma pembayavan lelah tmenma gamma Vebnh kunang 4 «am. ream dan Lam Penghakwman Ferselmuan, maka JC (Blah herdasarkan kevada nerenggan (a) Penghaklman Perseouuan Iersebut memtankan proslflmg kebenkrlpan temadap JD unluk mendzpatkan kemburi wang squmxan nM472,ooo no (ersebm JD ndak pemah memakmmkan kepaaa JC nannwn nemapn pembell ylng berrmnal unluk memnen Klpal Fulal lamebul mlhupun nmemu bahlwa perlanjulln mass mbenkan unluk Fenghakvman Perserlupan taraabul egnr Syankat Iarsehul dapan menyiapkannya [24] Tambahan pma sekimnya wujud Pananuan Kelaxerar tersebnl [yang mana dnnafikan). JD lelah gagal unmk mengeksmbilkan Paqanpan Kvlaleral tersebul mahuwn mernasukkannya sebagal sam «am Hi dalarn Penghaklman Pavsetujuan (avsebul ataupun pmdaan mm.-.n Kepada Pengnakmlan Persetmuan tensebut dengan peraetujuan JC Oleh yang deml an pemfallan prosldlng kebankrapan hdak benentangan dengan spa-spa yang didakwa uleh JD milahan ism se\aras dengan Penghakrman Pevsemjusn lsrsebul sw uznnsvunkwm xxuxzuwkw 11 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [25] Jc max mempunyan pengexahuan berkenaan dengan periamutan mas: yang knnmvlya dmenkan umuk Syankal levsebnt menyvapkan Kapar F\fc( Ietsebut unluk membolehkannya duual kepada JC dan/alau plhak kellqa yang akan dimabdumknn n\eh JD kepada JC. Sekvanya benar dakwaan Im wupm (yang mana dvnafikan sekeraykerasnyaj, maka adalah Iudak berasas unluk Ierma Iersebut Ivdak dvekodkan dw dakam Penghakvman Pevselujuan (ersebm. [251 Tnada apaapa an dalam Penghakvman Perselujuan Iersebu! yang menyalakan bahawa JD nanya palm membayar RMI57,3:|3,33 sahqa memandangkan Pengnaknnan Perseluguan teraebut was sekall mempemnlukkan bahawa Syankm teraebul‘ Detendan Panama Defendan Kauga banana JC berseluju unluk membayar Fsmuutang Fengnakvuen wang segumlah RM472‘DOD no [271 Dakwann JD bahiwa memandangkan Kapal Pm (ersebul mm dlsizwkan, JC mak wen lagi herganmnw lwpada Panghaklman Perseluman tarsehm akan telapi aehamsnya memulakan llndakan ham ada\ah Kidak terkandung m dalam Penghaklman Persefujuan lelsebul dan ;elas sekaln beflenlangan dengannya JD mm seharusnw mblarkan/dibenarkan Imluk manuns samula 4-mwnm karma-Karma Penghaklman Fersemuan lelsebul [231 Pengnamman Perseluwan (emebul yang memperunlukkan bahawa hndakan ham aeherusnya dIlaHkan unluk mendapalkan tell!-rehl yang berknnan JD was man sedang Cuba mencipla uaymuema ham yang benenlnngan dengan Fenghaklmln Perseluwan hersebul agar syn uznnsvunkwnu Kxuxzuvkw 22 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Penghulang Penghiklmarl dapal Van dan persemjuin yang dibenkan ulehnya da\am lindakan an Mahkamah Sesyen Iersehul Imluk memelaskan wing sejumlah m/I472,ooa oo kepida JC [29] Dakwaan JD bahawa bellau hanya Demulang 1/3 daripada wang berjulrflah RM472.ooo.0o dun bukannya xselunman Wang neuumlan RM412,ow on memandangkan Penghakunan Pevsetujuan Iersebul udak menganuung: Iermi ‘bersesama afau berasmgafl adalah max berasas ksrana mnman swil (ersebul adalah lzemsdap kenga-mga Defendan flan kehka Pengnakmun Pelsamuan lanebut dvakodkan. JD bevsena Derendamnetenuan lam dv damn numucan am: Ievsebut Ialah barselum unluk membayar wang bequmlah RM472_o<m on kepads JC [:0] Dalam kes Herukh Thakurdas Jemwanl & Anor v. Bank simpanam Nasloual [2021] 5 Mu 4n7, aapmuskan hanawa' ‘ I hon max mlwllhslznfllng maunemgme-n ts sum as to Mcemer the mgnum var me judwnenl sum emu-m and wax nr ‘mm um um dnflandlnlx «gm; .g..m mu nmmm m (MI cue u on :- [mm mm lament! can u ymvded lar n the nrmexute ninrasmd m In: communes m sun-we me judgmml‘ [:11 Dnlam kes Kuiuvumu-n Einhi Kindunko sdn and v Fang soon Loom: [2021] 1 ML: 234, Minkamah Rayuarl rnemumskan banawa ‘In bum Sumlllvfl nu ma Edvnn Cu cue, Ina Cour! ougpun ma mnclnded um . judgment enland mmn Me 0! man mgmam sw uznnsvunkwnu Kxuxzuvkw 13 -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! «mm, wvmuul mm. created a jam! nan-my such um um :71 me mm flemnrs wns am we hr .n ahqual pnmm M me ...agmem sum and «meme emurmnenl may nmy he lrmfled In m2|a\Aqm1lpnmm Huwsven m ma pm-n lpvell, Ina own no arma It amsymnmuusnn hum mm m Sumllhyl mu Ind Edwm Cu . use Upon m. mmmm-an a..a..m¢ u. m. p.-um lpplll and Du wrwxhuncy M ...a..:..: view: expressed, ma uounwu mum |o condude mu 3 wogm-rll entered for payment :71 a sum M money ngnmsl mam pmamem demons mpnsed upon lhem and am at man. A pm! and seven! lmbmty In hamuv me am ludflmenldabl. and rum merely in wax now. am‘ nnlan ulmrwm mm nee para 5a a. 59! [an Da\am kss Lomhnua Kumpulan Wang Silnpuun Pokurja v. emu Cnsalan Nlglppln [mu 1 cm 52:, Mshkaman Fersekuluan nflmmuskan behavra '13» That: was mauve menu 04 «am am»: mow mmry m cm Aladgmeal wsell Even mm . mm M been msened, mm would ml enlnle me saw «u cum'.ludelha|Ixab1Ily was somemm mm hslwuan me two ubhgm: urpmmuml Gwen m. pluvlllmg .m.rp..:.m of: 44 mm Act‘ many wunmng mu wnvd -muy ... mu amxam mgmam mu um unifies «a nu»: Iuhlny .. mm mm ht churn: wanix In hit man to ma mm the many at me 1-ml Womwsors as to be home In equzn vrovumo-.s. Navuvvsr, Inch flawed nammy many: like men hum the ongman wum-e were me mm, M . pmmlsor for 1 data wed In 1 creamer .. e-v-any :med1nhean\ymIla1meae|:| mm premise mu pmund severulumlny‘ own rumba rend mm menndgment due m . nhnarme Mind: words war- »: be .nn-am n nnHlr1y mm mm . mu pmqmem mm mm mommauw he mierved Io mines; imnr hamlny where there .5 run such merlhnn Tn: us espemzm so whm the many mm mm 5 exvhmfl swung» by mm In one ulcurrnlamau‘ lulvlrly undev ms mum: mdgmem mus! necesunly be mm mm mm seveul m quuflm at m sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw n «M! smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm was answered m me ammmlwe um um mutter wns rammed to me Huh Emm (Jugs sna nyuk kes Rs Mohd saiful Azuar rad In: Ex P Bank Kefianma Rakyal Malaysia Blvd (20211: Cu 736) my Tambahan pula‘ JD Inga man gagal umuk menumukkan bahawa -wujud sehavang Lunluban ba\as, lolakan acau Iumulan suang Iemadap ac sepem menurul Seksyen amp; ma maawens. 1957 dan oleh yang denukxan kesemua dakwaan yang dmengkxtkan nleh JD dalam permohonan umuk membantah an Maka wmlah hulang kesemnman omen anumuc sepem dalam kes Ra Low, Ex Pam GihIon[1985]1 n.a. 134, dvpnluskan bahawa ‘ where:uflgmen|hasbemlemve<ed 39 flseverslpemmspmmty‘ a hankmpkw name: may be Issued agamsl one cl me mm wdgmenls «mm mmm Including ma ulhsn Rlnukuln r-ujanan JD [:41 JD membangkrlkan bahawa aw Ildak boleh mxemukakan (emadap JD bag: menunm mnggakan nutang dalam Pengnakman Perseviujuan kerana JD udak Ierllbat uavam penarulan Iersebut danlatau dalarn menywapkan Kapal Pvlul yang dipesan c\eh ac Penghaklman Persemjuan bersebul adalah bemsarkan kspada kauss Imdskan yang 3a\ah dan nleh Mu tunlman swul tersebut dan Penghaknman Perselujuan tersebuk yang meunacxan JD adalah saw ‘nu\Irly‘ dan Fenghakxman Pusemuan lersebul udak bcleh mkuamuasakan JD menquk kepad: kes sadiaadin sw uznnsvwxwm xxuxzunm ns -ma Sum ...m.. M“ be used m mm a. nvwhufllli mm; flan-mm VI] muNG wrm 5 Anal’ v. Anh ul y .In Fin-ncu Ehd [Ins] 1 ML] :93. [as] nalam mas: yang sama ;ugi Kapa\PI|v1 yang dlpesan oleh JC celan snap melemm 511% nan nanya manunggu untuk dllengkapkan dengan pevalacan dan perkakasan yang mana merupakan bahagxan kecd selebmnya masxh belum dnakukan. Keleuawn ml mga kerana wabak Cnv\d—(9 dan Penman Kawalan Pergerakan ('PKP‘) yang dflaksanakan dalam mesa Iambahan unluk menyxapkan Kapal FVID1 uarsebm dan JC seballknya max berseluju unluk perlamuvan mass menyababkan pembmaln Kapal Punt narsehm mgenuala dan mm Ievsadaw m hangkel pambmaan an Kempung Parnmang Lwmau Mams smnpang Ampal, Perhs Cavld-19 dan FKP adllah hdak terpakax memandangkan bahaw-a Pengnaxnnan Pemeiujuan tenehnt lekahpun anekoakan ma 23 3 20:3 Iflflu sebelum. CcvId—1Q dan PKP dflakjanikall [:51 Dakam mas: yang sama, JC Ie\ah memhayar sebanyak RIM72,00D.D0 yang mana mampakan aoas uanpaua iumlah harga behan wanu RMSEILDOD 00 IIII dengan jelas menumukkan (Ship kemiuuan ken: unluk menylapkan kapal lersebul nampu xesenumnannya lekah selesai yang nanya menunggu unkuk menangkapkan perkakasan yang nerxanan [:7] JC sewajamya. dan boleh mangamnu ann Kapax Pnm Iavsebul u-n Inemuamya anaupun menyamhung semula pembmaannya temp: merakn anggan berbuat aennxuan Mamlndangkln Kapal Fxlcl Iersebul lelah Iecih sou, dlsuapkan xanya bnleh dung! flan boleh menuapac nasu jualan mak kurang danpada RM3G0,0DGDO mamandangkan can-p syn uznnsvwxwnu Kxuxzunm is Nuns Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used a van; .. annmny mums dun-mm VIZ mum puns! kemlwannyn hamplr sempurnl hanya menunpgu kebngkapin din perkakasan umuk mpessng pa] Dalam rumuuan sMl |ersebuI. JD dan seorang pengarah Vaxn dlsaman sebagal Delendan Kemga flan Syankll sebagav nevendan Panama, Denanggungjawab membayar hmang syankaL Dakwaan JD adalah bahawa JD max peman meruamln unluk membayar sebarang ksbemmangan Syankal [:9] CM: karanl JD max nemuh merliimm unluk membayar kabamux-ngan Syinkll larsebm. makl mask hmhul vlu JD vanu memhaylr dln/alau menqganllrugw JO -«as kegagalan Syarikal Isrsabut menylapkan Kapax F-um Iersebul Inn adalah Ker-ana kasemua blyaran» bayamn kamquan selaras dengan Peqanpan Jual Eeh cmanm dlhayar aleh JC kepada Syankat tersebutsebagax pembma kapal bukan Kenada JD [40] Htuahan JD juga bahawa — (u) Penghaklrnan Persetujuan lersebul mengxanemam wmlah w-ng Ishanylk RM472,oooco dibaylr kapaul Tatum Toh Theam Hock 5 CD sabagal ‘stskannldfl flan bukln kepma Jo. sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 17 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm my Penghaklmln Pers91u;uanlarsebuunga mengkenendakv jumlah lersebul fllbayar kepada Teluan Tah Theam Hack 5. Co sebagaw 'sfakehoIdeV kerana menunggu lawman mass unluk knpil Iersebm msempurnakan, ) Penghakwman Persetmuan tersehm mmasukw kerana Ierdapat perjalwan kolaleral ax anlara JC dan smkan msebut unluk membenkan mass supaya Syankal larsebul dapat menynapkan kapal Ielsebut Malahan‘ JC membentanu JD teldapal pembell yang berrrunal unluk membell Kapal Pm levsebul dan belsemu dakam Fenghaluman Perselujuan (emebul umuk lannnan mun bagx Sylnkal letsebm menywapknnnyl, my nndakan JC memfaflkan Ilndakan kehankrapan In| berlentanuan dengan persewjuan kmateral yang membenarkan syankac levsebul rnenylapkan kapal Iersebul. (-4) Mamanuangkan Pengnamman Pememuan Ievsebul lldak menyehut swat dan benluk kenemmangan mm sama ads Ianggungan bersesama avau berasingan‘ tanggungjawab JD man pun Wujud (yang mnna dmafikan) hanyallh sum pemga danpada Rmuzoauoo Ianu RM1s7,a3s as Dalam em kma Vam‘ JD hanya perlu membayav peguam Jo RM157,333 33 unluk dlpeglng aebegl penanman rsraksnomsr) semenlara manunggu kupal dusuapkan, dsn sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 11 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm my Kesan Penahaklrnnn Perselujuan tersebul lenyap apamla JC bersemu msmbarlkin perlaruman mas: unmk menylapkan Pemelujuan larsebul mahupun saber-mg permahonan unmk menoenenikan Annllu flan mpmn llahlumlh (U Penghaklmln Patseluluan lldak ssh my Hmahan JD le\ah mammbmkan persnalan barman Penghaklman Persetujuan, same ada xanya wen mxuauxuasa Kerana mdakwa bahawa lerma—tenr\a tensebol max add temadap JD [41] Panama main, adakah Penghaklman yang man dmlasukl secava sah aupemaxxan Kanpa JD bo\eh mempemkaxkan SAIIJ membual sebarang psrmohanan unluk Ianya drbalalkan alau dlkflepwkan lumbahun pula semasa EN duiaxlkan temidlp JD. [43] Damn ken Inn. Pengnaklmln Persetujuan mam pmak-pihik tehh sahkan bahawa Penghakrman lersebuk hdak pemah dlkedaptknn Mi! 51515 um, Panghnluman Persemuan lelssbul maslh mempakan Penghikvman yang nah darn boleh dlkualkuasakin bani man pedaksanaan termasuklah prasmng EN Mankamah um merujuk kepadi kzs Mlyblllk Illalllil: Bcrhad V M40 Euildurs Sdn End 5 Ann! [2017] sw uznnsvwxwmu xxuxzunm 19 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 7 cu 177. d\ mans Mahkamah Rayuan, meraxm VA Rohana Vusul JCA (Dada kenka nu) memmuskan bahawa ‘A coruam amen: we uudgmenlolmn mun um would revvum um unm xx .; at am: (no Pembmnn Ksv San and V lmn Sang Pmpemts Sun am mm 4 cu 263: [1991] 1 cu {Rep} 343 1199111 MLI me; u w Dhm and uhvlous mal «mm me abnve dause ac me mnsenl nru=r.|I1elw$( vapondenl ma admmud halxmy to ma aweflam on ma MOD may rum the rsspund51I|would n. Imppod fvum vanmg lny Iunnzv me an MOD Vncflny axnem an m. qumhml pm. .. ..u.c:.a m the consent am Even an mu gruund mm. the mm, n1mnvmnxpmdau|n6ouma¢' (Sula Imauuga Rn Annlo Llm [1531] 2 MLJ Z76; Dlluk Mom! Sui bin Dlluk Hnjl Nlnrv Norwich wlnmmnur In-unmco my son arm [1 2511 2 IIILJ wt [44] Mahkamah Ildak akan mehhal Penghakrman Ferselujuan Ievsebul pada penngkat Ikerana Ianya merupakan salu Penahaklman yang sah Pada Derlnsikat presiding kebankvapan, mahkamah ndak akan mehhal kepada nagaumana lersebul uupemeru Bukan langgungjawab Mahkamah Im umuk menllm semula Panghakimin Fersemuan Iersebut yang masm lag: sah nan berkulkuasa Panduan ml dubenkan da\am kes Teng Ghee Wal dan LaIn—laIn v. Hock Soon Seng Sdn and|zn1o]7 ML! 536, yang memutuskan baham penghakmian “A. mu, m. cmm .. mmdud nu|manbr\mn nrlncmnlgllny puny m .n amen. Mme me pines rm ngreed and Instructed thew munsel museum the Consenhiuogmeulcmvlalnmq the agreed terms and .-mu ohtammg Vega! mu, up wnuqueuuy upm an anmmgm, attempt In mum. ov a-saw. m ~ sw uznnsvunkwm xxuxzuvkw 2a -m smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm an Afidavll Sokongan oleh Zamcl Bm Awm Kanm (JD) berlankh 191 2023 [Lamviran s1. darn M Afidavfl Bmasan meh sy-rw hm Syed Buhan yang uilkranun lands 1: 2 2D23[|2mp1ran 9] (w) Afldav|lNa 2 oteh Zamol Em Abdul Kanm yang berlankn 21 2 2023 [Lampiran 101 Prolldlng Mlhk-mnh [5] nikemuxakan secara nngkas prosmmg yang Qelah berlangsung an Mahkamah yang mgunapaka: bemasarkan danpada huphan dan (Idak dvpemkaikan aleh kaduadua pmak wanu (II JC telah menyerahkun Nah! Kabankrapan banankh 912023 [Lumpann 2} banana Panmnlaan Mengeluurkan Nuns Kebankrapan barlankh 91 2oz: [Lumpwun I] swam kadm kn 9195 JD pudl I2 1 2023 (H) Susman din mu. JD telah memfaflkan Saman Dalam Kamar benankh 1912023[LampIran 5] dan |e\ah memamm amara lain umuk oenmarv nenman sepem berikul - ( blnawa Nous Kebankrapan berlankh 912023 dxkeluarkan lamadip Penghulang Psnghakzman dlslni mkeremkan. lb) kos, dan sw uznnsvunkwm xxuxzuvkw 3 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [45] Damn kes in mm JCLJ M4 in Banklng Barium v. Dntuk Lim Km-nu Khim m7] 2 cu (Rap) 325, yang mun: memmuskan ‘I mu now by up Iummnnze (he law hum the -mnmna. u loam: co m. ma| 4.; . hlrlkmplny mun nu pwnul m an mm . judgmum an wmcn Ina hznkmnlcy pmmedmgt -. foundod n more - avndcnea :1 «mm. eoflnslun or mmnmape of mm» in) An mwuhmy at mm: mm rs no sumem mum my uami behind melmwnenh re) - uanxmntzy am any as mm - wdumer-I n m ». Yuundud on . wnlricl mm -s vmd beclun n rs contrary to In mm: smnnovy pmmm (spa hankmvlcynuun mnvaohehmd . ...am..n...a nqulre miomevahdny uflhatlldgmamcven f in awllcabon to am ulfla 0!: judgment had been made mumsm. W Bflimled an mun supenmmlhe banknaucy noun [46] Mahkamah mi barscmu denam kepmusin kos Iersebul dan menefiml pakainyu dalam km ax hldlpan mahkamah Ini sekumnu (n) JD bukan penllmln mmng syarlkat [47] Fanghaknmnn Parseluguln iarsabul mu menuuk keplfla Defendan-Defendun flan uadudmyatnkan seclra beruslngan‘ mnk nyl bolah amuaxkunsakan mas wmllh yang penuh dilum an ylng dukemukakan «amau-p Devencmmerenann Im duellsknn lug? dallm -kamu, Klaus: Panal Pangmmmun Pamm. .n yang manyebm sw Ll2NJGvHflkWm1KKDKZUPkw 11 «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm naranaan Perrsma, Kedua DAN Keriga, trade pengasmgan kapada /umran mnang fersebuf dmyatakan buqi perlaksanaan da/am an " my Penghaklman Fevselujuan benankh 25 as 2015 Man meruamskan bahawa kegagilan memiluhl muss (-L (b)dar\ (n) maka klausa (a) akin lernakal Dalam kas Inn Jangkl mus lalah dmyamknn dalam klauss (a) sehmgga (c) mm uaram masu 3 nman sahajn Apablla gags! memetuhu darn Kind: Deflanwlin masa dlllm an maka panghikiman pememuan Inn memxnwankan mnya dvkuntkuua sepanuhnya [491 Syaml bahawa wanya perm amayav kepada Feguam Teman ran Theam Hock 5. Co sebagai Stake ho/def hanya lerpakal unluk (empoh 3 bman sahaja dam Iarikh parimah. Sebpaslempah (arsehm Ianya max lag! pedu dikuitkuasa selams dengan bduasa m) Iersehul [so] Ian berknnln bahlwa JD nukanlan penjlmm aaalan max wag: vmevln paua penngxax . lm adalah kenana Panghaluman (emebut adahah Fanghuklmun Persanuman dun bukan Penghaklman JID ulau Pangllaklman salepas mean Isu wunan ‘upanile rogatanmyadalan mlevln pod: penngktt iabamm Fangmknmln Femamuln mmnuiu Fanghalumun Psruatujuan yang dlmasuki ndalah plus uaak melapluknn JD dlnpnda langgunmuwib mamblyir mnang mmm. EN yang dukemuklkan aaalah nemamn kapma Pengnaknmnn Pemetumun um dun max ada keperluirl unluk mengasingkan julmah huvang dw antuvz kesemuu JD lambal aw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKDKZUPkw 22 -ma am n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm [51] Damn kes R-vicvum run an snnmm v um sh-n bln S-lfuin [znm Muu 1571. Mahkamah mamuluskan bahawi 14211..“ unubla m .9“. wllh Ihe mmarmou Mme cw...» mu wn mm um. um mm I» ma. cl So1I\emanIAgvuemevn does nul me: In mu m u . auuwlluv m in-.1.avead|ng at the Cnnsenl Judamem, me Ssfltsmsm Agveanem and Made m Sememenl Agreeme«| raved man n was nrver me mtenmn me names In mak: ma JD a 'guaranlnr‘ 10 Sohns Esmns I431 The JD m was 2 party m the 20:2 sun‘ had Islam mu conumnd m ma tarmt av mm ms Semevrlenl Agmemenl and Bunsen! Judgmcnl, mum Md: n vuy clur Inn me Deiandams m Inn zmz Sun . n be ma. Vublalu ply ma Phvmfix Omafllm Detanunrmm the 2m Sun! was me JD, men vandou me u: . Humor «wow-nu me oumm Jmmem me Ierms omucn in: JD had mm to cnrmhl wan Mlimar the owsrudpvweny as s-cumywu -ecsvm mm -opeur [521 Mankamlh Jug! marujuk kapadl kes Rn emu Klm Sln: a. pm. Durnblu MIX Sdrl End [Z|l11] IIILJU 1166, dwpmuskan bihiwl “[121 The law on Iha ma A71 3 wnlam widen: lmv am has been exoaumed by the Federal com u men: we. mcmamg Gannuamy cnemav v. lum Kum Chum 5 Dr: Ana Am1he1Appea\|19H1]1LN5 .'n,|Iis1]z M1145, Tan Guak un V L: Kuln [2004] 2 cu am, Tang Lu Hwl 5. Ana V cu... an Kvn&Anom:vAD9uIlIi11l1|.NSI4:L[IF71]2 um 75‘ Let my May 5 Or: u Pam: Tmstzees am 5. ms [am 51 5 cu ass. and mm: Am... Abduv Rank 5. Dr: V Arrunarl nan aemaa & or: (201916 Cu 419‘ [2019] 1 LNS613‘ rc In La. Hang uoyaom Pacmcmmzes am .1. 0:: [21:15] 5 cu sea, 1 wt: stated by Mnry Lm JCA (:5 she mm was) sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 1; «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm sm UZMJGI/HflkWm1KKUKZUPkw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm n u my sellled and mu saw mil in nrdev :11 me mun ruaued by content 91 the mines Invoked . m am: a cumin? belwaen Ihme Dimes sanapamy Chelmar V Lum Kum Chum 1. Or: And AnaIhevAapenl[19al] 1 ms 53. {mu 2 MLJ145 am a annsenlomer muslmerekxa be arm. n. fu\lcurIlIlwAIIa1lu.1— we Tun em Lanv u Kuln (200412 am 301. mm) a Mm 455 Sud! In omu mum. ma‘ eilechvn Ind bmflmg on .u the pimu mvulved unlwl and mum It-e mu! m an asxde my some vinilmu vusnn . see the Frans! Conn’: daemon m Yong Loe ma 3 Anur .4 Ohm Ah Kw! a. Mom! Appeal [1971] 1 ms 143, [1971] 2 ML} 75 In rm, urml mat nawens. um and unless me mnsem may .5 5:! name (he cmsenl mu mum an an mupvel ansallwnni me dsvsndams today mam dupumnw hum nu lmml ~ (ni) an um uh [53] Dalam kas In! mg: |iada sebarang kelemngnn bahawa JD jug: mempunym tunlulan balas lerhIdapJC yang memungkmkan an Ierlebm memidi uuak leralur yang membolehkan Anny: dmeleplkan ulah Mamum-n ml Im jalas upemmana mganmn :1 Im kes Kiplln No Ool v snndm cu-mu am: M ylin Burma mm] MLJLI 13:, ylng memunumn sepam benkut “ my mum at doused m mm mm mm mm vumam Baum: am new 2 ML! 29:‘ com Im mamnmenl unam V I8 o4 Im Bankmptcy Runes vmsve mum me Jndgrnem Demo! nu a uuunlu chm, u| an Ind mu GIMM which Iquuk or nasal Illa il-dwrvlnm um a..u.«w - to my crednoru Delmun av samuptcy um mustbe nude hymmu . mmoeol mmwn (iummorw m dulnbulx new -nu me amenflmem on r we of me Bnnkmvlty Rubs), supported by An mam 3 2» [54] Damn ken RI cm-n Wue Lllm Ex P Ruben Toni Lyl Hock v. c nk ElId[1DW] suu s1s.mpu«uz.xan bahawa “Thaw ... umy Iwn my: to ¢n.n...,. um bunklupuy nmuca‘ .3 mm . 95 M m. Run on the urwnd onhe exmavscu Mwnnlardmm ms Ind undavr m on other amends Thu appllcalton .. mid: undnv yes by ..a,, nun mrnmt fllud wllhm uyvendnys mane wmmme hnnknwlcynmma Thea1fm:vI| noes ml 5:, anylhmn mm we exuhenw M . rzaunlemawm‘ 5214711 01 um demand The mm canna| mm. at an appmzuun m xel sum the banxruvtcy none: wnmn me cememvlllum uh amp) ulme Bnnkmmcy Am M1, and mu m. Ihcmd n.m.....«...uu .. mm mm we. r 95 um u. an been «run smnm, IN: .¢m..m dos: not man the pmwsluns av Dnwua zan nl . :4 at In Bankrwllry Am 1967 beans: a does nul unndesoem |o pammhvs mane ama1m|aI.1uaW Gun [55] Damn ken svumlu b|n Ahmld; ux p-no Azlzl hln Vom Ar-ma [2027] MLJU 11:725. dlpulusknn bahawl 154; Dllam has Pun s-Iv-mu lllnnunhivvylm; Ix pm. Nnnynnnnmy ua Krllhnnl mm] uuu zm, memulmknn bnhnm [221 »:.mm.n Agum am. kes sovanasu ezuem INSURANCE SDN END V KDH TIAN BEE [1983] V MU 304. [was] « cu Rap 277, memunulknnnnhuwu an my mwumm llmulh yang mam DIIII max inn mlnucilhllflvi din bob?! dulnda upom HVDWIIEKJH obh Lea Hun Hue CJ Wnmw) blhiva ‘w nu um um Nunllr an rm Llw Ind mm»: M BankruW:vl1G(hEd)a1 a aez undsrlhe mm»: ‘Kama: Defud Not To Invaidate Pvmauadlngr. refer! «a s mm Ifllhe Englah syn U2MJGvHflkWm1KKDKZUPkw 25 «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm EZIIKNDWY A41 W14 wmch ws wovd for ward me same at Mrs 131 amino pnveeeamg m bankmmty mu he mvaludaied ny any lama! deled mby vneguuamy, unless the munbevmevmu. an onmnm u made to me vrncaedvrlw u M uvlmon mt IHDIVJIIMII rV[|lI1|De has been caused l!Y|herS91eaol|"|9"""'Y‘ Ind nu: ma mjulhue clnnm u remldlad by my urulv :31 um own [211 mnmmn Agung jug: dnlnm Wu mmx um mane KVM V mmuu amxme ar<n[me3y1 mm 2“ (192312 MLJ 295,, mm] 3 cu 324 hank menenm: .:.w. hahawn mun yinu mu new akzn meruadlkan an Mzk sah Mahkamah memnmukan seven: benknl -smnnany, us pnra 3 of me endmure memy mspules his maebtndness m me sad sum so me Ieiunmem -om-a on In amnmus calmlahm ma grossly txaggemad' wumm ecnaesoe/mung In Dnmculnr: mm Amount muuyaue, wa uy cm In - -a nmam dam H01 mime! WWII: my ul - (I ma- smes mat a barlklllvlcy r-wee mu ncc be mvalwdilud by mm" my mm mm mm apscifid m me name 2; Ike Amount due emeais me aauax amount due‘ [sq Dalnm kes kebunkrapan, iumlah hulann terklm akan dlnymakln dalim Pensyen Femunang (cm yang akin annlkan seteluh Iankh berlaku kebankrapan anamukan Pads penngkal ml, manjam lingqunmawab Jc sekall Iaai memnuknkan jumlah hutana Ierklm Seklranya jumlah hulang teisebul hdak memaluhi pemnmkkan undlny-undang bani Penman Penghaklman CAO‘) dan Penman Panerimaan (‘R0’) d\'peva\ehi, mahkamah akan menclak cw yang mfawlkan sm UZMJGI/HflkWm1KKDKZUPkw 2:; mm. smm n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pm (iv) Kuupnyu u JD mnmbaylr [571 JD man bellman bahawu EN udak wa;ar dlkeluarkan kerana JD berkeupayaan untuk membayar hulang JC Bag: Isu um, Mahkamah mermuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekuluan -auu kes mm Bank and (lormnvly known in Porwlu Affln Bank am) [mo] 2 MLJ us, yang menyatakan sepem berikut 11; The can offiopeal ened m mm»; In appreuale sntlficlumy ma| Ihe sarvency -11 me demov undev 5 am vezd Inuamev wrm . 105(1) Mme an muI|necesnlI>yv:h1a to m ammy m pay ma um: .. lrny became due .1 m. um: L11 »..m_; mm c...sm. pummw Ilwu we mama Ioweney an ml mm: m an, uamurx nhmy m on N: am: nun-swank In me makmg nine Aoko Farmer me sowency relm=s|o‘oorrImaIva\ suwlnny‘ and um ‘balanua mu um-Ly‘ (lea Para :5) 42; A1 lhi um. men (he AORO ms gmmea . at me rspomem mere was no emenue man he was snlvem No ommuemiuu ouum lo us Ewen no me rulpundsnfs army w my Ms dam: based on msequem mange av wcum-I-noes W an all. any came 04 Iflmumslanws pm: AOR0 >3 any ncrweny av mmeyi by |M debtor wuuld um um damor an owwumy In PIY me am: In M: wma. wumd enabl: mm In umum m -nnuiuem ardav, ruvir-u made such mu viY"‘Sn| am mu m; nm dare 1». new nude Ac payment to saudy me umgmm am (see pm 49)" [say Acas dakwaan bahawa kamampuan unluk memhzynr huuarlg Aerxebul, kamampuan JD masmnh kemampuan yang some ad: den bukan kemumpuun “mesa nadapan mu ksmampuan alas fmdskan kamudr‘an' Dlllm kas ini dakwlan kamampuun umuk mambnyir nutang JC adalah nmmxan kenadi pemuilan kapi\ Iursebul why man: Ia sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 27 «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm merupaknn kernampuan 'masa hadapan" rm bukan kelmmpuan unluk membiylr keuka EN dlkamukikan Laln-lrlln Ian (i) Tudapmvyn Pu Injlln Slmpinuan [55] Dakwaan bahavm levdapalnya penanuan sampmgan (seknranya wuwu) uaak akan uapac msngalasl perparwan mama (penghakiman pemmmn) yang man dwmasukl tersebut Panghlklman tersebut merupaknn perjarunsn yang sah Mankamah telah meIu]uk kepada K5 Tainan Rimba (Menhkzb) San and v Warrior Rubber Products (M) Sdn and [2017] MLJU 1m‘ yang memuluskan bahavm "The cansem Judgment mm the Selllemerrt Mreemenr me m M my Irlconnstanl mm on: anulhev, and menu vs no bum w say IMI me SeIuav\en| Agreement had mmpmmued nv superseded me cansun Judgment or our the mlalumshlp hammer: me names rxmeamma um can 1: mm! Guvcmod by me S1IIlernen|AwraemIm and ms Venue: by line comm Judamom rm rs-venom Dylhsmwd plvhqvuph m mu mm he an. Sdmamenl Agmmrrn which made msrmn M m. Covuem Juoumsm and bylhe clause 1 uwmcrr wmamedme igreememra urmvsr as mu and mu: semememnflhe uem rssumrmaa m me Consent Judgment‘ [so] Hmahan alah JD bahawa mum milk memam panjamm flan wga Iidak pemah bemulang uuax Van: mama su apabflu pengakuan man dnbual larhadlp kmmua hutang yang dilunml uleh JC taluh drpersetujui sapenuhnva dnlam Panghlklrnan Femamusn hen ’kh 2a 03 1013. sw uznnsvuakwrm xxuxzuvkw 2; -ms Snr1n\n-nhnrwmbe used m mm r.. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Pu . Zlmri Nlim Bin llmlil v Ex—I>Ir|I: Bank Mulmllal uuuysi. Shd unis] In mu m: -A. mm m m. an at Rs nan Nos: Hang. ex p Yap Km L. g Nnvhnslumnh no (Mmnnmmru aims enmeofl Mahamad Slum hm Hun Hussan) [mm 5 ML! 155 a payment slams ma urml n 4: se| am“ [51] Dalam kes Form-n ur-mm ‘rnuvn sun Bhd v souuum Fhulnce and [zone] 2 ML! «:1; guns] I cu um, mnyacaxan blnwa ":3 Judgment for a sum eslablrshss a dam, wmcn men becomes cm n: ma person mom 1 owed, who when becomes me creditor“. Bemasarkan kes ml aaalan larpulang kepadl JC untuk mengamml unaakan lemidap JD dengln spa scar: sekalu pun termuuklln unluk mamulakan snu pvusldmg kabankvapan unluk manunlul samma hutang yang mungg-k Xersebul (ii) Wlblk Covid»19 1521 Mahkamah Inn naunn mevumk kepada kss Ravichlnlhlrun Ganesau 11. Le: Kak Sun a. on man 1 ms I561 yang bemaltln dengan pemakawan Akla COVID-19 untuk menafikan pe\al$anaan sesualu llnggungjltwab knnlraklual tcontraauallrabtlmes)‘ an mana Mahkamah memuluakzn bahawa “I211 AA|ms|unn1nre, Ms unpemwe In beav wn lmnd mac the cam 19 MI u nm a Vagulahun «nauzn be veszmad tn by any Imgantaltmnpang In mud lmhuI|y av cam movlly becuuu ma. dam or the enlurmmem cl cm suns mu duvmg ms cum-19 Dindumc mgum mun ». ma m me puvpou M Ina Cam-19 Au. mm .s In umvsde my Iemmmv mlasmes co reduu syn U2MJGvHflkWm1KKDKZUPkw 29 Nuns smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm me man of Cmnd-19 ms .. amanaaa by Sccnm ma nl me Vnlstwstalwun Am ms and 1967, much leads Saclmn 17A , Regavd m be had In me purpose Mm: Act In the Inlnrprmzlmn cl a pmvlion av In Ad, u wnumwun out would granule me ampm av nbpud undarwlna (II: An Mhetharlvm nww-a ur clued 5 enuesry sured m me A4: or ml) man be vmenea m a wnnmmwn mz| would not pvomolz that purpose or mum‘ (Denekana dwhenk-III! [53] Adalah ;e¥as bahawa pembelaan berdasarkan cowd-19 bukan sesuatu yang mullak ten-mi berdisarkan kepada lmgkungan Akla tersebul Dalam kes im adalah mas ianya max Iemndung bagx alasan PKP dan Cmlld -19 kelana Fenghaklman Pensetuguan mnuat sebemm danpada Ca-«M49 lay: «an alasan ke\ewatan penytapan Kapa\ Pulot kananya bersangkm acau berkaman dengan PKP dan CovId—19 adalah Langsung max berasas ( ) mm unm. [sq JD hemujah bahawa dufl seqem dw dalam Peqalulan Jual Bell mak dnsempumakan, maka JC Ivdak bo\eh mengumkunsakan penanuan lersebul. Hujahin rm auaxan (ersasar kerana‘ keesahan sasualu perjanpan ndak bergantung kepada sama ada -am dlsetemkan ahu mak Mankamah ml meruwk kepada kes Rnluind bin Rozuln lwn swoon-Lea Cndil Sdn Bhd [24:22] MLJU1995,d|pu(usksn hahawa 1211 mm." duh n2 bahawa pII1an|Ian \erIebul man dnetsiukan kemudlan aan ml felah meupdnhln penanpin Inrxehul hdak uh Dakwun aw Ll2NJGvWflkWm1KKDKZUPkw so -ma saw ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm fc) nu:-spa mm yang lam umkirkan palm den sum manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Muuamu gm) JD Ielah memvauxan Anuavnuaavuc benkut yang duklarkan men Zavnm bm Abdul Kalm umuk menyokony Lampiran 5 — (3) Afidavil benankh 19 1 2023 [Lampiran sq, den (b) Afidavvl bartankh 27 2 2023 [Lumpvan 1a] my Anuavu Balasan JC o\eh Syamr hm Syed Buhan benankh 13 2 21:23 [Lammvan 91 Lmmmang kn [:1 Dalam kes Inn, .10 man memfankan salu mnunan swn an Mahkamah Sesyen Georgetown Fmau Pmang dalam Guaman svwx No PA-B52NCC- 11—03I2D17 [‘IunIulan sun Iersebuf] dx ar-ma JC (ma-nm flan JD (Emvo Manna (M) Sdn Bhd (Defendan Panama), Zamal um Abdul Karim (Delenflan Kedua» JD dslam Pengnalurnan |m)) dan sm Thasteem mnu Osman Ghany (Defendan Ketlga) m Tmaaxan tamadap Kelngarhga Dafeman Iersehul adnlah kamna kcsemua Defender: Islah mamungkin sullu Pariuruiln Juul Bah barlankh 17.22014 [‘Pa|1anAIan Jual Bali larsabufl yang ananaaunqum o\eh JD dun Deiendan Kedul bag: pnhak Deqenaan Kenga sw uznnsvunkwm xxuxzuwkw ‘ um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm .1." lmpahan m. mun I-flak berawi In: kerana penanum ylng max asem uflak "mm... Ianyl mask 5.», mum pwhik-pnhak my (samba! akan mkenakanvenammbawanAktaSe4em1§49 n2 sedemsnya barman um. um: um Inenunjukkan penalty mlan dbayar um. mm u... .... mu.:.u.n Ivlnvuplkln u blomwe dun mmknmlh W my. manmlplun blqw um vlvbuxr .. penuh duduun bagl ukm-nku mp...W: u..1u.. Hui wink ..n. Dnkuman yang dupemkaun din «um: wwud nlndun mu mmnmxe Jnbatsn Km: umuk nengesahan [2210-lam m In D2 ma. sahlrlng bukh nvim aw... pun. Inn apa snknman dannada D2 ullluk meuurqukkan dakwaan W adalah hsvmem din mnrumzmxan lsu flan kelersngan dnkumentzvdzhm kas m. mg dmmhulknn can :22 max nuenmuuklun kavaguln Inrhndzp pennnpan Inmebul m..n...n sewn nah mum may uh dun mum noun mm-mnuun Dnkwun hnhlwn mm mm n km-nu man Inflewll drwtam adahh ttdakberisas Pnnim vm mun dlpelaikan am. mmcanun agum kc: OMEGA sscuamzs 5:»: sun v mm" HAMZAH am ABDUL wuuu mm] a mu :2 hahawa was an Ina! me mam. raamy ilreemenl (‘Mm was nul svamped an um .mm.ve n m nun-sumpmg M 3 dnmmem and um mvamace the sucumenl umess the nnnrslamnmg went us ms voolovvnhdny am. (20111: MLJ 12 al Hdusumem I191! In mu saw‘ on non-uuupm om. MFA wu only u. Inna [65] Dalam Kes Alliance Bank Malaysia and (Formary Known as Mulli Purposa Bank Bhd And Mn yu Fnncll Bunk Bhdjv Mukhlix Bin Mahumlr um Anor [2003] 4 ML] 451 memutuskan asham- wneonry a-some vawsefl zryme ms: daienflam .1 lms sill: \s max me aradm hamy mum-ms wars nan duly nzmvea under s 52 :4 me sump Am 1949 The flm deflendzm an no! a-spun max the gumnuee agreemenlx aury execmad by mum were duly slamnsd unflu In: ma Ac| Ion} lemon 52L1)uHtue Stamp M11349 nvmndes. sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 31 «mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm No msttwmm aaalpeame war: may am he anmmzd m evwdenue our anY wlvoie Iry any pa-um hawlu by xaw u conum av pan-as aumamy «a receive emenae‘ or mu be men upon‘ reamed, or aumenluzted by any such vevsan M by any puhH:: nmner, unless such mslrumem n ¢u\y -unwed (say The above vvuvnons mum an me queslum mawdawa n don: mi m -nywwymndevml ubllnmrve nanudm uvmfl Ind mm Evevlmuugh «M --u Iwaamlnl Ilnultaoha mmm nu Ivndomaa .. dalmnd mm firxl defendant man does not aamsery aflucl ma vlalmfll rave Iglmn in am dalerldanl That: an mhsv i|lW\€IenHIC1sDr evldenue as summed and MI dspnled hy ms nu de4:ndan| :3 mgnlwgnled nhnrve. «a new line plamlfl |o Dmve mamue savd ovemran «mm was mm m and mmsea by snstzsy Puwlmuuu Sdn em Ind was aunyguu-mm by new Iheflrlunasemnd n.4...a.m - dnclm ulfli ocmplnr “ [66] Mahkamah memumskan hahawa JC mislh bemak urltuk mensruskan llndakan ks anas pemecahan Ferjanuan Jual Eel: yang mmasux. walaupun dakwaan bahawa Ianya max ssh kerana ndak mselemkan Kulrnpulln [67] Dawn kes R: Tan Bun Kiat; Ex Pane Malayan Bankmg Berhad [2019] 1 ms 158:. mahkamah memumskan hahawa -[351 I am mlrudfm thaw»: uuull way: a plvllclrw an. m bunkmplcy mmlur: and man my ml: \s not In much to luck (0 ma mtmuis :4 me crednnr pe1mnr\ev.hm(mse M me denier Re Tasnn Jarvanlm, Ex p Eqmly Fmamz and [me]: cu Rep5a1 M89912 cu new mm-m.am.u.m an. n mums. born: In mm am an. Cum! .n.;um mlcondnm an Iluny sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 31 «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm :4 awllcanons filnd ny an m, which m my vww lack: ban: nae, ma Inn vumnnhy impad-d an In u by an JC Min mm. [36] It I: pm only inludicloul Io inumnh m. cmm wnn ondlou Ind unmlmovioul -poucncon. tn IM dctvlm-In of Mimi‘ il in unplinnlwlod to involuntarily drag along an owusinu puny" (nenaxanm dmank-n) [say Dalam kes smmi up Ainuddin v Abdul Axiz all Aimmdln moo; 5 ML: 391. d-pumskan bahsww ‘ma nurvvn M In cowl mm In In out those mm: mm the autumn‘ mum Wm m but Phmml whom the lemma su had «om uuamsl Io uy um lhl n.4.na.m lhnuh mu bazflumud in am him‘ [as] Linn-lam xsu yang (emu ulbangkllkan aleh Pmak JD ]ugz Ielah dlpemmbangkan den Ianya mask memmak kepafll JD N uznnsvwxwmu xxuxzunm :1 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Purisytiharan Kupunusan my Rayuan dilalak Kepumsan Penmong Kanan Pendaflardlkekm dan dlsahkan KOS sebanyak RMSDOD 00 dmayav nleh Persyu (JD) kepaua Responder: («ca Ierlakluk kepada alckamr AZIZAN um RSHAD Peruunmjly kenakimm Mnhlumah Tlnggv (3) Palm Pinnnu Bururlkh pl I 9.11.13 \\ / / ' Pgulmcara hagi Femlunng Fanglnklmanz Shamshul Bin Jamil, msnamel Kaur a/p Bawvnder Smah mun Presgvava A Matthews Tvlgkal 1. N0 2, Lebuh Panllv mun Fulau Plnang Pguamura bani Fullgllullnn Pongnakiman: sm Nurazwanl Bmfi Zulksflee Teluan Shahabudln a Rozlma as-5. Nnrlhpmnz omes. Mid Valley Oily. No 1. Medan Syed Puua Ulara, 59200 Kuala Lumpur. Vwlayah Persekuluan Kuala Lumpur sw uznnsvwxwmu xxuxzunm 3A Nab! Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm sw uznnsvwxwmu Kxuxzunm Undlng-undnng ylng dinruk: Akta Ynsolvansw 1967 KAvs»k:s yang dlru uk: 1 ' Lina Emma mull Sdn Em! A On [20:71 MLJU 541 2 L u an soon @ Lu Plk cnoan v RHE Ennk Bhd[ZDOB]1 ML! 762 3 Sovnrnlgn Ganenl Insurance Sdn and 14. KM: mu Bee [1555] 1 CLJ Rev n @ uomumnun up (kdmlnlnrllrlx of Tho sum of Momma svurm bln mu Hussain) [man] 1 ms 197 5 Nurulm Thlkuldu Jvtnwlnl 5 Anar v. a-nk Slmnlnun Nnsional [2021] 5 MLJ 407 5. Kqumm In sum: Klndnuko sun arm v Fang soon Luong [2021] 2 MLJ 234 7 Lamlugl Kumpulnn Wang Slmpanln Faker]: v. Edwin Cnslln Nuanppln [2021] 7 cu 323 B R: Mona Saiml Azuar Md Isa; Ex P Bank Kzrjasama Rakyat ul-Inym 571411202111: cu 755 9 Re Low, Ex Pane Glhson [19215] 1 Q E 734 vu Emma bin Nlohd Mn Finarm and [1998] 1 MLJ 393 n 5. Ana: V. Arab mm 11 Mlyhlnk llllmlc Blrhlfl V M-IO Build!!! Sdn Bhd I Am)! [2o1717 cm 127 35 -ms Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvwvuuly mm; mm. 7.. nF\uNG pm 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 2a 21 23 24 RI Ann]. Um [1997] 2 MLJ 27s; nnuk Mona Sari bin Daluk Hlii Nuarv Norwich Wmlhenhur lnsunnc: my sun Bud [1992] 2 MLJ 344 tens Clvee wai din Lain—Iain v. Neck soon sens: sun and [2010] 7 ML! 535 Mallynn Banking aemau v. mm um Khenq Khim [1992] 3 cu me. (199212 CLJ1ReP)525 Rlvicmnlhiun all 6- In v MII sh-h bin Snlunm [2019] MLJU 1577 Ru Clmk Klm Sin: ex name Durlblo Mix sun am [2021] MLJU 2155 Knphn Ho ooi v smmm cmmd Blnk ulmyn Sam-u R004] MLJU 733 RI Chulh WII Ill El P Rob-n Ting Lyl Hock V. Cil Ink EM [1999] 6 MLJ 515 shnhliu hln Amma; Ix p-Irll Axlxl bin Yum Ahnud [2922] MLJU 03725 Per: sauna]: Namaclllvlyam; ax pam Nuraynmanmy n/I Kvlsruun [2022] MLJU 2141 min Bank and (lunnudy knmm n Pcrw - Mfin Bank and) [24:29] 2 MLJ ass Yaman Rlmh: menukah) Sdn and v Warrior Rubber Pmducls [M] sun Shd [21:17] MLJU 1924 Par: Zlmrl Nmm Bin lIm.Ill v E1-pane: Bank Mumum Mlllyull Bhd[2n15]1n Mu m Fonflan United Thenlre Sun am: 1/ Southem Finance and [2aus]2 MLJ eoz, [zoos] 1 cm 1067 sw u2nnsvHnxwm1KKuKzuHm :5 Nat»! s..1.1...m..wm. used .9 mm 1.. mw[ruH|y M17115 mm. VII .;[m Wm] 25 Rlvichlmhlun Glnisan v. Lu Kok sun .1. or; [2021] 1 LNS 1581 26 Rohalzld bin Run-n Mn Swnowlnu Crudil Sdn and [2022] MLJU 1995 27 Alli-nee Bank Mllay n and (Formnly Knmm u mum Purpmn Bunk Bhd And Malaysia French Bank Ehd) v Mukmix Bin Mnhnmlrand Anor [2006] 4 MLJ 451 25 R: Tan Eon K‘ Ex Parts III-Iuy-n Banking Berhad [2019] 1 LNS 1553 29 Sum up Ainuddin v Abdul An: all Alnudrlln [zuoa] 5 MLJ 391 sw u2M:svHaxwm1KKuKzuHm :7 mm s..1.1...m..m. used m mm 1.. DVVEVHMVIY mm; dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm M Jc (elnh membayar Defendin Panama sebanyak RM472.auu 00 me rnina merupakan 80% darlnada iurmah hares bellan wanu RM5ao,oao oo. Namun lerdapal kelewatan daram manyuapkan Kapa\ Pnanersemn [91 JC mask bersetuju unluk perllmutan masa rnenyebabkan pembmaan Kapax Pflmlersebunergendaladan kumtersadalsxaplsbm Gan 60% an bengkel pembmaan av Kampung Permazang Umau Mauls Stmpang Ampal, Pems Tugas-Iugas menyiapkan kapal Puux Igrsebut turul «ergena-1: flan meruadl rumn dlsebabkan oleh com-19 dan Pennlah Kawalan Fergerakan (‘FKF‘) no] Semasu kss dltetapknn umuk perblcavaann dun kesemua pihak telah bersaluiu unluk msnvelesaikannya mp: mam flan salu Penahikiman Pamxujuan beninkh zeazma (Penghakiman Farseluman lefsebut) dengan K\auIa-Hausa sepeni benkm (5) Dmenaan-oevenaan bersemu umuk memhayar Plamm wang sejumlah Ringgit Ma|ays\a Empal Rams mun Puhm nua Rmu (RM472,D00.00l sanqa dalam masa ma (3) bman dan lankh Pengnakmun Pausemuan In] an Wang squmlzh Rmggm Mahysxa Empac Rams mun Puluh Dua Rlhu (amvznoo nu) sahaa akan drbayzr kapnda Plainm melalui Pauuamcaranya, Tatuan Toh sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 5 um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (ch (*1) (9) Theam new 5. Co sebaaai psmegang panlmhln (Stakeholder) sekmya Defendin-Defendan gagal membayar wing segumlsh Ringgit Mahysla Empal Ratus mm: Puluh Due Rlbu (R|M72‘DOD U0) dmam mesa Iwga I3) bulan dafl lankh Fenghakwnan Perselujuan teraebul. mika salu lawman mass akan dvbenkan kepada Defendan- Delendan atas hudi bmara mamuv Selamulnya dlpelsetujul sekvanya DeVendan—Delend:n masm gagul unluk membayav kesemruhan wang squmlah Rmggll Malayan Empal Ralus mun Fuluh Dun mun (RM472,DDD nu) leuebul dllam xempun Ianjmzn masa yang dwpememuul an amara Plalrml can Delendum Demaan‘ maka keselumhan Jumlah Rmggil Malaysxa Empal Ralus mun Puluh Dua Rm (RMJ72‘W°w) bersebul -kan meluaul lemulang sepenuhnya fiada panmm menganax kos Pads aknir Penghakxman Perselujuan lavsebul juga mengandungu Klausa Pena! yang d1perse1ujuIo\eh kesamua pmaklaltu 'Jxka k.:mu,De1endan Panama, Kedua dan Kemga yang dlnamakan dalam tmdakan Im Iidak memalum Penman 5 sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw -gm smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! inn mlka kamu wen mxenakan pluses pelaksinain bani makaud memakaa kamu memamhlnya - 1111 Namun. selelah masa beflalu unmk penghaklman nersenuzmpamm, uada sebarang bayaran amen ulzh kesemua Defiendan maka JO lelah memlallkan prosndmg kehankmpan terhadap an umuk mendapalkan wang squmlah Rlnggm Malayswa Empal Rams mun Fuluh Dua Rmu (RM472,ooo oo) yang (elem dxpevsetzujul untuk dlbayal sapem mans Penghakvnan Fememuan larsebul yang mmamaa, sari dan udak peman d\Ketep\kaII atau duganlung aleh pmfik-Dihak tefllbll Ringku-n Huiuhun JC [m O\eh kemn: naua hayamn dmual oxen JD‘ maka JC bemak unluk memfailkan prnsidmg kebankrapan Iemadap JD beniasarkan kepada terms-terms mg telah drpersemjui an dalam Penghakwman Ferseduman Ievsehul [15] Panghaklm-n lnrsebul mam» penghnklman muklnmad flan Ian, Kegugalan unluk mamnunc bayann, Ikan membenkin hak kapada JC untuk manumul keselurlmnn hmarlg tarnbul dlribldi kesemui Dciendan bahlwl dlkwian-dakwaun berkenaan dengan luntuun sivll temebut adalah uaak «man an dalam pmsmmg kebunkrupan Inn Dalam ipa kaadaan ma, JD mempakzn mu pnhlk as dalnm Penuhuklman Parsenuuin tersebut dan denaan nu adalah mak henna: urvluk JD Inn sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw ’ -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm diri kawajipannya sepem yang xelan mpersezum an dalam Fenqhukimzn Persamjuan (eraebm [I4] ‘Nada halangan bag! JC menunlm hulang Ievsebul da\am Jumlah yang penuh dan wak perlu membuat pembahaglan dakam Derkadarln secara purata an amara kesemu: Defendan Ierhbal lm kerana dalam an, mrmah keselumhan haven dnumul terhadap kesemua nevenaan Ferjanmn Jual aeuueysebuuexas sekaln menunjukkan bahatwa Ianya telah dnandalanganl om JD sendm dan oleh rm dakwaan JD banarwa beluau ndak (embm a. dalam penanxian larsehut dam/alau da\am menyuapkan Kapal Fulnl yang dnpesan oleh JC adalah nu-k velm/an sama sekall [15] JC berhak unluk menunlul lunggakan hufang tersabul melahn an dun Dukan meniom fangaunmawab JC unmk mendapalkan nunvan (evsebul malami psmualan kapal yang «max slap Iersehm xenemn annum Penghakiman bahawa JC boleh rnenganmu ahh Kapal Pvlct censem dun meruualny: mu menyanmung semula pemblnaannya adalah max herasas memandangkan ml bukamah aaxu syaral mau term: an dalam Pengnaknnan Pevsetwuan tersehut my Kaukl Pengnaknnan Perselujuan tersebu! dlrekadkan, Asu berkenaan hmang Syankat max psmah amangknxan Mala?! keilgamga Defendan dx dalam Iunlulan swn tevxehul mlah bersemju unluk menjalaskan wang semmlah RM47Z,D0600 lewehut kapada JC , Dakwaan sehallknya lum hlnyallh satu frklran larkemudtan dan bermat unluk menyusahkan JC selaln Imluk memltahkan (‘De/eat’) presiding kebankrapan ml‘ hndukan JD dalam membangkxlken dakwalnaaakwaan syn u2nnsvHakwm1KKUKzuPkw ' Nuns snn ...n.mn .. used m mm n. mn.u-y mm: mmn wa .nuNG pm tersebul sekarang iailu Ieblh kuvang 5 tahurl sempas Penqhaklman Persenyuan lersehul dlrakodkan JC merujuk kepndn xu Bank slmpumm Nnlonnl v Axln Llnu Enurummunn Sdn and E On [2017] MLJU 541 [171 Tlada bayamn mhuat wen JD kepada JC1e\as sekall menumukkan bahiwa JD cubs {an dan kewajlpan sepem yang Ielah dxperselujm an dalam Penghaklman Persetujuan tersebul dan membangknkan dakwaam dakwaan remeh dan lldak berasas nu] Mahkamah Im ndak bobeh mengenaplkan flanlalau membalalkan pmsmmg kebankvapan Inn hanya karana JD mempemkalkan keesahan Penghaklman Perseluwzn lersebul memendangkln sghmgga km: Penghaklman Pelselujuan (ersehul merupakan salu Pznghiklman yang uh flan mukllmid Mahkamah Im, bukanlnh lnrum unmk an mempamkawkan Fenghaklmin Parselwuan Iemabul JC «am: memjuk kapadz ken Ln aux Soon @ Lu Puk Choon v RNB Bunk arm mot] 1 ML! 152 darn m Svvlnign co nl lnuurlnco Sdn Bhd v. Koh Tlln an[1nl11cLJ Ru [191 Dalam Ina Re: Tloh Ngu mug; Ex P: Van Klu L n Q Norhuhimlh up (Aaminisnnmx 01 The Emu of Mohamad sham um Man Husuin) [zoom 1 ms 197, memuluskan bahawa -n mm be mm: mm. ..m.._ uh an Maw he Pounded upon . nu: judgmcmuru fins! order Tms 15 relented m s MINI) BankIuvtv(A4:1 1967, m pamcmar the plmnsu (Ream In me man: use. me mnsem umer Ihpulibu paymsm by me m al 3 quanlmad sum 04 RMSMJBO .n sw uznnsvwxwmu xxuxzunm 9 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm mmumems prrmdmg my paymonluhmaveslm ma evemmdsf-uh Genny n finaly mxpuus (he -gm: Mme JC and me iabuny no me n: u us Iheveluve ‘me namle an fmalardu (see Havon mu Mom Zahv Celmalsewnua (Hmdmgs) arm n 9521 on 2: map», 11952] cm 233. Iwszl 2 um sat ‘ mu Penghaklman Persemuan tersebm bersena («ma-Kenna dalam Fengnamman Perseluwan (ersebm seharusnya kesaluruhan bllamana perenqaan (a) Penghakvman Persetwuan teuebm dengan masnya menyalakan bihawa "Dafendan-Delemian Izersehqu unfuk membayar kepada P/s/nm mmg se/umlah RM47zoo0 ao da/am mbaca seem mass trga bulan dun’ lankh Penghakiman Psrsemjuan mf‘ dan nerenggan ua) Fenghakiman Persemwan tersebul pula menyilakan hahawa wsng sejumlah R/W72000 on Ivervdaklah dlbayar kspada Pramm, malalm peguamcamnys, Teluan Tah Theam Hack A 00 sehagar pemsgang penamhan (‘s!akshoIdef)' [21] nan; baylran dnerlma Ilga bulavl din mum Panghaklman, memandangkan wang squmxan RM47Z.DOD an lelah glgal dlhayar olah JD dalam tempnh Inga nun-n, maka perenggan (cj Panghlkiman Fersamuln cersebun mempemntuxkan bahlwaz ‘sekmanya Delendan-Delendan gagal membsyar Wang semnran RM472,00U no as/am masts rigs bu/an dan ranxh Psnghakrman Perselu/Han, make salu Iaryumn masa akan drbenkan kapada oersnuan-Detendan atas bud! mcara P/amw Wiliupun cempon masa yang lama belah mam, llada bayaran mahupun bayaran sehahagwan dihual kapida JC sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 1“ -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

D-09-215-09/2021

PERAYU AZMAN BIN ARIFIN RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya]

Seksyen 14(d) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 - Amang seksual fizikal atas kanak - kanak - Seksyen 16(1) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 - Orang yang mempunyai hubungan amanah - Seksyen 26 Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 - Kaunseling pemulihan - Seksyen 27 Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak - Kanak 2017 - Pengawasan polis - Perayu menarik balik rayuannya terhadap sabitan - Mahkamah membatalkan rayuannya terhadap sabitan – Pertimbangan menjatuhkan hukuman - Kepentingan awam hendaklah melebihi dari kepentingan individu - Perbuatan seksual terhadap kanak-kanak semakin meningkat - Perayu adalah bapa kandung mangsa - Mangsa berusia berumur 17 tahun 8 bulan semasa kejadian - Perbicaraan dijalankan sehingga selesai - Trend hukuman terkini - Rayuan perayu terhadap hukuman dibenarkan sebahagian - Pemenjaraan selama 7 tahun dan 2 sebatan di bawah seksyen 14(d) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 - Pemenjaraan selama 3 tahun dan 2 sebatan rotan - berjalan berturut-turut sebagai hukuman tambahan di bawah seksyen 16(1) Akta yang sama - Perintah untuk menjalani Kaunseling dan Perintah Pengawasan selama 3 tahun selepas tamat menjalani hukuman pemenjaraan.

07/12/2023

YA Dato' Azmi Bin AriffinKorumYA Dato' Hadhariah Bt Syed IsmailYA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin AbdullahYA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c0211c77-ddfa-433c-82e1-18755d65dab6&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: D-09-215-09/2021 ANTARA AZMAN BIN ARIFIN - PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA - RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Kota Bharu, Kelantan Rayuan Jenayah No: DA-42JSKS-4-11/2019 Antara Azman Bin Arifin - Perayu Dan Pendakwa raya - Responden] 07/12/2023 07:57:36 D-09-215-09/2021 Kand. 55 S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 KORAM: HADHARIAH BIN SYED ISMAIL, HMR AZMAN BIN ABDULLAH, HMR AZMI BIN ARIFFIN, HMR PENGHAKIMAN Pertuduhan [1] Pendakwaan terhadap Perayu bermula di Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Bharu, Kelantan di atas pertuduhan pindaan berikut: "Bahawa kamu pada 7/12/2018 dalam jam lebih kurang 2.00 pagi bertempat di sebuah rumah tanpa nombor, Kg Kerawang di dalam Jajahan Machang, dalam Negeri Kelantan dengan sengaja telah menghisap di bahagian payudara kanan anak kamu xxx yang mana telah melibatkan kontak fizikal bagi maksud seksual tanpa persetubuhan. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 14(d) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dan dibaca bersama seksyen 16(1) Akta yang sama." Fakta Kes Pendakwaan [2] SP6 (mangsa) berusia 17 tahun 8 bulan semasa kejadian. [3] Mangsa adalah anak perempuan perayu. S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [4] Mangsa tinggal bersama ibunya, Hazura binti Che Hassan (SP4), adiknya (SP5), adik bongsunya dan perayu di Kampung Kerawang, Pulai Chondong, Machang, Kelantan. [5] Pada 7/12/2018, mangsa tidur bersama dengan adiknya SP5 di dalam biliknya yang tidak berkunci. Pada jam lebih kurang jam 2.00 pagi, mangsa telah tersedar dari tidur kerana terasa sakit pada sebelah dadanya. Mangsa mendapati perayu berada di sebelahnya dalam posisi mengiring di mana punggung perayu berada di atas katil dan kaki perayu berada di bawah. Badan perayu rapat dan bersentuhan dengan mangsa yang ketika itu berada di dalam keadaan terlentang dan muka mangsa menghadap ke atas. Tangan kiri mangsa berada pada kemaluan perayu dan di dalam keadaan berlendir. Mangsa sempat bertanya kepada perayu apa yang telah perayu lakukan ke atas diri mangsa. Perayu terkejut lalu terus keluar dari bilik tersebut. [6] Semasa kejadian mangsa memakai t-shirt dan berseluar trek. Manakala perayu pula tidak memakai baju dan hanya berkain sarung sahaja. T-shirt mangsa dan baju dalamnya terangkat. [7] Mangsa kemudiannya ada mendengar suara ibunya, SP4 dari bilik sebelah telah bangun disebabkan adik bongsu mangsa hendak ke tandas. Mangsa juga terdengar perayu bercakap dengan SP4. Selepas itu perayu dan SP4 masuk tidur. Mangsa kemudiannya telah ke tandas dan membersihkan lendir yang ada pada tangan kirinya. [8] Apabila mangsa masuk semula ke biliknya, mangsa menangis dan tidak dapat tidur kerana beliau seolah-olah tidak percaya apa yang telah dilakukan oleh perayu kepadanya. S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [9] Pada jam 6.00 petang, mangsa telah menceritakan kepada SP4 tentang perbuatan perayu menghisap payudaranya. SP4 terkejut dan bertanyakan kepada perayu apa yang telah dilakukan. Perayu hanya berdiam diri sahaja. SP4, mangsa dan adik beradik mangsa telah keluar ke rumah nenek mangsa. [10] Pada jam 9.00 malam, SP4 telah memanggil keluarga perayu bagi tujuan perbincangan tentang kejadian yang berlaku dan SP4 turut memanggil perayu untuk datang. Apabila perayu sampai, perayu terus menuju ke arah mangsa dan SP4 dan telah menampar mereka berdua. Perayu kemudiannya telah keluar dari rumah tersebut. Pada 8/12/2018, mangsa telah membuat laporan polis (P6). [11] SP3 (Dr. Siti Nur Khairiah binti Mohd Rozali), pegawai perubatan yang ketika itu bertugas di Jabatan Kecemasan Hospital Machang, telah memeriksa bahagian dada mangsa dan mendapati terdapat kesan lebam pada payudara kanan sebelah atas kiri berukuran 1x1cm. Mengikut SP3, kesan tersebut boleh diakibatkan oleh hisapan atau kecederaan luar (laporan perubatan SP3 ditandakan sebagai ekshibit P5). [12] Di akhir kes pendakwaan, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana mendapati pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya mengemukakan suatu kes prima facie ke atas perayu dan memanggil perayu untuk membela dirinya. [13] Perayu (SD1) telah memilih untuk memberi keterangan bersumpah. S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Ringkasan Keterangan Pembelaan Keterangan Perayu (SD1) [14] Menurut perayu beberapa hari sebelum kejadian, mangsa yang baru selesai menduduki peperiksaan SPM, ada meminta kebenaran daripada perayu untuk bekerja di Kuala Lumpur. Namun, perayu tidak membenarkan kerana perayu mengesyaki mangsa sebenarnya ingin mengikut teman lelakinya bernama Haikal. [15] Perayu mengenali Haikal kerana beliau pernah ditahan di lokap Balai Polis Machang, Kelantan kerana air ketum. Mangsa juga selalu ponteng sekolah berkemungkinan untuk berjumpa dengan Haikal. [16] Sebelum tamat pemeriksaan SPM, perayu pernah menangkap mangsa bersama Haikal di rumah sewa Haikal. [17] Perayu tidak menafikan bahawa pada malam 6/12/2018 hingga 7/12/2018 mangsa berada di rumah. Mangsa telah keluar rumah pada pukul 9.00 pagi dan hanya balik pada jam 6.00 petang pada 7/12/2018 tersebut. [18] Perayu menafikan ada masuk ke bilik mangsa pada pukul 2.00 pagi (7/12/2018) dan tiada apa-apa yang berlaku pada pagi tersebut. [19] Perayu menafikan menghisap payudara mangsa dan mengambil tangan mangsa dan meletakkannya pada kemaluan perayu. S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Keterangan Radziah Binti Abdul Razak (SD2) [20] SD2 adalah guru kepada mangsa di Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Abdul Samad, Pulai Chondong, Machang, Kelantan. Menurut SD2, mangsa mempunyai kecenderungan untuk berbohong dan tidak berdisiplin. [21] Pada 7/12/2018, jam 7.30 malam, SD2 ada menerima pesanan di dalam aplikasi WhatsApp beliau daripada mangsa meminta SD2 berbohong kepada ibunya kononnya mangsa berada di rumah SD2 sepanjang hari itu untuk membakar ayam. Menurut SD2 beliau enggan untuk berbuat demikian. Keterangan Muhamad Saidi Bin Derani (SD3) [22] SD3 adalah bapa sepupu kepada SP4. [23] Menurut SD3, mangsa pernah memberitahu beliau bahawa perbuatan perayu mencabulnya adalah tidak benar. Oleh itu SD3 telah membawa mangsa dan SP4 ke Balai Polis Pulai Chondong untuk menarik balik laporan polis (D8) yang dibuat oleh mangsa ke atas perayu. SD3 juga membawa mangsa dan SP4 ke pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya di Kota Bharu untuk menghantar laporan polis tersebut dan juga surat yang dibuat oleh mangsa kepada Timbalan Pendakwa Raya (IDD13). Keterangan Mohd Saferi Bin Noor (SD4) [24] SD4 adalah adik ipar kepada perayu. S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [25] SD4 mengatakan pada 7/12/2018 jam lebih kurang 9.00 malam, ahli keluarga telah berkumpul di rumah ibu SP4 di Kampung Hutan Pasir, Ketereh, Kota Bharu, Kelantan untuk berbincang mengenai aduan yang dibuat oleh mangsa yang mengatakan bahawa perayu telah mencabul mangsa. [26] Apabila perayu sampai di rumah tersebut, perayu yang berada di dalam keadaan marah terus menuju ke arah mangsa dan SP4 lalu menampar mereka berdua. [27] Perayu menafikan perbuatannya dan menuduh mangsa hanya mereka-reka cerita sahaja terhadap perayu. [28] Perayu mencabar mangsa untuk membuat laporan polis terhadapnya jika kejadian itu benar-benar berlaku. [29] Di akhir kes pembelaan, Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana pada 13/11/2019 telah mendapati perayu bersalah dan perayu dijatuhi hukuman 14 tahun pemenjaraan dari tarikh tangkap (9/12/2018) dan 7 kali sebatan rotan. Perayu juga diperintah untuk menjalani kaunseling dan perintah pengawasan selama 3 tahun selepas menjalani hukuman pemenjaraan mengikut seksyen 26 dan seksyen 27 Akta Kesalahan- Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017. [30] Tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan tersebut, maka pada 18/11/2019 perayu telah menfailkan Notis Rayuan (kandungan 1) ke Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu, Kelantan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman tersebut. S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [31] Pada 26/8/2021, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana telah mengekalkan sabitan dan hukuman terhadap perayu. [32] Terkilan dengan keputusan tersebut , maka pada 5/9/2021 perayu menfailkan Notis Rayuan (kandungan 41) ke Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman. Peruntukan Undang - Undang Berkaitan (a) Seksyen 14(d) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: Amang seksual fizikal atas kanak - kanak (a)…. (b) … (c) … (d) Melakukan apa-apa perbuatan lain yang melibatkan kontak fizikal dengan seseorang kanak - kanak tanpa persetubuhan melakukan suatu kesalahan dan hendaklah, apabila disabitkan, dihukum dengan pemenjaraan selama tempoh tidak melebihi dua puluh tahun dan boleh juga dihukum dengan hukuman sebat. S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (b) Seksyen 16 (1) Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak - Kanak 2017 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: Orang yang mempunyai hubungan amanah “16.(1) Jika seseorang yang melakukan mana-mana kesalahan di bawah Akta ini atau mana-mana kesalahan yang dinyatakan dalam Jadual terhadap seseorang kanak-kanak, mempunyai hubungan amanah dengan kanak-kanak itu, orang itu hendaklah sebagai tambahan kepada hukuman yang dia boleh kenakan bagi kesalahan itu, dihukum dengan pemenjaraan selama tempoh tidak melebihi lima tahun dan hendaklah juga dihukum dengan hukuman sebat tidak kurang daripada dua sebatan. (c) Seksyen 26 Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak- Kanak 2017 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: Kaunseling pemulihan “26.(1) Mahkamah, boleh sebagai tambahan kepada apa-apa hukuman yang dikenakan bagi mana-mana kesalahan di bawah Akta ini, atau mana-mana kesalahan yang dinyatakan dalam Jadual sekiranya mangsa ialah kanak-kanak, memerintahkan suatu tempoh kaunseling pemulihan terhadap orang yang disabitkan atas kesalahan itu dalam tempoh penahanannya. S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (d) Seksyen 27 Akta Kesalahan - Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak - Kanak 2017 memperuntukkan seperti berikut: Pengawasan polis “27.(1) Walau apapun subseksyen 295(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah , sama ada, dia dahulunya telah disabitkan atas apa - apa kesalahan atau tidak, apabila seseorang disabitkan atas mana- mana kesalahan di bawah Akta ini, atau mana-mana kesalahan yang dinyatakan dalam Jadual sekiranya mangsa ialah kanak- kanak , mahkamah hendaklah mengarahkan supaya dia diletakkan di bawah pengawasan polis bagi suatu tempoh yang tidak kurang daripada satu tahun dan tidak lebih daripada tiga tahun bermula sebaik habis tempoh hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan terhadapnya. (2) Apabila mana-mana orang yang diletakkan di bawah pengawasan polis di bawah sub seksyen (1), semasa masih berada di bawah pengawasan itu, dihukum dengan suatu tempoh pemenjaraan di dalam Malaysia, apa-apa tempoh yang dijalani di dalam penjara hendaklah dikecualikan daripada tempoh pengawasan.” Prinsip Undang -Undang Berkaitan Hukuman Di Peringkat Rayuan [33] Secara prinsipnya, mahkamah di peringkat rayuan jarang sekali campurtangan atau mengganggu hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim perbicaraan melainkan ternyata hukuman yang dijatuhkan itu adalah berlebihan, tidak memadai dengan kesalahan yang telah dilakukan, tidak menurut undang-undang dan sebagainya. S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [34] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Pendakwa Raya v. Prabu A/L Veeramuthu and Others [2010] 8 CLJ 257;[2010] 1 LNS 695 di mana Hasan Lah HMR (beliau pada ketika itu) yang menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah menyatakan seperti berikut: “[11] In an appeal against sentence an appellate court would not disturb the sentence imposed unless the trial court had erred in applying the correct principles of sentencing or had embarked on some unauthorized or extraneous exercise of discretion (see Ganesan a/l Nachiappan & Ors v. Public Prosecutor [2000] 3 CLJ 302; Public Prosecutor v. Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 256; Bhandulananda Jayatilake v. Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 LNS 139; [1982] 1 MLJ 83 and Yit Kean Hong v. PP [2005] 4 CLJ 592. [35] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Mohd Yusri Mangsor & Anor v. PP [2014] 7 CLJ 897; [2014] 1 LNS 351, di mana Mohd Zawawi Salleh HMR (beliau pada ketika itu) yang menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah menyatakan seperti berikut: “[4] We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Deputy Public Prosecutor ("DPP") at some length. We have also scrutinised the records available before us. We are mindful that this is a factual based appeal. It is trite that an appellate court will be slow to interfere with the findings of facts and judicial appreciation of the facts by the trial court to which the law entrusts the primary task of evaluation of the evidence. However, there are exceptions. Where: S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 (a) the judgment is based upon a wrong premise of fact or of law; (b) there was insufficient judicial appreciation by the trial judge of the evidence of circumstances placed before him; (c) the trial judge has completely overlooked the inherent probabilities of the case; (d) that the course of events affirmed by the trial judge could not have occurred; (e) the trial judge had made an unwarranted deduction based on faulty judicial reasoning from admitted or established facts; or (f) the trial judge had so fundamentally misdirected himself that one may safely sat that no reasonable court which had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same conclusion, then an appellate court will intervene to rectify that error so that injustice is not occasioned, then an appellate court will intervene to rectify that error so that injustice is not occasioned (See Perembun (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Conlay Construction Sdn. Bhd. [2012] 4 MLJ 149, (CA); Sivalingam a/l Periasamy v Periasamy & Anor [1996] 4 CLJ 545 (CA); [1995] 3 MLJ 395 (CA)). [36] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes PP v. Ling Leh Hoe [2015] 4 CLJ 869, di mana Mohd Zawawi Salleh HMR (beliau pada ketika itu) yang menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah menyatakan seperti berikut: S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 “[14] The appellate court can and will interfere in the sentence imposed by the lower court if it is satisfied that any of the following four grounds are made out: (a) The sentencing judge had made a wrong decision as to the proper factual basis for the sentence; (b) There had been an error on the part of the trial judge in appreciating the material facts placed before him; (c) The sentence was wrong in principle; or (d) The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. (See R v. Ball [1951] 35 Cr App. R 164; Loo Weng Fatt v. Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 SLR 313 at para [65]; Public Prosecutor v. UI [2008] 4 SLR (R) 500). [15] In similar vein, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Dookes v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] SCJ 71 said at para 177: ... sentencing is not a science of mathematical application of any set formula. It is a normative science rather than a physical science which takes into account the circumstances of the offender as well as the offence and the impact of the offence on the community. A sentence may look to be lenient because it is tailored to fit the offender, the offence and the offended but, in our system of justice, the trial court is the only constitutional institution which is S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 empowered and sovereign in determining which sentence to impose on an offender on the facts of the particular case. An appellate court would scarce intervene unless the sentence is wrong in principle or manifestly harsh and excessive or unduly lenient. However, even if there is nothing wrong with the principle, the sentence may be increased by the appellate court if it is unduly lenient. The principle of proportionality pervades through the whole system of justice, in procedure, substance and sanctions.” Alasan Meringankan Hukuman oleh Perayu (a) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana gagal untuk mengikut trend hukuman sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman. (b) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana telah mengekalkan hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh mahkamah sesyen tanpa merujuk kepada mana-mana autoriti duluan berkait dengan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan -kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017. (c) Kesalahan pertama perayu dan beliau tidak mempunyai rekod sabitan yang lampau. (d) Perayu berusia 49 semasa hukuman dijatuhkan oleh mahkamah sesyen. (e) Perayu insaf dengan perbuatannya. S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Keputusan Kami [37] Sebelum penghujahan lisan dibuat oleh kedua-dua pihak di hadapan kami pada 26/10/2023, peguam perayu yang bijaksana telah menyatakan bahawa perayu ingin menarik balik rayuannya terhadap sabitan dan hanya akan meneruskan rayuannya terhadap hukuman sahaja. Dengan itu, kami sebulat suara membatalkan rayuannya terhadap sabitan. Tumpuan kini hanya terhadap hukuman sahaja. [38] Kami mengambil pertimbangan beberapa perkara sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman yang sesuai dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan. Di antaranya adalah seperti berikut: (a) Kepentingan awam hendaklah melebihi dari kepentingan individu. (b) Perbuatan seksual terhadap kanak-kanak semakin meningkat. (c) Perayu adalah bapa kandung mangsa. (d) Mangsa berusia berumur 17 tahun 8 bulan semasa kejadian. (e) Perbicaraan dijalankan sehingga selesai. (f) Trend hukuman terkini. [39] Bagi melihat kepada trend hukuman, rujukan dibuat kepada beberapa nas undang-undang yang berkaitan kesalahan di bawah S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 seksyen 14 Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017. Di antaranya adalah seperti berikut: [40] Di dalam kes Md Jahangir v. Pendakwa Raya [2020] 1 LNS 115, Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali H (beliau pada ketika itu) memutuskan seperti berikut: “[54] My own research shows that the punishment recorded in recent cases for Section 14 offences include Mohamad Izzaini bin Zainudin v. Public Prosecutor [2019] 7 MLJ 366 where the sentence was a jail term of 7 years and one stroke of whipping for each of the three charges, Helerryak Bungkok v. Public Prosecutor [2019] 1 LNS 315; [2019] 10 MLJ 308 where the imprisonment was for 10 years, accompanied with two strokes of whipping for each of the two charges under Section 14 (d); and Razali bin Silah v. Public Prosecutor [2019] 1 LNS 1508; [2019] 12 MLJ 205, where a jail term of 4 years and one stroke of whipping was ordered by the Court. In my judgment, the sentence meted out against the appellant - of 6 years' imprisonment from the date of arrest and two strokes of whipping is in consonance with a careful attempt to strike a balanced determination of the most proportionate, fair and appropriate punishment for the appellant for having pleaded guilty to the commission of the offence under Section 14(a) of the Sexual Offences against Children Act 2017.” [41] Di dalam kes Azman Mahedin v. PP [ 2020] 1 LNS 1673, Dr Hj Alwi Hj Abdul Wahab H memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 “[26] The relevant case law for consideration is the case of Public Prosecutor v. Mad Salleh Naif [2019] 5 LNS 16 where the accused in that case was charged under the same section of Act 792 as in the instant appeal. In that case, the accused pleaded guilty for the offence of touching, kissing and licking the victim's private part and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with 2 strokes of whipping. [27] In the instant appeal, the appellant was sentenced to 8 years which in my view is too high the price to pay for a mild offence of merely touching the victim's buttock momentarily. In the circumstances, I am minded to reduce the sentence of 8 years imposed by the learned SCJ to 6 years. The Court's view on the seriousness of this type of offence is not diminished as the whipping sentence imposed by the learned SCJ is affirmed although the learned counsel for the appellant urged this Court to set aside the whipping sentence as there was no injury or threat caused to the victim. The 6 years imprisonment term, in my view, is sufficient and commensurate as punishment to the appellant for what he had done to his niece despite there was no violent act and/or threat involved. [28] The conviction by the learned SCJ is affirmed but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 8 years to 6 years. The whipping sentence of 2 strokes as imposed by the learned SCJ is maintained and affirmed. “ [42] Di dalam kes Fadzil Sulaiman v. PP [2020] 1 LNS 1551, Zulkifli Bakar H memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 “Hukuman penjara 8 tahun bagi kes BA-42JSKH(A)-2-11/2018 dikurangkan kepada 4 tahun penjara bagi kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan. Namun hukuman 2 tahun penjara tambahan di bawah Seksyen 16 Akta yang sama serta 2 sebatan dikekalkan bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan dan diperintahkan untuk dijalankan serentak; Hukuman penjara 6 tahun bagi kes BA-42JSKH(A)-4-11/2018 dikurangkan kepada 4 tahun penjara bagi kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan. Namun hukuman 2 tahun penjara tambahan di bawah Seksyen 16 Akta yang sama serta 2 sebatan dikekalkan.” [43] Di dalam kes Safri v. PP [2020] 1 LNS 1363, Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh PK (beliau pada ketika itu) memutuskan seperti berikut: “[61] Hakim bicara yang bijaksana telah menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap tertuduh seperti berikut: (a) penjara selama 15 tahun dari tarikh tangkap (17.11.2017) dan 4 sebatan bagi kesalahan rogol di bawah seksyen 376(2)(d) KK; dan (b) penjara selama 5 tahun dari tarikh tangkap (17.11.2017) dan 2 sebatan bagi kesalahan amang seksual fizikal di bawah seksyen 14(d) Akta KSTK, dan memerintahkan agar hukuman S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 penjara bagi kedua-dua kesalahan dijalankan secara serentak. [66] Oleh yang demikian, saya dengan ini menolak rayuan tertuduh terhadap sabitan dan hukuman. Saya juga menolak rayuan silang Pendakwa Raya terhadap hukuman. Sabitan dan hukuman hakim bicara yang bijaksana bagi kedua-dua pertuduhan dikekalkan.” [44] Di dalam kes Muhammad Shahrani bin Muhammad Sani v. Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 LNS 72 Aslam Zainuddin PK (beliau pada ketika itu) memutuskan seperti berikut: “[1] The Appellant was found guilty by the Sessions Court below on two charges under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 and section 377B of the Penal Code respectively and was sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment and ordered to be whipped with two (2) strokes of the rotan on each charge. The imprisonment term was ordered to run concurrently from 14 June 2019. [17] An appellate court will not interfere with the sentence imposed by the court below unless it is shown that the sentence imposed was unreasonable or manifestly [18] Based on the above case law, I reduced the sentence of the accused on both the charges from ten to eight years imprisonment and for case number WA-42JSKS-6-07/2019 I reduced the whipping from two to one stroke. Both the imprisonment sentences were ordered to run concurrently.” S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [45] Di dalam kes Suresh Karpaya v. PR [2022] 1 LNS 193, Abu Bakar Katar H memutuskan seperti berikut: “[2] Perayu tidak mengaku bersalah atas pertuduhan dan telah diwakili peguamnya iaitu Tetuan Amarpreet Singh & Co. Perbicaraan penuh telah dijalankan di hadapan Tuan Hakim, Mahkamah Sesyen, Johor Bahru, Johor [Tuan HMS itu]. Di akhir perbicaraan Tuan HMS itu memutuskan Perayu bersalah dan disabitkan atas pertuduhan s. 14(a) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 [Akta itu]. Tuan HMS itu telah menjatuhi hukuman penjara 6 tahun mulai tarikh sabitan (21.10.2021) dan 2 sebatan rotan. [3] Perayu yang terkilan dengan keputusan Tuan HMS itu telah memfailkan Notis Rayuan ke Mahkamah Tinggi, Johor Bahru atas sabitan dan hukuman [Rekod Rayuan] [RR] [JILID 1] (muka surat (2)-(4)). Mahkamah ini telah mendengar rayuan Perayu, di akhir pendengaran Mahkamah ini menolak rayuan Perayu atas sabitan dan hukuman yang dijatuhi oleh Tuan HMS itu disahkan.” [46] Di dalam kes Ruslan bin Bacika v. Pendakwa Raya (Rayuan Jenayah No: W-09 (H)-27-02/2020) Mahkamah Rayuan melalui perintah yang disampaikan oleh Kamaludin bin Md Said HMR pada 12/5/2023 telah mengekalkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur yang mengenakan hukuman pemenjaraan 10 tahun dan 2 sebatan bagi dua pertuduhan berasingan terhadap perayu di bawah seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan - Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 kerana melakukan amang seksual fizikal dengan memasukkan jari dalam kemaluan mangsa yang berusia 12 tahun 11 bulan. Hukuman S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 pemenjaraan berjalan serentak. Perayu adalah bapa angkat mangsa. Perayu mengaku salah. [47] Di dalam kes Mohd Sukri Bin Hassan v. Pendakwa Raya (Rayuan Jenayah No: A-09-268-07/2022) Mahkamah Rayuan melalui perintah yang disampaikan oleh Hadhariah binti Syed Ismail HMR pada 23/8/2023 telah mengekalkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh yang mengenakan hukuman pemenjaraan 10 tahun dari tarikh jatuh hukum dan 2 sebatan di bawah seksyen 14(a) Akta Kesalahan- Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 (Akta 792) dan pemenjaraan selama 3 tahun dan 4 kali sebatan di bawah seksyen 16(1) Akta yang sama. Hukuman tambahan dibawah seksyen 26(1) dan seksyen 27(1) Akta 792 juga dikenakan terhadap beliau. Perayu merupakan bapa kandung mangsa. Mangsa berumur 13 tahun 4 bulan. Perbicaraan penuh dijalankan. [48] Berdasarkan kepada nas-nas undang-undang di atas dan setelah mengambil pertimbangan kesemua faktor pemberat dan peringanan hukuman, kami sebulat suara memutuskan seperti berikut: (a) Rayuan perayu terhadap sabitan di bawah seksyen 14(d) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 dibaca bersama seksyen 16(1) Akta yang sama ditolak. (b) Rayuan perayu terhadap hukuman dibenarkan sebahagian. (c) Hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang bijaksana yang kemudiannya telah disahkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana berkenaan pemenjaraan selama 14 tahun dari tarikh tangkap 9/12/2018 dan 7 sebatan S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 adalah diketepikan dan digantikan dengan hukuman pemenjaraan seperti berikut: (i) Pemenjaraan selama 7 tahun dan 2 sebatan dari tarikh tangkap 9/12/2018 bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14(d) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017; dan (ii) Pemenjaraan selama 3 tahun dan 2 sebatan rotan berjalan berturut-turut selepas habis hukuman bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 14(d) Akta Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 sebagai hukuman tambahan di bawah seksyen 16(1) Akta yang sama. (d) Perayu juga diperintahkan untuk menjalani Kaunseling dan Perintah Pengawasan selama 3 tahun mengikut seksyen 26 dan seksyen 27 Akta yang sama selepas tamat menjalani hukuman pemenjaraan. Tarikh: 7 Disember 2023 - Sgd - Azmi bin Ariffin Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Kaunsel Bagi Perayu : 1. Ahmad Nizam bin Mohamed 2. Muhd Hanis bin Mohd Shariff [Amir Azwani & Jailani Norfaruqi (Kota Bharu)] Bagi Responden : Dhiya Syazwani Izyan Binti Mohd Akhir [Timbalan Pendakwa Raya] S/N dxwhwPrdPEOC4Rh1XWXatg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-45B-3-02/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH Ripon [Bangladesh]

Tertuduh (OKT) telah merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan ke atas hukuman oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam atas kesalahan dibawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan (KK) terhadap hukuman penjara lima belas (15) tahun bermula dari tarikh tangkap (11.11.2019). OKT memohon agar hukuman diringankan. Mahkamah mengambil kira bahawa representasi OKT telah diterima oleh Pendakwaan dari seksyen 302 KK kepada seksyen 304(a) KK dan berpendapat bahawa hukuman 15 tahun penjara (dari tarikh tangkap) yang dikenakan adalah wajar dan setimpal, jika berbanding dengan hukuman maksima pemenjaraan 30 tahun yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 304(a) KK. Seperti yang dihujahkan oleh Pendakwaan satu nyawa telah hilang akibat tindakan OKT. Impak bukan sahaja kepada OKT tetapi lebih berat kepada keluarga simati. Mengambil kira mitigasi untuk peringanan hukuman oleh peguam OKT, OKT sendiri, pemberatan hukuman oleh Pendakwa Raya serta mengambil kira faktor kepentingan awam dan kes Mahkamah Rayuan di atas, Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa hukuman yang dikenakan iaitu 15 tahun penjara dari tarikh tangkap terhadap OKT adalah wajar.

07/12/2023

YA Dato' Sri Latifah Binti Haji Mohd Tahar

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e9132095-06f8-4a01-a3e3-b94a36610225&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: BA-45B-3-02/2021 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN RIPON (WARGANEGARA BANGLADESH NO. PASSPORT: BR0797575) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN RAYUAN [1] Tertuduh (OKT) telah merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan ke atas hukuman oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam atas kesalahan dibawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan (KK) terhadap hukuman penjara lima belas (15) tahun bermula dari tarikh tangkap (11.11.2019). OKT memohon agar hukuman diringankan. 07/12/2023 16:24:27 BA-45B-3-02/2021 Kand. 146 S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 PENGENALAN [2] Izin dibawah seksyen 177A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (P1) telah dikeluarkan terhadap Ripon iaitu seorang warganegara Bangladesh dan pemegang passport Bangladesh No. BR0797575 (selepas ini dikenali sebagai OKT). [3] Tertuduh dituduh dengan pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan kerana menyebabkan kematian ke atas Khan Md Rezaul Karim dan Pertuduhan Asal adalah sebagaimana berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 10 November 2019 di antara jam 5.00 petang hingga 5.45 petang, bertempat di dalam hotel pekerja Kilang MSL Rubber Industries Sdn. Bhd. Lot 1908 Jalan Bukit Kemuning, Batu 7, Kampung Jawa Shah Alam, dalam daerah Petaling Jaya, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah melakukan bunuh dengan menyebabkan kematian kepada Khan Md Rezul Karim No. Passport BT0262095. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan.” [Pertuduhan Asal] S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [4] Pertuduhan Asal telah dibaca oleh jurubahasa Bangladesh En. Manoj Kumar Das dalam bahasa Bangla kepada OKT dan OKT faham akibat pertuduhan dan mohon dibicarakan. [5] Memandangkan pihak peguam telah menghantar representasi dan representasi telah diterima oleh Pihak Pendakwaan, maka Pertuduhan Pilihan (P3) telah dibacakan, diterangkan dan difahami oleh OKT dalam bahasa Bangla yang diterangkan oleh Jurubahasa En. Manoj Kumar Das seperti berikut:- “Bahawa pada 10 November 2019 di antara jam 5.00 petang hingga 5.45 petang bertempat hostel pekerja Kilang MSL Rubber Industries Sdn. Bhd. Lot 1908 Jalan Bukit Kemuning, Batu 7, Kampung Jawa Shah Alam, di dalam daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor, telah menyebabkan kematian ke atas Khan Md Rezul Karim (No. Passport BT0262095) dengan niat menyebabkan kecederaan tubuh badan yang mungkin menyebabkan kematiannya. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan homisid salah tidak terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh yang boleh dihukum di bawah satu kesalahan S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan.” HUKUMAN Penjara boleh sampai 30 tahun dan hendaklah juga dikenakan denda. [Pertuduhan Pilihan] [6] Setelah Pertuduhan Pilihan dibacakan dalam bahasa Bangla dan difahami oleh OKT, OKT telah mengaku salah dan faham sifat serta akibat pengakuannya terhadap pertuduhan pilihan tersebut. [7] OKT juga mengakui fakta kes (P4) dan kesemua ekshibit P5 hingga 32(C)(1) yang telah dikemukakan oleh Pendakwa Raya juga diakui oleh OKT. [8] Mitigasi oleh Peguam OKT adalah seperti berikut:- 1) Tertuduh telah mengaku bersalah kepada Pertuduhan Pilihan; 2) OKT berumur 33 tahun, sudah berkahwin dan mempunyai 2 orang anak; 3) Ibu bapa OKT tinggal di Bangladesh dan sangat bergantung kepada OKT; S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 4) OKT tidak berpelajaran kerana sejak umur 7 tahun beliau mula bekerja untuk menolong keluarga yang terdiri dari 3 orang adik beradik disebabkan pada masa itu bapa OKT jatuh dan patah tangan dan paralysed; 5) Tujuan OKT datang ke Malaysia untuk mencari kerja dan membantu keluarga di Bangladesh; 6) OKT telah insaf dan malu di atas kesalahan yang menjatuhkan maruah keluarganya; dan 7) OKT memohon suatu hukuman yang seringan-ringannya dari tarikh tangkap. [9] Mahkamah juga memberi peluang kepada OKT membuat mitigasi selain apa yang dikatakan oleh peguam beliau. OKT telah menyatakan seperti berikut:- “Saya mohon satu hukuman seringan-ringannya Yang Arif bagi membolehkan saya balik semula ke negara asal saya untuk bersama-sama dengan ibu bapa serta isteri anak-anak dan ahli keluarga lain. Itu sahaja.” HUKUMAN [10] Dalam kes ini OKT telah mengakui fakta kes (P4) dan setelah meneliti fakta kes, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa kejadian berlaku pada S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 pukul 4.00 petang dibahagian dapur hostel semasa simati, OKT serta rakan-rakan sedang menyediakan bahan masakan untuk dimasak. [11] Pada mulanya OKT dan simati berborak berkenaan keluarga masing-masing tertiba rakan-rakan mendengar OKT memarahi simati kerana menghina kerjanya di kampung. Pergaduhan dan pertengkaran mulut tersebut berlaku di antara OKT dan simati yang menyebabkan OKT menikam simati di bahagian dada sebelah kiri dengan menggunakan pisau pemotong. Selepas itu simati berlari keluar dari hostel dan OKT pula menangis dengan kuat. Simati rebah di pintu masuk hostel dalam keadaan berdarah. [12] Mahkamah mengambil kira bahawa representasi OKT telah diterima oleh Pendakwaan dari seksyen 302 KK kepada seksyen 304(a) KK dan berpendapat bahawa hukuman 15 tahun penjara (dari tarikh tangkap) yang dikenakan adalah wajar dan setimpal, jika berbanding dengan hukuman maksima pemenjaraan 30 tahun yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 304(a) KK. Seperti yang dihujahkan oleh Pendakwaan satu nyawa telah hilang akibat tindakan OKT. Impak bukan sahaja kepada OKT tetapi lebih berat kepada keluarga simati. S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [13] Semasa Mahkamah ini mempertimbangkan hukuman yang patut dikenakan terhadap OKT, Mahkamah telah mengambil kira prinsip undang-undang yang telah diputuskan dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan terdahulu Pendakwa Raya v. Ribin bin Osman [2017] MLJU 43. Dalam kes ini, Mahkamah Rayuan sebenarnya telah meringkaskan skala hukuman (“the range of sentence”) bagi OKT yang mengaku salah untuk kesalahan di bawah seksyen 304(a) KK dan memutuskan hukuman pemenjaraan antara 15 hingga 20 tahun adalah sesuai: Case Facts Sentence Date of Offence PP v Kanadasan Sankaran & Anor [2010] 1 CLJ 596 PG to alternative charge s.304(a). Slashed the deceased on his face and neck whilst deceased was asleep. Enhanced from 10 years to 17 years by COA 6.9.2001 Kesavan Baskaran v PP [2008] 6 CLJ 390 PG to alternative charge s.304(a) Appellant enlisted assistance of 2 other accused to commit the crime Deceased savagely beaten then tied up and placed in a sack and thrown into a pond From 14 years enhanced to 18 years by COA 2003 PP v Karthiselvam Vengatan [2009] 4 CLJ 632 PG to alternative charge s.304(a) Smashed the deceased’s head with a grinding stone whilst the Enhanced from 13 years to 20 years by COA 2007 S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Case Facts Sentence Date of Offence latter was asleep because afraid that deceased would discover the theft. PP v Beiti binti Abdul Sawab S- 05-275-2010 15.3.2012 PG to alternative charge There was a provocation from the deceased to the R where the deceased had said “dayus” to him R had stabbed 7 times at the chest and back of the deceased The cause of death of the deceased was “hemorrhagic due to stab wounds” From 10 years imprisonment was enhanced to 15 years 16.10.2007 PP v Ramakrishnan Subramaniam & Ors 20129 CLJ 443 PG to alternative charge s.304(a) Deceased was tied up and savagely beaten by the appellants using hands, woods and belt Since the deceased had refused to answer the question put by R3, R3 then used a parang to hit the deceased’s head The next day he was brought to a jungle area and again was beaten by the appellants He was left alone From 13 years (for R3) and 11 years (for R1, R2, R4, R5) enhanced to 18 years (for R3) and 15 years (for R1, R2, R4, R5) 26.4.2007 PP v Amil bin Mohd Shah N-05- 46-2010 19.5.2011 COA increased sentence given by HC (12 years) The respondent killed her girlfriend 15 years imprisonment S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Case Facts Sentence Date of Offence because she wanted to end up their relationship Kammon Wanga & 1 v PP R-05-93- 2008 8.3.2011 Appellants originally charged under section 302 PC read with section 34 PC COA increased sentence given by HC which is 8½ years for 1st respondent and 8 years for 2nd respondent 15 years (1st appellant), 13 years (2nd appellant) [14] Mengambil kira mitigasi untuk peringanan hukuman oleh peguam OKT, OKT sendiri, pemberatan hukuman oleh Pendakwa Raya serta mengambil kira faktor kepentingan awam dan kes Mahkamah Rayuan di atas, Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa hukuman yang dikenakan iaitu 15 tahun penjara dari tarikh tangkap terhadap OKT adalah wajar. (LATIFAH BINTI HAJI MOHD. TAHAR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM TARIKH: 6.12.2023 S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 COUNSEL Bagi pihak Perayu: En. Viknesvaran Kanapathippillai Tetuan Viknes Ratna & Co. Peguambela dan Peguamcara Unit 3A-C 2nd Floor Jalan USJ 10/1A Taipan Business Centre 47610 Subang Jaya Selangor Bagi pihak Pendakwaan: TPR Alison Chan May Kam Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-45B-3-02/2021

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH Ripon [Bangladesh]

Tertuduh (OKT) telah merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan ke atas hukuman oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam atas kesalahan dibawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan (KK) terhadap hukuman penjara lima belas (15) tahun bermula dari tarikh tangkap (11.11.2019). OKT memohon agar hukuman diringankan. Mahkamah mengambil kira bahawa representasi OKT telah diterima oleh Pendakwaan dari seksyen 302 KK kepada seksyen 304(a) KK dan berpendapat bahawa hukuman 15 tahun penjara (dari tarikh tangkap) yang dikenakan adalah wajar dan setimpal, jika berbanding dengan hukuman maksima pemenjaraan 30 tahun yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 304(a) KK. Seperti yang dihujahkan oleh Pendakwaan satu nyawa telah hilang akibat tindakan OKT. Impak bukan sahaja kepada OKT tetapi lebih berat kepada keluarga simati. Mengambil kira mitigasi untuk peringanan hukuman oleh peguam OKT, OKT sendiri, pemberatan hukuman oleh Pendakwa Raya serta mengambil kira faktor kepentingan awam dan kes Mahkamah Rayuan di atas, Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa hukuman yang dikenakan iaitu 15 tahun penjara dari tarikh tangkap terhadap OKT adalah wajar.

07/12/2023

YA Dato' Sri Latifah Binti Haji Mohd Tahar

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e9132095-06f8-4a01-a3e3-b94a36610225&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: BA-45B-3-02/2021 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN RIPON (WARGANEGARA BANGLADESH NO. PASSPORT: BR0797575) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN RAYUAN [1] Tertuduh (OKT) telah merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan ke atas hukuman oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam atas kesalahan dibawah seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan (KK) terhadap hukuman penjara lima belas (15) tahun bermula dari tarikh tangkap (11.11.2019). OKT memohon agar hukuman diringankan. 07/12/2023 16:24:27 BA-45B-3-02/2021 Kand. 146 S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 PENGENALAN [2] Izin dibawah seksyen 177A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (P1) telah dikeluarkan terhadap Ripon iaitu seorang warganegara Bangladesh dan pemegang passport Bangladesh No. BR0797575 (selepas ini dikenali sebagai OKT). [3] Tertuduh dituduh dengan pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan kerana menyebabkan kematian ke atas Khan Md Rezaul Karim dan Pertuduhan Asal adalah sebagaimana berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 10 November 2019 di antara jam 5.00 petang hingga 5.45 petang, bertempat di dalam hotel pekerja Kilang MSL Rubber Industries Sdn. Bhd. Lot 1908 Jalan Bukit Kemuning, Batu 7, Kampung Jawa Shah Alam, dalam daerah Petaling Jaya, dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, telah melakukan bunuh dengan menyebabkan kematian kepada Khan Md Rezul Karim No. Passport BT0262095. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan.” [Pertuduhan Asal] S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [4] Pertuduhan Asal telah dibaca oleh jurubahasa Bangladesh En. Manoj Kumar Das dalam bahasa Bangla kepada OKT dan OKT faham akibat pertuduhan dan mohon dibicarakan. [5] Memandangkan pihak peguam telah menghantar representasi dan representasi telah diterima oleh Pihak Pendakwaan, maka Pertuduhan Pilihan (P3) telah dibacakan, diterangkan dan difahami oleh OKT dalam bahasa Bangla yang diterangkan oleh Jurubahasa En. Manoj Kumar Das seperti berikut:- “Bahawa pada 10 November 2019 di antara jam 5.00 petang hingga 5.45 petang bertempat hostel pekerja Kilang MSL Rubber Industries Sdn. Bhd. Lot 1908 Jalan Bukit Kemuning, Batu 7, Kampung Jawa Shah Alam, di dalam daerah Petaling, di dalam Negeri Selangor, telah menyebabkan kematian ke atas Khan Md Rezul Karim (No. Passport BT0262095) dengan niat menyebabkan kecederaan tubuh badan yang mungkin menyebabkan kematiannya. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan homisid salah tidak terjumlah kepada kesalahan membunuh yang boleh dihukum di bawah satu kesalahan S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 304(a) Kanun Keseksaan.” HUKUMAN Penjara boleh sampai 30 tahun dan hendaklah juga dikenakan denda. [Pertuduhan Pilihan] [6] Setelah Pertuduhan Pilihan dibacakan dalam bahasa Bangla dan difahami oleh OKT, OKT telah mengaku salah dan faham sifat serta akibat pengakuannya terhadap pertuduhan pilihan tersebut. [7] OKT juga mengakui fakta kes (P4) dan kesemua ekshibit P5 hingga 32(C)(1) yang telah dikemukakan oleh Pendakwa Raya juga diakui oleh OKT. [8] Mitigasi oleh Peguam OKT adalah seperti berikut:- 1) Tertuduh telah mengaku bersalah kepada Pertuduhan Pilihan; 2) OKT berumur 33 tahun, sudah berkahwin dan mempunyai 2 orang anak; 3) Ibu bapa OKT tinggal di Bangladesh dan sangat bergantung kepada OKT; S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 4) OKT tidak berpelajaran kerana sejak umur 7 tahun beliau mula bekerja untuk menolong keluarga yang terdiri dari 3 orang adik beradik disebabkan pada masa itu bapa OKT jatuh dan patah tangan dan paralysed; 5) Tujuan OKT datang ke Malaysia untuk mencari kerja dan membantu keluarga di Bangladesh; 6) OKT telah insaf dan malu di atas kesalahan yang menjatuhkan maruah keluarganya; dan 7) OKT memohon suatu hukuman yang seringan-ringannya dari tarikh tangkap. [9] Mahkamah juga memberi peluang kepada OKT membuat mitigasi selain apa yang dikatakan oleh peguam beliau. OKT telah menyatakan seperti berikut:- “Saya mohon satu hukuman seringan-ringannya Yang Arif bagi membolehkan saya balik semula ke negara asal saya untuk bersama-sama dengan ibu bapa serta isteri anak-anak dan ahli keluarga lain. Itu sahaja.” HUKUMAN [10] Dalam kes ini OKT telah mengakui fakta kes (P4) dan setelah meneliti fakta kes, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa kejadian berlaku pada S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 pukul 4.00 petang dibahagian dapur hostel semasa simati, OKT serta rakan-rakan sedang menyediakan bahan masakan untuk dimasak. [11] Pada mulanya OKT dan simati berborak berkenaan keluarga masing-masing tertiba rakan-rakan mendengar OKT memarahi simati kerana menghina kerjanya di kampung. Pergaduhan dan pertengkaran mulut tersebut berlaku di antara OKT dan simati yang menyebabkan OKT menikam simati di bahagian dada sebelah kiri dengan menggunakan pisau pemotong. Selepas itu simati berlari keluar dari hostel dan OKT pula menangis dengan kuat. Simati rebah di pintu masuk hostel dalam keadaan berdarah. [12] Mahkamah mengambil kira bahawa representasi OKT telah diterima oleh Pendakwaan dari seksyen 302 KK kepada seksyen 304(a) KK dan berpendapat bahawa hukuman 15 tahun penjara (dari tarikh tangkap) yang dikenakan adalah wajar dan setimpal, jika berbanding dengan hukuman maksima pemenjaraan 30 tahun yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 304(a) KK. Seperti yang dihujahkan oleh Pendakwaan satu nyawa telah hilang akibat tindakan OKT. Impak bukan sahaja kepada OKT tetapi lebih berat kepada keluarga simati. S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [13] Semasa Mahkamah ini mempertimbangkan hukuman yang patut dikenakan terhadap OKT, Mahkamah telah mengambil kira prinsip undang-undang yang telah diputuskan dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan terdahulu Pendakwa Raya v. Ribin bin Osman [2017] MLJU 43. Dalam kes ini, Mahkamah Rayuan sebenarnya telah meringkaskan skala hukuman (“the range of sentence”) bagi OKT yang mengaku salah untuk kesalahan di bawah seksyen 304(a) KK dan memutuskan hukuman pemenjaraan antara 15 hingga 20 tahun adalah sesuai: Case Facts Sentence Date of Offence PP v Kanadasan Sankaran & Anor [2010] 1 CLJ 596 PG to alternative charge s.304(a). Slashed the deceased on his face and neck whilst deceased was asleep. Enhanced from 10 years to 17 years by COA 6.9.2001 Kesavan Baskaran v PP [2008] 6 CLJ 390 PG to alternative charge s.304(a) Appellant enlisted assistance of 2 other accused to commit the crime Deceased savagely beaten then tied up and placed in a sack and thrown into a pond From 14 years enhanced to 18 years by COA 2003 PP v Karthiselvam Vengatan [2009] 4 CLJ 632 PG to alternative charge s.304(a) Smashed the deceased’s head with a grinding stone whilst the Enhanced from 13 years to 20 years by COA 2007 S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Case Facts Sentence Date of Offence latter was asleep because afraid that deceased would discover the theft. PP v Beiti binti Abdul Sawab S- 05-275-2010 15.3.2012 PG to alternative charge There was a provocation from the deceased to the R where the deceased had said “dayus” to him R had stabbed 7 times at the chest and back of the deceased The cause of death of the deceased was “hemorrhagic due to stab wounds” From 10 years imprisonment was enhanced to 15 years 16.10.2007 PP v Ramakrishnan Subramaniam & Ors 20129 CLJ 443 PG to alternative charge s.304(a) Deceased was tied up and savagely beaten by the appellants using hands, woods and belt Since the deceased had refused to answer the question put by R3, R3 then used a parang to hit the deceased’s head The next day he was brought to a jungle area and again was beaten by the appellants He was left alone From 13 years (for R3) and 11 years (for R1, R2, R4, R5) enhanced to 18 years (for R3) and 15 years (for R1, R2, R4, R5) 26.4.2007 PP v Amil bin Mohd Shah N-05- 46-2010 19.5.2011 COA increased sentence given by HC (12 years) The respondent killed her girlfriend 15 years imprisonment S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 Case Facts Sentence Date of Offence because she wanted to end up their relationship Kammon Wanga & 1 v PP R-05-93- 2008 8.3.2011 Appellants originally charged under section 302 PC read with section 34 PC COA increased sentence given by HC which is 8½ years for 1st respondent and 8 years for 2nd respondent 15 years (1st appellant), 13 years (2nd appellant) [14] Mengambil kira mitigasi untuk peringanan hukuman oleh peguam OKT, OKT sendiri, pemberatan hukuman oleh Pendakwa Raya serta mengambil kira faktor kepentingan awam dan kes Mahkamah Rayuan di atas, Mahkamah ini berpandangan bahawa hukuman yang dikenakan iaitu 15 tahun penjara dari tarikh tangkap terhadap OKT adalah wajar. (LATIFAH BINTI HAJI MOHD. TAHAR) HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM TARIKH: 6.12.2023 S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 COUNSEL Bagi pihak Perayu: En. Viknesvaran Kanapathippillai Tetuan Viknes Ratna & Co. Peguambela dan Peguamcara Unit 3A-C 2nd Floor Jalan USJ 10/1A Taipan Business Centre 47610 Subang Jaya Selangor Bagi pihak Pendakwaan: TPR Alison Chan May Kam Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor S/N lSAT6fgGAUqj47lKNmECJQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-29NCC-7-01/2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMANFAST MERIDIAN SDN BHDPENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMANZAINOL BIN ABDUL KARIM

Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa JC masih berhak untuk meneruskan tindakan ke atas pemecahan Perjanjian Jual Beli yang dimasuki walaupun dakwaan bahawa ianya tidak sah kerana tidak disetemkan.

07/12/2023

YA Tuan Azizan bin Md. Arshad

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=dc5f6853-c76b-4576-a6d4-a28e29950f93&Inline=true

07/12/2023 15:21:49 PA-29NCC-7-01/2023 Kand. 56 S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N U2hf3GvHdkWm1KKOKZUPkw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PA—29NCC—7—D1/2023 Kand. 56 2‘/12,2012 ,5 2, 4'4 DALAM IIIAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI Puuu PINANG DALAM IIEGERI PULAU PINANG. MALAYSIA KEBANKRAPAN No: PA-29Ncc-7—o1I2n23 BER: ZAINOL am ABDUL KARIM W0. KIF: 660114412-5597] PENGNUTANG FENGNAKIMAN Ex-PARTE: FAST MERIDIAN SDN BHD INO. SYARIKAT: 482316-VI .....PEMlUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [LAMPIRAN 11] Plnflllmluln [11 lm mempakan rayuan alah Penghulang Pengnaklman (my cemaaap keputusan mahkamah W Vang telah menmak rayuan JD lemadav kepulusan meh Fenolong Kanan Penuanar (PK?) my ceran menalak bamahan (emadap permohonan Nmns Kebanknapan (EN) o\eh Pemmtang Penghaklman uc) sw uznnsvwxwmu Kxuxzunm ‘ mm Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvVWuH|Y mm; mm. VII mum pm [21 JD telah max berpuashall dan memfavlkan rayuan cemaaap kepulusan Mahkamah W yang man dibeman pad: 911 2023 Pma|(- pmak dalam penghiklman ml akan dirujuk sabagaimina kedudukan mereka m permgkat Mahkamah ‘finggu lsu-Isu mm: [:1] Terdapal pelbagaw Isu telah dtbungkrlkan da\am panghujahan kedua-dua pmax seblgaw Isu ucama dun jug: mu sampmgln uugl am dnsnfuh) Nimun dnlnm pengnmman W Mahklmah telah manyusun semula iiu-wan IGPGRI bankut my Penghakumln Parsamuan max sah (ii) JD hukan pemamm hulang Syankal ( p an mak sah nu) Keuplylan JD rnambaynv Kmas Kausa: [4] ><enas»xenas kausa yang rerevan dalam penghakiman um adalah sepem benkul (i) Fermmlasn Mengeluankan Nous Kebankrapan benankh 9 1 zuza [Lamplran 1] no Nous Kehankravan bervankh 91 2023 [LImpirIn 21 (m) Sam-n nalam Kamar bemnkn 19 1 2023 [Lamniran 5] sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 1 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [22] Keglglan um membnlehkan JC menvuatkuasakan Hausa (a) Pengnaman lersebut yang memperuntukkan bahawa "Se/amulnya dtpersefu/m sekrranya Dekandan-Delendan masrh gagalunluk msmbayar kese/uruhan den‘ RMl72,0I70 oo telsehul da/am tampon ranmran mesa yang dipelssn/jut dr anlsra Pram dan Dersndarpoerendan, make kese/umhan RM472,oooaa lersenu! ads/ah men/sdr tslmltang sepenuhnya " 12:] Oleh kerana «ma pembayavan lelah tmenma gamma Vebnh kunang 4 «am. ream dan Lam Penghakwman Ferselmuan, maka JC (Blah herdasarkan kevada nerenggan (a) Penghaklman Perseouuan Iersebut memtankan proslflmg kebenkrlpan temadap JD unluk mendzpatkan kemburi wang squmxan nM472,ooo no (ersebm JD ndak pemah memakmmkan kepaaa JC nannwn nemapn pembell ylng berrmnal unluk memnen Klpal Fulal lamebul mlhupun nmemu bahlwa perlanjulln mass mbenkan unluk Fenghakvman Perserlupan taraabul egnr Syankat Iarsehul dapan menyiapkannya [24] Tambahan pma sekimnya wujud Pananuan Kelaxerar tersebnl [yang mana dnnafikan). JD lelah gagal unmk mengeksmbilkan Paqanpan Kvlaleral tersebul mahuwn mernasukkannya sebagal sam «am Hi dalarn Penghaklman Pavsetujuan (avsebul ataupun pmdaan mm.-.n Kepada Pengnakmlan Persetmuan tensebut dengan peraetujuan JC Oleh yang deml an pemfallan prosldlng kebankrapan hdak benentangan dengan spa-spa yang didakwa uleh JD milahan ism se\aras dengan Penghakrman Pevsemjusn lsrsebul sw uznnsvunkwm xxuxzuwkw 11 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [25] Jc max mempunyan pengexahuan berkenaan dengan periamutan mas: yang knnmvlya dmenkan umuk Syankal levsebnt menyvapkan Kapar F\fc( Ietsebut unluk membolehkannya duual kepada JC dan/alau plhak kellqa yang akan dimabdumknn n\eh JD kepada JC. Sekvanya benar dakwaan Im wupm (yang mana dvnafikan sekeraykerasnyaj, maka adalah Iudak berasas unluk Ierma Iersebut Ivdak dvekodkan dw dakam Penghakvman Pevselujuan (ersebm. [251 Tnada apaapa an dalam Penghakvman Perselujuan Iersebu! yang menyalakan bahawa JD nanya palm membayar RMI57,3:|3,33 sahqa memandangkan Pengnaknnan Perseluguan teraebut was sekall mempemnlukkan bahawa Syankm teraebul‘ Detendan Panama Defendan Kauga banana JC berseluju unluk membayar Fsmuutang Fengnakvuen wang segumlah RM472‘DOD no [271 Dakwann JD bahiwa memandangkan Kapal Pm (ersebul mm dlsizwkan, JC mak wen lagi herganmnw lwpada Panghaklman Perseluman tarsehm akan telapi aehamsnya memulakan llndakan ham ada\ah Kidak terkandung m dalam Penghaklman Persefujuan lelsebul dan ;elas sekaln beflenlangan dengannya JD mm seharusnw mblarkan/dibenarkan Imluk manuns samula 4-mwnm karma-Karma Penghaklman Fersemuan lelsebul [231 Pengnamman Perseluwan (emebul yang memperunlukkan bahawa hndakan ham aeherusnya dIlaHkan unluk mendapalkan tell!-rehl yang berknnan JD was man sedang Cuba mencipla uaymuema ham yang benenlnngan dengan Fenghaklmln Perseluwan hersebul agar syn uznnsvunkwnu Kxuxzuvkw 22 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Penghulang Penghiklmarl dapal Van dan persemjuin yang dibenkan ulehnya da\am lindakan an Mahkamah Sesyen Iersehul Imluk memelaskan wing sejumlah m/I472,ooa oo kepida JC [29] Dakwaan JD bahawa bellau hanya Demulang 1/3 daripada wang berjulrflah RM472.ooo.0o dun bukannya xselunman Wang neuumlan RM412,ow on memandangkan Penghakunan Pevsetujuan Iersebul udak menganuung: Iermi ‘bersesama afau berasmgafl adalah max berasas ksrana mnman swil (ersebul adalah lzemsdap kenga-mga Defendan flan kehka Pengnakmun Pelsamuan lanebut dvakodkan. JD bevsena Derendamnetenuan lam dv damn numucan am: Ievsebut Ialah barselum unluk membayar wang bequmlah RM472_o<m on kepads JC [:0] Dalam kes Herukh Thakurdas Jemwanl & Anor v. Bank simpanam Nasloual [2021] 5 Mu 4n7, aapmuskan hanawa' ‘ I hon max mlwllhslznfllng maunemgme-n ts sum as to Mcemer the mgnum var me judwnenl sum emu-m and wax nr ‘mm um um dnflandlnlx «gm; .g..m mu nmmm m (MI cue u on :- [mm mm lament! can u ymvded lar n the nrmexute ninrasmd m In: communes m sun-we me judgmml‘ [:11 Dnlam kes Kuiuvumu-n Einhi Kindunko sdn and v Fang soon Loom: [2021] 1 ML: 234, Minkamah Rayuarl rnemumskan banawa ‘In bum Sumlllvfl nu ma Edvnn Cu cue, Ina Cour! ougpun ma mnclnded um . judgment enland mmn Me 0! man mgmam sw uznnsvunkwnu Kxuxzuvkw 13 -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! «mm, wvmuul mm. created a jam! nan-my such um um :71 me mm flemnrs wns am we hr .n ahqual pnmm M me ...agmem sum and «meme emurmnenl may nmy he lrmfled In m2|a\Aqm1lpnmm Huwsven m ma pm-n lpvell, Ina own no arma It amsymnmuusnn hum mm m Sumllhyl mu Ind Edwm Cu . use Upon m. mmmm-an a..a..m¢ u. m. p.-um lpplll and Du wrwxhuncy M ...a..:..: view: expressed, ma uounwu mum |o condude mu 3 wogm-rll entered for payment :71 a sum M money ngnmsl mam pmamem demons mpnsed upon lhem and am at man. A pm! and seven! lmbmty In hamuv me am ludflmenldabl. and rum merely in wax now. am‘ nnlan ulmrwm mm nee para 5a a. 59! [an Da\am kss Lomhnua Kumpulan Wang Silnpuun Pokurja v. emu Cnsalan Nlglppln [mu 1 cm 52:, Mshkaman Fersekuluan nflmmuskan behavra '13» That: was mauve menu 04 «am am»: mow mmry m cm Aladgmeal wsell Even mm . mm M been msened, mm would ml enlnle me saw «u cum'.ludelha|Ixab1Ily was somemm mm hslwuan me two ubhgm: urpmmuml Gwen m. pluvlllmg .m.rp..:.m of: 44 mm Act‘ many wunmng mu wnvd -muy ... mu amxam mgmam mu um unifies «a nu»: Iuhlny .. mm mm ht churn: wanix In hit man to ma mm the many at me 1-ml Womwsors as to be home In equzn vrovumo-.s. Navuvvsr, Inch flawed nammy many: like men hum the ongman wum-e were me mm, M . pmmlsor for 1 data wed In 1 creamer .. e-v-any :med1nhean\ymIla1meae|:| mm premise mu pmund severulumlny‘ own rumba rend mm menndgment due m . nhnarme Mind: words war- »: be .nn-am n nnHlr1y mm mm . mu pmqmem mm mm mommauw he mierved Io mines; imnr hamlny where there .5 run such merlhnn Tn: us espemzm so whm the many mm mm 5 exvhmfl swung» by mm In one ulcurrnlamau‘ lulvlrly undev ms mum: mdgmem mus! necesunly be mm mm mm seveul m quuflm at m sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw n «M! smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm was answered m me ammmlwe um um mutter wns rammed to me Huh Emm (Jugs sna nyuk kes Rs Mohd saiful Azuar rad In: Ex P Bank Kefianma Rakyal Malaysia Blvd (20211: Cu 736) my Tambahan pula‘ JD Inga man gagal umuk menumukkan bahawa -wujud sehavang Lunluban ba\as, lolakan acau Iumulan suang Iemadap ac sepem menurul Seksyen amp; ma maawens. 1957 dan oleh yang denukxan kesemua dakwaan yang dmengkxtkan nleh JD dalam permohonan umuk membantah an Maka wmlah hulang kesemnman omen anumuc sepem dalam kes Ra Low, Ex Pam GihIon[1985]1 n.a. 134, dvpnluskan bahawa ‘ where:uflgmen|hasbemlemve<ed 39 flseverslpemmspmmty‘ a hankmpkw name: may be Issued agamsl one cl me mm wdgmenls «mm mmm Including ma ulhsn Rlnukuln r-ujanan JD [:41 JD membangkrlkan bahawa aw Ildak boleh mxemukakan (emadap JD bag: menunm mnggakan nutang dalam Pengnakman Perseviujuan kerana JD udak Ierllbat uavam penarulan Iersebut danlatau dalarn menywapkan Kapal Pvlul yang dipesan c\eh ac Penghaklman Persemjuan bersebul adalah bemsarkan kspada kauss Imdskan yang 3a\ah dan nleh Mu tunlman swul tersebut dan Penghaknman Perselujuan tersebuk yang meunacxan JD adalah saw ‘nu\Irly‘ dan Fenghakxman Pusemuan lersebul udak bcleh mkuamuasakan JD menquk kepad: kes sadiaadin sw uznnsvwxwm xxuxzunm ns -ma Sum ...m.. M“ be used m mm a. nvwhufllli mm; flan-mm VI] muNG wrm 5 Anal’ v. Anh ul y .In Fin-ncu Ehd [Ins] 1 ML] :93. [as] nalam mas: yang sama ;ugi Kapa\PI|v1 yang dlpesan oleh JC celan snap melemm 511% nan nanya manunggu untuk dllengkapkan dengan pevalacan dan perkakasan yang mana merupakan bahagxan kecd selebmnya masxh belum dnakukan. Keleuawn ml mga kerana wabak Cnv\d—(9 dan Penman Kawalan Pergerakan ('PKP‘) yang dflaksanakan dalam mesa Iambahan unluk menyxapkan Kapal FVID1 uarsebm dan JC seballknya max berseluju unluk perlamuvan mass menyababkan pembmaln Kapal Punt narsehm mgenuala dan mm Ievsadaw m hangkel pambmaan an Kempung Parnmang Lwmau Mams smnpang Ampal, Perhs Cavld-19 dan FKP adllah hdak terpakax memandangkan bahaw-a Pengnaxnnan Pemeiujuan tenehnt lekahpun anekoakan ma 23 3 20:3 Iflflu sebelum. CcvId—1Q dan PKP dflakjanikall [:51 Dakam mas: yang sama, JC Ie\ah memhayar sebanyak RIM72,00D.D0 yang mana mampakan aoas uanpaua iumlah harga behan wanu RMSEILDOD 00 IIII dengan jelas menumukkan (Ship kemiuuan ken: unluk menylapkan kapal lersebul nampu xesenumnannya lekah selesai yang nanya menunggu unkuk menangkapkan perkakasan yang nerxanan [:7] JC sewajamya. dan boleh mangamnu ann Kapax Pnm Iavsebul u-n Inemuamya anaupun menyamhung semula pembmaannya temp: merakn anggan berbuat aennxuan Mamlndangkln Kapal Fxlcl Iersebul lelah Iecih sou, dlsuapkan xanya bnleh dung! flan boleh menuapac nasu jualan mak kurang danpada RM3G0,0DGDO mamandangkan can-p syn uznnsvwxwnu Kxuxzunm is Nuns Snr1n\n-nhnrwmlxe used a van; .. annmny mums dun-mm VIZ mum puns! kemlwannyn hamplr sempurnl hanya menunpgu kebngkapin din perkakasan umuk mpessng pa] Dalam rumuuan sMl |ersebuI. JD dan seorang pengarah Vaxn dlsaman sebagal Delendan Kemga flan Syankll sebagav nevendan Panama, Denanggungjawab membayar hmang syankaL Dakwaan JD adalah bahawa JD max peman meruamln unluk membayar sebarang ksbemmangan Syankal [:9] CM: karanl JD max nemuh merliimm unluk membayar kabamux-ngan Syinkll larsebm. makl mask hmhul vlu JD vanu memhaylr dln/alau menqganllrugw JO -«as kegagalan Syarikal Isrsabut menylapkan Kapax F-um Iersebul Inn adalah Ker-ana kasemua blyaran» bayamn kamquan selaras dengan Peqanpan Jual Eeh cmanm dlhayar aleh JC kepada Syankat tersebutsebagax pembma kapal bukan Kenada JD [40] Htuahan JD juga bahawa — (u) Penghaklrnan Persetujuan lersebul mengxanemam wmlah w-ng Ishanylk RM472,oooco dibaylr kapaul Tatum Toh Theam Hock 5 CD sabagal ‘stskannldfl flan bukln kepma Jo. sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 17 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm my Penghaklmln Pers91u;uanlarsebuunga mengkenendakv jumlah lersebul fllbayar kepada Teluan Tah Theam Hack 5. Co sebagaw 'sfakehoIdeV kerana menunggu lawman mass unluk knpil Iersebm msempurnakan, ) Penghakwman Persetmuan tersehm mmasukw kerana Ierdapat perjalwan kolaleral ax anlara JC dan smkan msebut unluk membenkan mass supaya Syankal larsebul dapat menynapkan kapal Ielsebut Malahan‘ JC membentanu JD teldapal pembell yang berrrunal unluk membell Kapal Pm levsebul dan belsemu dakam Fenghaluman Perselujuan (emebul umuk lannnan mun bagx Sylnkal letsebm menywapknnnyl, my nndakan JC memfaflkan Ilndakan kehankrapan In| berlentanuan dengan persewjuan kmateral yang membenarkan syankac levsebul rnenylapkan kapal Iersebul. (-4) Mamanuangkan Pengnamman Pememuan Ievsebul lldak menyehut swat dan benluk kenemmangan mm sama ads Ianggungan bersesama avau berasingan‘ tanggungjawab JD man pun Wujud (yang mnna dmafikan) hanyallh sum pemga danpada Rmuzoauoo Ianu RM1s7,a3s as Dalam em kma Vam‘ JD hanya perlu membayav peguam Jo RM157,333 33 unluk dlpeglng aebegl penanman rsraksnomsr) semenlara manunggu kupal dusuapkan, dsn sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 11 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm my Kesan Penahaklrnnn Perselujuan tersebul lenyap apamla JC bersemu msmbarlkin perlaruman mas: unmk menylapkan Pemelujuan larsebul mahupun saber-mg permahonan unmk menoenenikan Annllu flan mpmn llahlumlh (U Penghaklmln Patseluluan lldak ssh my Hmahan JD le\ah mammbmkan persnalan barman Penghaklman Persetujuan, same ada xanya wen mxuauxuasa Kerana mdakwa bahawa lerma—tenr\a tensebol max add temadap JD [41] Panama main, adakah Penghaklman yang man dmlasukl secava sah aupemaxxan Kanpa JD bo\eh mempemkaxkan SAIIJ membual sebarang psrmohanan unluk Ianya drbalalkan alau dlkflepwkan lumbahun pula semasa EN duiaxlkan temidlp JD. [43] Damn ken Inn. Pengnaklmln Persetujuan mam pmak-pihik tehh sahkan bahawa Penghakrman lersebuk hdak pemah dlkedaptknn Mi! 51515 um, Panghnluman Persemuan lelssbul maslh mempakan Penghikvman yang nah darn boleh dlkualkuasakin bani man pedaksanaan termasuklah prasmng EN Mankamah um merujuk kepadi kzs Mlyblllk Illalllil: Bcrhad V M40 Euildurs Sdn End 5 Ann! [2017] sw uznnsvwxwmu xxuxzunm 19 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 7 cu 177. d\ mans Mahkamah Rayuan, meraxm VA Rohana Vusul JCA (Dada kenka nu) memmuskan bahawa ‘A coruam amen: we uudgmenlolmn mun um would revvum um unm xx .; at am: (no Pembmnn Ksv San and V lmn Sang Pmpemts Sun am mm 4 cu 263: [1991] 1 cu {Rep} 343 1199111 MLI me; u w Dhm and uhvlous mal «mm me abnve dause ac me mnsenl nru=r.|I1elw$( vapondenl ma admmud halxmy to ma aweflam on ma MOD may rum the rsspund51I|would n. Imppod fvum vanmg lny Iunnzv me an MOD Vncflny axnem an m. qumhml pm. .. ..u.c:.a m the consent am Even an mu gruund mm. the mm, n1mnvmnxpmdau|n6ouma¢' (Sula Imauuga Rn Annlo Llm [1531] 2 MLJ Z76; Dlluk Mom! Sui bin Dlluk Hnjl Nlnrv Norwich wlnmmnur In-unmco my son arm [1 2511 2 IIILJ wt [44] Mahkamah Ildak akan mehhal Penghakrman Ferselujuan Ievsebul pada penngkat Ikerana Ianya merupakan salu Penahaklman yang sah Pada Derlnsikat presiding kebankvapan, mahkamah ndak akan mehhal kepada nagaumana lersebul uupemeru Bukan langgungjawab Mahkamah Im umuk menllm semula Panghakimin Fersemuan Iersebut yang masm lag: sah nan berkulkuasa Panduan ml dubenkan da\am kes Teng Ghee Wal dan LaIn—laIn v. Hock Soon Seng Sdn and|zn1o]7 ML! 536, yang memutuskan baham penghakmian “A. mu, m. cmm .. mmdud nu|manbr\mn nrlncmnlgllny puny m .n amen. Mme me pines rm ngreed and Instructed thew munsel museum the Consenhiuogmeulcmvlalnmq the agreed terms and .-mu ohtammg Vega! mu, up wnuqueuuy upm an anmmgm, attempt In mum. ov a-saw. m ~ sw uznnsvunkwm xxuxzuvkw 2a -m smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm an Afidavll Sokongan oleh Zamcl Bm Awm Kanm (JD) berlankh 191 2023 [Lamviran s1. darn M Afidavfl Bmasan meh sy-rw hm Syed Buhan yang uilkranun lands 1: 2 2D23[|2mp1ran 9] (w) Afldav|lNa 2 oteh Zamol Em Abdul Kanm yang berlankn 21 2 2023 [Lampiran 101 Prolldlng Mlhk-mnh [5] nikemuxakan secara nngkas prosmmg yang Qelah berlangsung an Mahkamah yang mgunapaka: bemasarkan danpada huphan dan (Idak dvpemkaikan aleh kaduadua pmak wanu (II JC telah menyerahkun Nah! Kabankrapan banankh 912023 [Lumpann 2} banana Panmnlaan Mengeluurkan Nuns Kebankrapan barlankh 91 2oz: [Lumpwun I] swam kadm kn 9195 JD pudl I2 1 2023 (H) Susman din mu. JD telah memfaflkan Saman Dalam Kamar benankh 1912023[LampIran 5] dan |e\ah memamm amara lain umuk oenmarv nenman sepem berikul - ( blnawa Nous Kebankrapan berlankh 912023 dxkeluarkan lamadip Penghulang Psnghakzman dlslni mkeremkan. lb) kos, dan sw uznnsvunkwm xxuxzuvkw 3 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [45] Damn kes in mm JCLJ M4 in Banklng Barium v. Dntuk Lim Km-nu Khim m7] 2 cu (Rap) 325, yang mun: memmuskan ‘I mu now by up Iummnnze (he law hum the -mnmna. u loam: co m. ma| 4.; . hlrlkmplny mun nu pwnul m an mm . judgmum an wmcn Ina hznkmnlcy pmmedmgt -. foundod n more - avndcnea :1 «mm. eoflnslun or mmnmape of mm» in) An mwuhmy at mm: mm rs no sumem mum my uami behind melmwnenh re) - uanxmntzy am any as mm - wdumer-I n m ». Yuundud on . wnlricl mm -s vmd beclun n rs contrary to In mm: smnnovy pmmm (spa hankmvlcynuun mnvaohehmd . ...am..n...a nqulre miomevahdny uflhatlldgmamcven f in awllcabon to am ulfla 0!: judgment had been made mumsm. W Bflimled an mun supenmmlhe banknaucy noun [46] Mahkamah mi barscmu denam kepmusin kos Iersebul dan menefiml pakainyu dalam km ax hldlpan mahkamah Ini sekumnu (n) JD bukan penllmln mmng syarlkat [47] Fanghaknmnn Parseluguln iarsabul mu menuuk keplfla Defendan-Defendun flan uadudmyatnkan seclra beruslngan‘ mnk nyl bolah amuaxkunsakan mas wmllh yang penuh dilum an ylng dukemukakan «amau-p Devencmmerenann Im duellsknn lug? dallm -kamu, Klaus: Panal Pangmmmun Pamm. .n yang manyebm sw Ll2NJGvHflkWm1KKDKZUPkw 11 «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm naranaan Perrsma, Kedua DAN Keriga, trade pengasmgan kapada /umran mnang fersebuf dmyatakan buqi perlaksanaan da/am an " my Penghaklman Fevselujuan benankh 25 as 2015 Man meruamskan bahawa kegagilan memiluhl muss (-L (b)dar\ (n) maka klausa (a) akin lernakal Dalam kas Inn Jangkl mus lalah dmyamknn dalam klauss (a) sehmgga (c) mm uaram masu 3 nman sahajn Apablla gags! memetuhu darn Kind: Deflanwlin masa dlllm an maka panghikiman pememuan Inn memxnwankan mnya dvkuntkuua sepanuhnya [491 Syaml bahawa wanya perm amayav kepada Feguam Teman ran Theam Hock 5. Co sebagai Stake ho/def hanya lerpakal unluk (empoh 3 bman sahaja dam Iarikh parimah. Sebpaslempah (arsehm Ianya max lag! pedu dikuitkuasa selams dengan bduasa m) Iersehul [so] Ian berknnln bahlwa JD nukanlan penjlmm aaalan max wag: vmevln paua penngxax . lm adalah kenana Panghaluman (emebut adahah Fanghuklmun Persanuman dun bukan Penghaklman JID ulau Pangllaklman salepas mean Isu wunan ‘upanile rogatanmyadalan mlevln pod: penngktt iabamm Fangmknmln Femamuln mmnuiu Fanghalumun Psruatujuan yang dlmasuki ndalah plus uaak melapluknn JD dlnpnda langgunmuwib mamblyir mnang mmm. EN yang dukemuklkan aaalah nemamn kapma Pengnaknmnn Pemetumun um dun max ada keperluirl unluk mengasingkan julmah huvang dw antuvz kesemuu JD lambal aw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKDKZUPkw 22 -ma am n-nhnrwm be used m mm a. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm [51] Damn kes R-vicvum run an snnmm v um sh-n bln S-lfuin [znm Muu 1571. Mahkamah mamuluskan bahawi 14211..“ unubla m .9“. wllh Ihe mmarmou Mme cw...» mu wn mm um. um mm I» ma. cl So1I\emanIAgvuemevn does nul me: In mu m u . auuwlluv m in-.1.avead|ng at the Cnnsenl Judamem, me Ssfltsmsm Agveanem and Made m Sememenl Agreeme«| raved man n was nrver me mtenmn me names In mak: ma JD a 'guaranlnr‘ 10 Sohns Esmns I431 The JD m was 2 party m the 20:2 sun‘ had Islam mu conumnd m ma tarmt av mm ms Semevrlenl Agmemenl and Bunsen! Judgmcnl, mum Md: n vuy clur Inn me Deiandams m Inn zmz Sun . n be ma. Vublalu ply ma Phvmfix Omafllm Detanunrmm the 2m Sun! was me JD, men vandou me u: . Humor «wow-nu me oumm Jmmem me Ierms omucn in: JD had mm to cnrmhl wan Mlimar the owsrudpvweny as s-cumywu -ecsvm mm -opeur [521 Mankamlh Jug! marujuk kapadl kes Rn emu Klm Sln: a. pm. Durnblu MIX Sdrl End [Z|l11] IIILJU 1166, dwpmuskan bihiwl “[121 The law on Iha ma A71 3 wnlam widen: lmv am has been exoaumed by the Federal com u men: we. mcmamg Gannuamy cnemav v. lum Kum Chum 5 Dr: Ana Am1he1Appea\|19H1]1LN5 .'n,|Iis1]z M1145, Tan Guak un V L: Kuln [2004] 2 cu am, Tang Lu Hwl 5. Ana V cu... an Kvn&Anom:vAD9uIlIi11l1|.NSI4:L[IF71]2 um 75‘ Let my May 5 Or: u Pam: Tmstzees am 5. ms [am 51 5 cu ass. and mm: Am... Abduv Rank 5. Dr: V Arrunarl nan aemaa & or: (201916 Cu 419‘ [2019] 1 LNS613‘ rc In La. Hang uoyaom Pacmcmmzes am .1. 0:: [21:15] 5 cu sea, 1 wt: stated by Mnry Lm JCA (:5 she mm was) sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 1; «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm sm UZMJGI/HflkWm1KKUKZUPkw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm n u my sellled and mu saw mil in nrdev :11 me mun ruaued by content 91 the mines Invoked . m am: a cumin? belwaen Ihme Dimes sanapamy Chelmar V Lum Kum Chum 1. Or: And AnaIhevAapenl[19al] 1 ms 53. {mu 2 MLJ145 am a annsenlomer muslmerekxa be arm. n. fu\lcurIlIlwAIIa1lu.1— we Tun em Lanv u Kuln (200412 am 301. mm) a Mm 455 Sud! In omu mum. ma‘ eilechvn Ind bmflmg on .u the pimu mvulved unlwl and mum It-e mu! m an asxde my some vinilmu vusnn . see the Frans! Conn’: daemon m Yong Loe ma 3 Anur .4 Ohm Ah Kw! a. Mom! Appeal [1971] 1 ms 143, [1971] 2 ML} 75 In rm, urml mat nawens. um and unless me mnsem may .5 5:! name (he cmsenl mu mum an an mupvel ansallwnni me dsvsndams today mam dupumnw hum nu lmml ~ (ni) an um uh [53] Dalam kas In! mg: |iada sebarang kelemngnn bahawa JD jug: mempunym tunlulan balas lerhIdapJC yang memungkmkan an Ierlebm memidi uuak leralur yang membolehkan Anny: dmeleplkan ulah Mamum-n ml Im jalas upemmana mganmn :1 Im kes Kiplln No Ool v snndm cu-mu am: M ylin Burma mm] MLJLI 13:, ylng memunumn sepam benkut “ my mum at doused m mm mm mm mm vumam Baum: am new 2 ML! 29:‘ com Im mamnmenl unam V I8 o4 Im Bankmptcy Runes vmsve mum me Jndgrnem Demo! nu a uuunlu chm, u| an Ind mu GIMM which Iquuk or nasal Illa il-dwrvlnm um a..u.«w - to my crednoru Delmun av samuptcy um mustbe nude hymmu . mmoeol mmwn (iummorw m dulnbulx new -nu me amenflmem on r we of me Bnnkmvlty Rubs), supported by An mam 3 2» [54] Damn ken RI cm-n Wue Lllm Ex P Ruben Toni Lyl Hock v. c nk ElId[1DW] suu s1s.mpu«uz.xan bahawa “Thaw ... umy Iwn my: to ¢n.n...,. um bunklupuy nmuca‘ .3 mm . 95 M m. Run on the urwnd onhe exmavscu Mwnnlardmm ms Ind undavr m on other amends Thu appllcalton .. mid: undnv yes by ..a,, nun mrnmt fllud wllhm uyvendnys mane wmmme hnnknwlcynmma Thea1fm:vI| noes ml 5:, anylhmn mm we exuhenw M . rzaunlemawm‘ 5214711 01 um demand The mm canna| mm. at an appmzuun m xel sum the banxruvtcy none: wnmn me cememvlllum uh amp) ulme Bnnkmmcy Am M1, and mu m. Ihcmd n.m.....«...uu .. mm mm we. r 95 um u. an been «run smnm, IN: .¢m..m dos: not man the pmwsluns av Dnwua zan nl . :4 at In Bankrwllry Am 1967 beans: a does nul unndesoem |o pammhvs mane ama1m|aI.1uaW Gun [55] Damn ken svumlu b|n Ahmld; ux p-no Azlzl hln Vom Ar-ma [2027] MLJU 11:725. dlpulusknn bahawl 154; Dllam has Pun s-Iv-mu lllnnunhivvylm; Ix pm. Nnnynnnnmy ua Krllhnnl mm] uuu zm, memulmknn bnhnm [221 »:.mm.n Agum am. kes sovanasu ezuem INSURANCE SDN END V KDH TIAN BEE [1983] V MU 304. [was] « cu Rap 277, memunulknnnnhuwu an my mwumm llmulh yang mam DIIII max inn mlnucilhllflvi din bob?! dulnda upom HVDWIIEKJH obh Lea Hun Hue CJ Wnmw) blhiva ‘w nu um um Nunllr an rm Llw Ind mm»: M BankruW:vl1G(hEd)a1 a aez undsrlhe mm»: ‘Kama: Defud Not To Invaidate Pvmauadlngr. refer! «a s mm Ifllhe Englah syn U2MJGvHflkWm1KKDKZUPkw 25 «ms smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm EZIIKNDWY A41 W14 wmch ws wovd for ward me same at Mrs 131 amino pnveeeamg m bankmmty mu he mvaludaied ny any lama! deled mby vneguuamy, unless the munbevmevmu. an onmnm u made to me vrncaedvrlw u M uvlmon mt IHDIVJIIMII rV[|lI1|De has been caused l!Y|herS91eaol|"|9"""'Y‘ Ind nu: ma mjulhue clnnm u remldlad by my urulv :31 um own [211 mnmmn Agung jug: dnlnm Wu mmx um mane KVM V mmuu amxme ar<n[me3y1 mm 2“ (192312 MLJ 295,, mm] 3 cu 324 hank menenm: .:.w. hahawn mun yinu mu new akzn meruadlkan an Mzk sah Mahkamah memnmukan seven: benknl -smnnany, us pnra 3 of me endmure memy mspules his maebtndness m me sad sum so me Ieiunmem -om-a on In amnmus calmlahm ma grossly txaggemad' wumm ecnaesoe/mung In Dnmculnr: mm Amount muuyaue, wa uy cm In - -a nmam dam H01 mime! WWII: my ul - (I ma- smes mat a barlklllvlcy r-wee mu ncc be mvalwdilud by mm" my mm mm mm apscifid m me name 2; Ike Amount due emeais me aauax amount due‘ [sq Dalnm kes kebunkrapan, iumlah hulann terklm akan dlnymakln dalim Pensyen Femunang (cm yang akin annlkan seteluh Iankh berlaku kebankrapan anamukan Pads penngkal ml, manjam lingqunmawab Jc sekall Iaai memnuknkan jumlah hutana Ierklm Seklranya jumlah hulang teisebul hdak memaluhi pemnmkkan undlny-undang bani Penman Penghaklman CAO‘) dan Penman Panerimaan (‘R0’) d\'peva\ehi, mahkamah akan menclak cw yang mfawlkan sm UZMJGI/HflkWm1KKDKZUPkw 2:; mm. smm n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he nflmnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pm (iv) Kuupnyu u JD mnmbaylr [571 JD man bellman bahawu EN udak wa;ar dlkeluarkan kerana JD berkeupayaan untuk membayar hulang JC Bag: Isu um, Mahkamah mermuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekuluan -auu kes mm Bank and (lormnvly known in Porwlu Affln Bank am) [mo] 2 MLJ us, yang menyatakan sepem berikut 11; The can offiopeal ened m mm»; In appreuale sntlficlumy ma| Ihe sarvency -11 me demov undev 5 am vezd Inuamev wrm . 105(1) Mme an muI|necesnlI>yv:h1a to m ammy m pay ma um: .. lrny became due .1 m. um: L11 »..m_; mm c...sm. pummw Ilwu we mama Ioweney an ml mm: m an, uamurx nhmy m on N: am: nun-swank In me makmg nine Aoko Farmer me sowency relm=s|o‘oorrImaIva\ suwlnny‘ and um ‘balanua mu um-Ly‘ (lea Para :5) 42; A1 lhi um. men (he AORO ms gmmea . at me rspomem mere was no emenue man he was snlvem No ommuemiuu ouum lo us Ewen no me rulpundsnfs army w my Ms dam: based on msequem mange av wcum-I-noes W an all. any came 04 Iflmumslanws pm: AOR0 >3 any ncrweny av mmeyi by |M debtor wuuld um um damor an owwumy In PIY me am: In M: wma. wumd enabl: mm In umum m -nnuiuem ardav, ruvir-u made such mu viY"‘Sn| am mu m; nm dare 1». new nude Ac payment to saudy me umgmm am (see pm 49)" [say Acas dakwaan bahawa kamampuan unluk memhzynr huuarlg Aerxebul, kamampuan JD masmnh kemampuan yang some ad: den bukan kemumpuun “mesa nadapan mu ksmampuan alas fmdskan kamudr‘an' Dlllm kas ini dakwlan kamampuun umuk mambnyir nutang JC adalah nmmxan kenadi pemuilan kapi\ Iursebul why man: Ia sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 27 «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm merupaknn kernampuan 'masa hadapan" rm bukan kelmmpuan unluk membiylr keuka EN dlkamukikan Laln-lrlln Ian (i) Tudapmvyn Pu Injlln Slmpinuan [55] Dakwaan bahavm levdapalnya penanuan sampmgan (seknranya wuwu) uaak akan uapac msngalasl perparwan mama (penghakiman pemmmn) yang man dwmasukl tersebut Panghlklman tersebut merupaknn perjarunsn yang sah Mankamah telah meIu]uk kepada K5 Tainan Rimba (Menhkzb) San and v Warrior Rubber Products (M) Sdn and [2017] MLJU 1m‘ yang memuluskan bahavm "The cansem Judgment mm the Selllemerrt Mreemenr me m M my Irlconnstanl mm on: anulhev, and menu vs no bum w say IMI me SeIuav\en| Agreement had mmpmmued nv superseded me cansun Judgment or our the mlalumshlp hammer: me names rxmeamma um can 1: mm! Guvcmod by me S1IIlernen|AwraemIm and ms Venue: by line comm Judamom rm rs-venom Dylhsmwd plvhqvuph m mu mm he an. Sdmamenl Agmmrrn which made msrmn M m. Covuem Juoumsm and bylhe clause 1 uwmcrr wmamedme igreememra urmvsr as mu and mu: semememnflhe uem rssumrmaa m me Consent Judgment‘ [so] Hmahan alah JD bahawa mum milk memam panjamm flan wga Iidak pemah bemulang uuax Van: mama su apabflu pengakuan man dnbual larhadlp kmmua hutang yang dilunml uleh JC taluh drpersetujui sapenuhnva dnlam Panghlklrnan Femamusn hen ’kh 2a 03 1013. sw uznnsvuakwrm xxuxzuvkw 2; -ms Snr1n\n-nhnrwmbe used m mm r.. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Pu . Zlmri Nlim Bin llmlil v Ex—I>Ir|I: Bank Mulmllal uuuysi. Shd unis] In mu m: -A. mm m m. an at Rs nan Nos: Hang. ex p Yap Km L. g Nnvhnslumnh no (Mmnnmmru aims enmeofl Mahamad Slum hm Hun Hussan) [mm 5 ML! 155 a payment slams ma urml n 4: se| am“ [51] Dalam kes Form-n ur-mm ‘rnuvn sun Bhd v souuum Fhulnce and [zone] 2 ML! «:1; guns] I cu um, mnyacaxan blnwa ":3 Judgment for a sum eslablrshss a dam, wmcn men becomes cm n: ma person mom 1 owed, who when becomes me creditor“. Bemasarkan kes ml aaalan larpulang kepadl JC untuk mengamml unaakan lemidap JD dengln spa scar: sekalu pun termuuklln unluk mamulakan snu pvusldmg kabankvapan unluk manunlul samma hutang yang mungg-k Xersebul (ii) Wlblk Covid»19 1521 Mahkamah Inn naunn mevumk kepada kss Ravichlnlhlrun Ganesau 11. Le: Kak Sun a. on man 1 ms I561 yang bemaltln dengan pemakawan Akla COVID-19 untuk menafikan pe\al$anaan sesualu llnggungjltwab knnlraklual tcontraauallrabtlmes)‘ an mana Mahkamah memuluakzn bahawa “I211 AA|ms|unn1nre, Ms unpemwe In beav wn lmnd mac the cam 19 MI u nm a Vagulahun «nauzn be veszmad tn by any Imgantaltmnpang In mud lmhuI|y av cam movlly becuuu ma. dam or the enlurmmem cl cm suns mu duvmg ms cum-19 Dindumc mgum mun ». ma m me puvpou M Ina Cam-19 Au. mm .s In umvsde my Iemmmv mlasmes co reduu syn U2MJGvHflkWm1KKDKZUPkw 29 Nuns smm n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm me man of Cmnd-19 ms .. amanaaa by Sccnm ma nl me Vnlstwstalwun Am ms and 1967, much leads Saclmn 17A , Regavd m be had In me purpose Mm: Act In the Inlnrprmzlmn cl a pmvlion av In Ad, u wnumwun out would granule me ampm av nbpud undarwlna (II: An Mhetharlvm nww-a ur clued 5 enuesry sured m me A4: or ml) man be vmenea m a wnnmmwn mz| would not pvomolz that purpose or mum‘ (Denekana dwhenk-III! [53] Adalah ;e¥as bahawa pembelaan berdasarkan cowd-19 bukan sesuatu yang mullak ten-mi berdisarkan kepada lmgkungan Akla tersebul Dalam kes im adalah mas ianya max Iemndung bagx alasan PKP dan Cmlld -19 kelana Fenghaklman Pensetuguan mnuat sebemm danpada Ca-«M49 lay: «an alasan ke\ewatan penytapan Kapa\ Pulot kananya bersangkm acau berkaman dengan PKP dan CovId—19 adalah Langsung max berasas ( ) mm unm. [sq JD hemujah bahawa dufl seqem dw dalam Peqalulan Jual Bell mak dnsempumakan, maka JC Ivdak bo\eh mengumkunsakan penanuan lersebul. Hujahin rm auaxan (ersasar kerana‘ keesahan sasualu perjanpan ndak bergantung kepada sama ada -am dlsetemkan ahu mak Mankamah ml meruwk kepada kes Rnluind bin Rozuln lwn swoon-Lea Cndil Sdn Bhd [24:22] MLJU1995,d|pu(usksn hahawa 1211 mm." duh n2 bahawa pII1an|Ian \erIebul man dnetsiukan kemudlan aan ml felah meupdnhln penanpin Inrxehul hdak uh Dakwun aw Ll2NJGvWflkWm1KKDKZUPkw so -ma saw ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm fc) nu:-spa mm yang lam umkirkan palm den sum manfaat oleh Mahkamah Yang Muuamu gm) JD Ielah memvauxan Anuavnuaavuc benkut yang duklarkan men Zavnm bm Abdul Kalm umuk menyokony Lampiran 5 — (3) Afidavil benankh 19 1 2023 [Lampiran sq, den (b) Afidavvl bartankh 27 2 2023 [Lumpvan 1a] my Anuavu Balasan JC o\eh Syamr hm Syed Buhan benankh 13 2 21:23 [Lammvan 91 Lmmmang kn [:1 Dalam kes Inn, .10 man memfankan salu mnunan swn an Mahkamah Sesyen Georgetown Fmau Pmang dalam Guaman svwx No PA-B52NCC- 11—03I2D17 [‘IunIulan sun Iersebuf] dx ar-ma JC (ma-nm flan JD (Emvo Manna (M) Sdn Bhd (Defendan Panama), Zamal um Abdul Karim (Delenflan Kedua» JD dslam Pengnalurnan |m)) dan sm Thasteem mnu Osman Ghany (Defendan Ketlga) m Tmaaxan tamadap Kelngarhga Dafeman Iersehul adnlah kamna kcsemua Defender: Islah mamungkin sullu Pariuruiln Juul Bah barlankh 17.22014 [‘Pa|1anAIan Jual Bali larsabufl yang ananaaunqum o\eh JD dun Deiendan Kedul bag: pnhak Deqenaan Kenga sw uznnsvunkwm xxuxzuwkw ‘ um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm .1." lmpahan m. mun I-flak berawi In: kerana penanum ylng max asem uflak "mm... Ianyl mask 5.», mum pwhik-pnhak my (samba! akan mkenakanvenammbawanAktaSe4em1§49 n2 sedemsnya barman um. um: um Inenunjukkan penalty mlan dbayar um. mm u... .... mu.:.u.n Ivlnvuplkln u blomwe dun mmknmlh W my. manmlplun blqw um vlvbuxr .. penuh duduun bagl ukm-nku mp...W: u..1u.. Hui wink ..n. Dnkuman yang dupemkaun din «um: wwud nlndun mu mmnmxe Jnbatsn Km: umuk nengesahan [2210-lam m In D2 ma. sahlrlng bukh nvim aw... pun. Inn apa snknman dannada D2 ullluk meuurqukkan dakwaan W adalah hsvmem din mnrumzmxan lsu flan kelersngan dnkumentzvdzhm kas m. mg dmmhulknn can :22 max nuenmuuklun kavaguln Inrhndzp pennnpan Inmebul m..n...n sewn nah mum may uh dun mum noun mm-mnuun Dnkwun hnhlwn mm mm n km-nu man Inflewll drwtam adahh ttdakberisas Pnnim vm mun dlpelaikan am. mmcanun agum kc: OMEGA sscuamzs 5:»: sun v mm" HAMZAH am ABDUL wuuu mm] a mu :2 hahawa was an Ina! me mam. raamy ilreemenl (‘Mm was nul svamped an um .mm.ve n m nun-sumpmg M 3 dnmmem and um mvamace the sucumenl umess the nnnrslamnmg went us ms voolovvnhdny am. (20111: MLJ 12 al Hdusumem I191! In mu saw‘ on non-uuupm om. MFA wu only u. Inna [65] Dalam Kes Alliance Bank Malaysia and (Formary Known as Mulli Purposa Bank Bhd And Mn yu Fnncll Bunk Bhdjv Mukhlix Bin Mahumlr um Anor [2003] 4 ML] 451 memutuskan asham- wneonry a-some vawsefl zryme ms: daienflam .1 lms sill: \s max me aradm hamy mum-ms wars nan duly nzmvea under s 52 :4 me sump Am 1949 The flm deflendzm an no! a-spun max the gumnuee agreemenlx aury execmad by mum were duly slamnsd unflu In: ma Ac| Ion} lemon 52L1)uHtue Stamp M11349 nvmndes. sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 31 «mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm No msttwmm aaalpeame war: may am he anmmzd m evwdenue our anY wlvoie Iry any pa-um hawlu by xaw u conum av pan-as aumamy «a receive emenae‘ or mu be men upon‘ reamed, or aumenluzted by any such vevsan M by any puhH:: nmner, unless such mslrumem n ¢u\y -unwed (say The above vvuvnons mum an me queslum mawdawa n don: mi m -nywwymndevml ubllnmrve nanudm uvmfl Ind mm Evevlmuugh «M --u Iwaamlnl Ilnultaoha mmm nu Ivndomaa .. dalmnd mm firxl defendant man does not aamsery aflucl ma vlalmfll rave Iglmn in am dalerldanl That: an mhsv i|lW\€IenHIC1sDr evldenue as summed and MI dspnled hy ms nu de4:ndan| :3 mgnlwgnled nhnrve. «a new line plamlfl |o Dmve mamue savd ovemran «mm was mm m and mmsea by snstzsy Puwlmuuu Sdn em Ind was aunyguu-mm by new Iheflrlunasemnd n.4...a.m - dnclm ulfli ocmplnr “ [66] Mahkamah memumskan hahawa JC mislh bemak urltuk mensruskan llndakan ks anas pemecahan Ferjanuan Jual Eel: yang mmasux. walaupun dakwaan bahawa Ianya max ssh kerana ndak mselemkan Kulrnpulln [67] Dawn kes R: Tan Bun Kiat; Ex Pane Malayan Bankmg Berhad [2019] 1 ms 158:. mahkamah memumskan hahawa -[351 I am mlrudfm thaw»: uuull way: a plvllclrw an. m bunkmplcy mmlur: and man my ml: \s not In much to luck (0 ma mtmuis :4 me crednnr pe1mnr\ev.hm(mse M me denier Re Tasnn Jarvanlm, Ex p Eqmly Fmamz and [me]: cu Rep5a1 M89912 cu new mm-m.am.u.m an. n mums. born: In mm am an. Cum! .n.;um mlcondnm an Iluny sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 31 «-um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm :4 awllcanons filnd ny an m, which m my vww lack: ban: nae, ma Inn vumnnhy impad-d an In u by an JC Min mm. [36] It I: pm only inludicloul Io inumnh m. cmm wnn ondlou Ind unmlmovioul -poucncon. tn IM dctvlm-In of Mimi‘ il in unplinnlwlod to involuntarily drag along an owusinu puny" (nenaxanm dmank-n) [say Dalam kes smmi up Ainuddin v Abdul Axiz all Aimmdln moo; 5 ML: 391. d-pumskan bahsww ‘ma nurvvn M In cowl mm In In out those mm: mm the autumn‘ mum Wm m but Phmml whom the lemma su had «om uuamsl Io uy um lhl n.4.na.m lhnuh mu bazflumud in am him‘ [as] Linn-lam xsu yang (emu ulbangkllkan aleh Pmak JD ]ugz Ielah dlpemmbangkan den Ianya mask memmak kepafll JD N uznnsvwxwmu xxuxzunm :1 mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm Purisytiharan Kupunusan my Rayuan dilalak Kepumsan Penmong Kanan Pendaflardlkekm dan dlsahkan KOS sebanyak RMSDOD 00 dmayav nleh Persyu (JD) kepaua Responder: («ca Ierlakluk kepada alckamr AZIZAN um RSHAD Peruunmjly kenakimm Mnhlumah Tlnggv (3) Palm Pinnnu Bururlkh pl I 9.11.13 \\ / / ' Pgulmcara hagi Femlunng Fanglnklmanz Shamshul Bin Jamil, msnamel Kaur a/p Bawvnder Smah mun Presgvava A Matthews Tvlgkal 1. N0 2, Lebuh Panllv mun Fulau Plnang Pguamura bani Fullgllullnn Pongnakiman: sm Nurazwanl Bmfi Zulksflee Teluan Shahabudln a Rozlma as-5. Nnrlhpmnz omes. Mid Valley Oily. No 1. Medan Syed Puua Ulara, 59200 Kuala Lumpur. Vwlayah Persekuluan Kuala Lumpur sw uznnsvwxwmu xxuxzunm 3A Nab! Sum In-nhnv WW he used m mm u. nvwhuflly mm; dun-mm VII mum pm sw uznnsvwxwmu Kxuxzunm Undlng-undnng ylng dinruk: Akta Ynsolvansw 1967 KAvs»k:s yang dlru uk: 1 ' Lina Emma mull Sdn Em! A On [20:71 MLJU 541 2 L u an soon @ Lu Plk cnoan v RHE Ennk Bhd[ZDOB]1 ML! 762 3 Sovnrnlgn Ganenl Insurance Sdn and 14. KM: mu Bee [1555] 1 CLJ Rev n @ uomumnun up (kdmlnlnrllrlx of Tho sum of Momma svurm bln mu Hussain) [man] 1 ms 197 5 Nurulm Thlkuldu Jvtnwlnl 5 Anar v. a-nk Slmnlnun Nnsional [2021] 5 MLJ 407 5. Kqumm In sum: Klndnuko sun arm v Fang soon Luong [2021] 2 MLJ 234 7 Lamlugl Kumpulnn Wang Slmpanln Faker]: v. Edwin Cnslln Nuanppln [2021] 7 cu 323 B R: Mona Saiml Azuar Md Isa; Ex P Bank Kzrjasama Rakyat ul-Inym 571411202111: cu 755 9 Re Low, Ex Pane Glhson [19215] 1 Q E 734 vu Emma bin Nlohd Mn Finarm and [1998] 1 MLJ 393 n 5. Ana: V. Arab mm 11 Mlyhlnk llllmlc Blrhlfl V M-IO Build!!! Sdn Bhd I Am)! [2o1717 cm 127 35 -ms Sum IHIWDIY M“ be used m mm u. nvwvuuly mm; mm. 7.. nF\uNG pm 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 2a 21 23 24 RI Ann]. Um [1997] 2 MLJ 27s; nnuk Mona Sari bin Daluk Hlii Nuarv Norwich Wmlhenhur lnsunnc: my sun Bud [1992] 2 MLJ 344 tens Clvee wai din Lain—Iain v. Neck soon sens: sun and [2010] 7 ML! 535 Mallynn Banking aemau v. mm um Khenq Khim [1992] 3 cu me. (199212 CLJ1ReP)525 Rlvicmnlhiun all 6- In v MII sh-h bin Snlunm [2019] MLJU 1577 Ru Clmk Klm Sin: ex name Durlblo Mix sun am [2021] MLJU 2155 Knphn Ho ooi v smmm cmmd Blnk ulmyn Sam-u R004] MLJU 733 RI Chulh WII Ill El P Rob-n Ting Lyl Hock V. Cil Ink EM [1999] 6 MLJ 515 shnhliu hln Amma; Ix p-Irll Axlxl bin Yum Ahnud [2922] MLJU 03725 Per: sauna]: Namaclllvlyam; ax pam Nuraynmanmy n/I Kvlsruun [2022] MLJU 2141 min Bank and (lunnudy knmm n Pcrw - Mfin Bank and) [24:29] 2 MLJ ass Yaman Rlmh: menukah) Sdn and v Warrior Rubber Pmducls [M] sun Shd [21:17] MLJU 1924 Par: Zlmrl Nmm Bin lIm.Ill v E1-pane: Bank Mumum Mlllyull Bhd[2n15]1n Mu m Fonflan United Thenlre Sun am: 1/ Southem Finance and [2aus]2 MLJ eoz, [zoos] 1 cm 1067 sw u2nnsvHnxwm1KKuKzuHm :5 Nat»! s..1.1...m..wm. used .9 mm 1.. mw[ruH|y M17115 mm. VII .;[m Wm] 25 Rlvichlmhlun Glnisan v. Lu Kok sun .1. or; [2021] 1 LNS 1581 26 Rohalzld bin Run-n Mn Swnowlnu Crudil Sdn and [2022] MLJU 1995 27 Alli-nee Bank Mllay n and (Formnly Knmm u mum Purpmn Bunk Bhd And Malaysia French Bank Ehd) v Mukmix Bin Mnhnmlrand Anor [2006] 4 MLJ 451 25 R: Tan Eon K‘ Ex Parts III-Iuy-n Banking Berhad [2019] 1 LNS 1553 29 Sum up Ainuddin v Abdul An: all Alnudrlln [zuoa] 5 MLJ 391 sw u2M:svHaxwm1KKuKzuHm :7 mm s..1.1...m..m. used m mm 1.. DVVEVHMVIY mm; dun-mm VII nF\uNG pm M Jc (elnh membayar Defendin Panama sebanyak RM472.auu 00 me rnina merupakan 80% darlnada iurmah hares bellan wanu RM5ao,oao oo. Namun lerdapal kelewatan daram manyuapkan Kapa\ Pnanersemn [91 JC mask bersetuju unluk perllmutan masa rnenyebabkan pembmaan Kapax Pflmlersebunergendaladan kumtersadalsxaplsbm Gan 60% an bengkel pembmaan av Kampung Permazang Umau Mauls Stmpang Ampal, Pems Tugas-Iugas menyiapkan kapal Puux Igrsebut turul «ergena-1: flan meruadl rumn dlsebabkan oleh com-19 dan Pennlah Kawalan Fergerakan (‘FKF‘) no] Semasu kss dltetapknn umuk perblcavaann dun kesemua pihak telah bersaluiu unluk msnvelesaikannya mp: mam flan salu Penahikiman Pamxujuan beninkh zeazma (Penghakiman Farseluman lefsebut) dengan K\auIa-Hausa sepeni benkm (5) Dmenaan-oevenaan bersemu umuk memhayar Plamm wang sejumlah Ringgit Ma|ays\a Empal Rams mun Puhm nua Rmu (RM472,D00.00l sanqa dalam masa ma (3) bman dan lankh Pengnakmun Pausemuan In] an Wang squmlzh Rmggm Mahysxa Empac Rams mun Puluh Dua Rlhu (amvznoo nu) sahaa akan drbayzr kapnda Plainm melalui Pauuamcaranya, Tatuan Toh sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 5 um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm (ch (*1) (9) Theam new 5. Co sebaaai psmegang panlmhln (Stakeholder) sekmya Defendin-Defendan gagal membayar wing segumlsh Ringgit Mahysla Empal Ratus mm: Puluh Due Rlbu (R|M72‘DOD U0) dmam mesa Iwga I3) bulan dafl lankh Fenghakwnan Perselujuan teraebul. mika salu lawman mass akan dvbenkan kepada Defendan- Delendan atas hudi bmara mamuv Selamulnya dlpelsetujul sekvanya DeVendan—Delend:n masm gagul unluk membayav kesemruhan wang squmlah Rmggll Malayan Empal Ralus mun Fuluh Dun mun (RM472,DDD nu) leuebul dllam xempun Ianjmzn masa yang dwpememuul an amara Plalrml can Delendum Demaan‘ maka keselumhan Jumlah Rmggil Malaysxa Empal Ralus mun Puluh Dua Rm (RMJ72‘W°w) bersebul -kan meluaul lemulang sepenuhnya fiada panmm menganax kos Pads aknir Penghakxman Perselujuan lavsebul juga mengandungu Klausa Pena! yang d1perse1ujuIo\eh kesamua pmaklaltu 'Jxka k.:mu,De1endan Panama, Kedua dan Kemga yang dlnamakan dalam tmdakan Im Iidak memalum Penman 5 sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw -gm smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! inn mlka kamu wen mxenakan pluses pelaksinain bani makaud memakaa kamu memamhlnya - 1111 Namun. selelah masa beflalu unmk penghaklman nersenuzmpamm, uada sebarang bayaran amen ulzh kesemua Defiendan maka JO lelah memlallkan prosndmg kehankmpan terhadap an umuk mendapalkan wang squmlah Rlnggm Malayswa Empal Rams mun Fuluh Dua Rmu (RM472,ooo oo) yang (elem dxpevsetzujul untuk dlbayal sapem mans Penghakvnan Fememuan larsebul yang mmamaa, sari dan udak peman d\Ketep\kaII atau duganlung aleh pmfik-Dihak tefllbll Ringku-n Huiuhun JC [m O\eh kemn: naua hayamn dmual oxen JD‘ maka JC bemak unluk memfailkan prnsidmg kebankrapan Iemadap JD beniasarkan kepada terms-terms mg telah drpersemjui an dalam Penghakwman Ferseduman Ievsehul [15] Panghaklm-n lnrsebul mam» penghnklman muklnmad flan Ian, Kegugalan unluk mamnunc bayann, Ikan membenkin hak kapada JC untuk manumul keselurlmnn hmarlg tarnbul dlribldi kesemui Dciendan bahlwl dlkwian-dakwaun berkenaan dengan luntuun sivll temebut adalah uaak «man an dalam pmsmmg kebunkrupan Inn Dalam ipa kaadaan ma, JD mempakzn mu pnhlk as dalnm Penuhuklman Parsenuuin tersebut dan denaan nu adalah mak henna: urvluk JD Inn sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw ’ -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm diri kawajipannya sepem yang xelan mpersezum an dalam Fenqhukimzn Persamjuan (eraebm [I4] ‘Nada halangan bag! JC menunlm hulang Ievsebul da\am Jumlah yang penuh dan wak perlu membuat pembahaglan dakam Derkadarln secara purata an amara kesemu: Defendan Ierhbal lm kerana dalam an, mrmah keselumhan haven dnumul terhadap kesemua nevenaan Ferjanmn Jual aeuueysebuuexas sekaln menunjukkan bahatwa Ianya telah dnandalanganl om JD sendm dan oleh rm dakwaan JD banarwa beluau ndak (embm a. dalam penanxian larsehut dam/alau da\am menyuapkan Kapal Fulnl yang dnpesan oleh JC adalah nu-k velm/an sama sekall [15] JC berhak unluk menunlul lunggakan hufang tersabul melahn an dun Dukan meniom fangaunmawab JC unmk mendapalkan nunvan (evsebul malami psmualan kapal yang «max slap Iersehm xenemn annum Penghakiman bahawa JC boleh rnenganmu ahh Kapal Pvlct censem dun meruualny: mu menyanmung semula pemblnaannya adalah max herasas memandangkan ml bukamah aaxu syaral mau term: an dalam Pengnaknnan Pevsetwuan tersehut my Kaukl Pengnaknnan Perselujuan tersebu! dlrekadkan, Asu berkenaan hmang Syankat max psmah amangknxan Mala?! keilgamga Defendan dx dalam Iunlulan swn tevxehul mlah bersemju unluk menjalaskan wang semmlah RM47Z,D0600 lewehut kapada JC , Dakwaan sehallknya lum hlnyallh satu frklran larkemudtan dan bermat unluk menyusahkan JC selaln Imluk memltahkan (‘De/eat’) presiding kebankrapan ml‘ hndukan JD dalam membangkxlken dakwalnaaakwaan syn u2nnsvHakwm1KKUKzuPkw ' Nuns snn ...n.mn .. used m mm n. mn.u-y mm: mmn wa .nuNG pm tersebul sekarang iailu Ieblh kuvang 5 tahurl sempas Penqhaklman Persenyuan lersehul dlrakodkan JC merujuk kepndn xu Bank slmpumm Nnlonnl v Axln Llnu Enurummunn Sdn and E On [2017] MLJU 541 [171 Tlada bayamn mhuat wen JD kepada JC1e\as sekall menumukkan bahiwa JD cubs {an dan kewajlpan sepem yang Ielah dxperselujm an dalam Penghaklman Persetujuan tersebul dan membangknkan dakwaam dakwaan remeh dan lldak berasas nu] Mahkamah Im ndak bobeh mengenaplkan flanlalau membalalkan pmsmmg kebankvapan Inn hanya karana JD mempemkalkan keesahan Penghaklman Perseluwzn lersebul memendangkln sghmgga km: Penghaklman Pelselujuan (ersehul merupakan salu Pznghiklman yang uh flan mukllmid Mahkamah Im, bukanlnh lnrum unmk an mempamkawkan Fenghaklmin Parselwuan Iemabul JC «am: memjuk kapadz ken Ln aux Soon @ Lu Puk Choon v RNB Bunk arm mot] 1 ML! 152 darn m Svvlnign co nl lnuurlnco Sdn Bhd v. Koh Tlln an[1nl11cLJ Ru [191 Dalam Ina Re: Tloh Ngu mug; Ex P: Van Klu L n Q Norhuhimlh up (Aaminisnnmx 01 The Emu of Mohamad sham um Man Husuin) [zoom 1 ms 197, memuluskan bahawa -n mm be mm: mm. ..m.._ uh an Maw he Pounded upon . nu: judgmcmuru fins! order Tms 15 relented m s MINI) BankIuvtv(A4:1 1967, m pamcmar the plmnsu (Ream In me man: use. me mnsem umer Ihpulibu paymsm by me m al 3 quanlmad sum 04 RMSMJBO .n sw uznnsvwxwmu xxuxzunm 9 -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm mmumems prrmdmg my paymonluhmaveslm ma evemmdsf-uh Genny n finaly mxpuus (he -gm: Mme JC and me iabuny no me n: u us Iheveluve ‘me namle an fmalardu (see Havon mu Mom Zahv Celmalsewnua (Hmdmgs) arm n 9521 on 2: map», 11952] cm 233. Iwszl 2 um sat ‘ mu Penghaklman Persemuan tersebm bersena («ma-Kenna dalam Fengnamman Perseluwan (ersebm seharusnya kesaluruhan bllamana perenqaan (a) Penghakvman Persetwuan teuebm dengan masnya menyalakan bihawa "Dafendan-Delemian Izersehqu unfuk membayar kepada P/s/nm mmg se/umlah RM47zoo0 ao da/am mbaca seem mass trga bulan dun’ lankh Penghakiman Psrsemjuan mf‘ dan nerenggan ua) Fenghakiman Persemwan tersebul pula menyilakan hahawa wsng sejumlah R/W72000 on Ivervdaklah dlbayar kspada Pramm, malalm peguamcamnys, Teluan Tah Theam Hack A 00 sehagar pemsgang penamhan (‘s!akshoIdef)' [21] nan; baylran dnerlma Ilga bulavl din mum Panghaklman, memandangkan wang squmxan RM47Z.DOD an lelah glgal dlhayar olah JD dalam tempnh Inga nun-n, maka perenggan (cj Panghlkiman Fersamuln cersebun mempemntuxkan bahlwaz ‘sekmanya Delendan-Delendan gagal membsyar Wang semnran RM472,00U no as/am masts rigs bu/an dan ranxh Psnghakrman Perselu/Han, make salu Iaryumn masa akan drbenkan kapada oersnuan-Detendan atas bud! mcara P/amw Wiliupun cempon masa yang lama belah mam, llada bayaran mahupun bayaran sehahagwan dihual kapida JC sw U2MJGvHflkWm1KKUKZUPkw 1“ -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-24NCC-31-10/2022

PEMOHON TAN BOON CHYE RESPONDEN 1. ) HOON HEANG TONG SDN BHD 2. ) TAN BOON THONG 3. ) TAN SOONG LEE 4. ) TAN BOON HOOI

Minority oppression – Whether company is a quasi-partnership – Whether removal of plaintiff as director amounts to oppression – Whether legitimate expectation that plaintiff remains as director – Whether plaintiff had abandoned his post – Whether misappropriation of the funds of the company – Whether neglect in managing the affairs of the company – Whether failure to convene a members’ meeting as requested by plaintiff.

07/12/2023

YA Dato' Quay Chew Soon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=dd74bf56-94b0-4814-a068-87e1a177c15c&Inline=true

07/12/2023 15:29:55 PA-24NCC-31-10/2022 Kand. 33 S/N Vr903bCUFEigaIfhoXfBXA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Vr903bCUFEigaIfhoXfBXA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Vr903bCUFEigaIfhoXfBXA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Vr903bCUFEigaIfhoXfBXA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Vr903bCUFEigaIfhoXfBXA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Vr903bCUFEigaIfhoXfBXA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Vr903bCUFEigaIfhoXfBXA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Vr903bCUFEigaIfhoXfBXA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Vr903bCUFEigaIfhoXfBXA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Vr903bCUFEigaIfhoXfBXA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1>A—2nlcc—31—1o/2022 Kand. 33 2"/12/2022 13v29 IN THE HIGH COURT or MALAVA AT GEORGETOWN IN YNE STATE or PENANG ORIGINATING summons N0. PAe24NCC<i1-10/2022 In Ihe mailer ov Order 1, 23 and B8 0! me was oi Courl 2012 And In the matter at Seclmns 213. 346, 351 ov me compames Am 2016 And In Ihe matter oI HOON HEANG TONG SDN EHD Icampany Na: 503009-MI Between TAN BOON CHYE Plamlvfi And I HOON HEANG TONG SDN BHD 2 TAN BOON THONG 3 TAN SODNG LEE 4 TAN BOON HOOI Delendams GROUNDS or DECISION Introduction 1. The Plaunull (“P') Med Ims ongmaung Summons dated 13 10 2022. clalmmg munumy oppressmn under secluon 346 ov me compames AcI 2013 P and me 2”" In 4"’ Delendanls are slhllngs 2. On 259.2023, I dlswussed lhe Origlnahng Summons Here are the grounds :7! my decision Background rm; 1 sm vIw:ncuFE-naImnxrsxA DI! Snr1nInuvIhnrwIHI>e LAIQ4 M may he nrW\nnU|Y mm: dnuumnl VII .mm mm 3 To set out me background, i adooi the nanahve offered by ihe Delendama. 4. in year isea, me iaie oh Kooi Heang(‘DIcnand"|s(ai1ed a home— based business or manulaclurvlg and eeiirng ira nai nrearoine aa a sole propneiorshio when rhe ousineer. expanded, the Deceased decided to inoarpora|e a onvaie irrnned oornpany lo |ake over ihe business The 1“ Defendant (“Conn-rnny') was incorporated on 7.1.2000. 5 The Deceased had five sons — ii) Tang Boon Charw @ Tan soon chow |“Chow“) being me eidesi. iollowed by [H] me 4"‘ Deierrdani ('D4'), ii P. (W) the 2"“ Defendanl (“D2”), and Iv) me 3'‘ Deiendani ('D3'| D2 and D3 were me ieasieriuoaied onhe sibhngs, paniouiariy D2 who siudred uniii standard 5 E Bevore ihe rnoorporahon oi the company, chow and P wnrksd (or the Deceased Au the sons wurked W018 company, except D4 who had his own ion. 7 The fivsl drreciors and shareholders at the Company were (i) the Deceased, (H) Chow and (mi P. each hoidrng one share. on 1.2 2000. the Deceased irarrsierred her one share to D4 and vesigned as mrenor onhe company B. on 21 :2 mo. D2 and D3 were awoinled as dlredors ol me company irrniauy, D2 and in were run auoeared share rhe Oompany despite the Deoeaseds wlsh the! all her son be In the Company. D2 and D3 were hnaiiy aiiocaied shares in the Company In year 20:32 9 Duvmg an rniornrai meeting man was held someirme in March 2013. P deoiared |haI he and chew would ieave it lo :12 and D: to run We Company Fouowrrrg ihe irriornrei meellng, P rehrsed ro come in work on 10.102018, P sei up Jil Kang Main Trading ('JiI Kang“| as a soie oroprreiorshro 10. The batch manufacturing oonirol records «or purposes oi Good Manufaflunng Fraeiree (GMP), which P was me sole person VI charge cl nrarnrarnrng. was ieh unahended when he suddeniy relused lo oonre re work The 2" to 4'" Deiendarris iried lo plead with P io resume his work, but In nu avaii. ll As a last resort to make F resume his work, an EGM [Exvaordlnary Generai Meeting) in remove P as a direcior oi the company was held P am vrw:hcuFEagaimoxraxA 7 “None a.n.r mmharwm re med a my r... erhr.ury sum. dnuumhl van ariuha p-mxi refused to attend the EGM on 29 it 2019, P was removed as a director oi the company. vet F did not protest at the material time 12 Due to the inoompiete GMP reoords, the company could not obtain the GMP certriioation This aiiected the renewal oi its msnuiacturing iioenee As a result, the company had to oeaee manuiactunng siriee t.t.2o22. 13 on 11 4.2u22, the company received an email irom the Dnig controi Authority |Pihak Berkuasa hawaisn Dadartj iniorming that the registration oi cenaln oi the company's products had been suspended And hence to cease production at those products, because the company was unoontaetabte. Chow‘s daughter. who wurked tor the company. tbiwarded to P that emaii imm the Drug controt Authority 14 on 5 52022, P sent a notice to convene a members‘ meeting This notice was sent to the company's iactory premises. Subsequently P commenced this originating summons on 13.10.2022. 15 on ts.t2 2u22. an EGM was heid to discuss the appoinlmenl oi directors and the potentiai sate oi the company This was in VIEW that Chuvfs son had expressed interest to buy up the company is This time. P attended the EGM Eu| he declined to be appointed as director at the Company At the said EGM, P did nol mention about the aioresaid notice dated 55 2022 or the Onginallng summons dated 1a.tu 2022 17 The originating summons was served on the Deiendants by substituted senrioe sometime in March 2023. only then did the Deiendants know about the orig ating summons. ta. During this time. negotiations with Chow‘: sen concerning the sate oi the company were on-going The negotiations however eventuaity iett through The Ipnliclhlo law 19 The burden is on P to establish aH the eiements required under section 345 at the companies Act 2016. The Federal Court in Pan—Pacrfit: Curistrummn Ha/dings sdn Bhd v Ngru-Kee corporation (M) Ehd & Anor (201015 cu 721 at 734 heid: 2 SN VIm3bCUFEegaWlwXVBXA “Nair s.n.i mmhnrwm as u... e vuny i... nflgiruflly MIMI dnuuvtml VI aFit.INQ puns! ‘I221 u vs mtg /aw malm omovla Juccvldm 1:: Dulmun me bunien 1: upon a nsvmanev on me Dllann a/amnammy m eslaahsh eu me elements Mqwvsd I0 I50 prawn urmcv sauna vsv 425/ Thsmlana, m order 10 maeea m 1!: Ptmvon pursuant to section nav me Petllvonarhas lo aslablvsfl and ‘must smmorvtvybo datumunad eccamma va ma lasts’ ortms can mm». evvm avme Cnmuuny are bevvva oov-vducved at max me powsrs al ms d:ruI;1ors are hamg exembed In an opamssvve marmov or m dlsrugard av its mtansls, or In ua prsludvce some mam aw-mmazacy av pve,...m'e4 5:! av me Company has bean dons av nmvma, av me: some mama". ov me members‘ dcbmmru naldvvs many class all/mm has been D-9-55€4°N5P'DDosv4!oDePlssod “ 20 Seclicn 34611) or me Companies Act 2016 reads: -mm-my m um Dhzppressvbn 11; Any mamaarav dabsnluhs holder ave company may apply to 2». com /or an order we: mm seem on ma gvouIId- (a) ma! ma a/rm alibi mmpnny avs bsmg mmiunledov ens nuwevsol vn. dwuclurs are bemg exevused m a manner aoovanvvo to ms or mom av ma members a: dsbsnlms name vndumng mmsolf or m ameam av ms or mow mluastt as members, mu-holder: or dsbenmla Ivuvdavs an». wmpnny at {La} ms: sum. 5:1 allha mmusvvy has been me airs mm.-mnea wills! sumo vasamlmvv althe msmbevs, oebuvtwa holdars or any um ul mom has been passed or vs proposad wmcn unlmdy dtsavmvnales agamsl ov vr ulmrwvu pvqudtnal va aue armom avme membsva ov asoemm Ivuldavs, mcludvvvg mm: “ 21 In Pan-Pacific Canslruction (supra), me Fedeva\ ccun said (at page 735 - 736): 1291 ms, m Re Kang mm Snwmvli /Mm‘) S117: and the term ‘dvsrsyard at mloluls‘ n In be understood to mean ‘unlalv d!.ve9an1' wlvvle ¢PD'ossvovv' durum: M ‘urvvswyprqadnaval conducf wman means a conduct uepamng imm slamiarda onhnv dsalmg and a vvalinorv ulcumimorvs a/vemey Eu! e member olmmaany wm not avdvnuvvy n. .mm.a m complam av unlmvneu am... mam has new some bmum 01 the terms which he agvwod that me affavvs avm. cumpirvy would be amdmrletf And war or lecflmcal mvmgemem av me allude: wamnoi intsndadlo give rise Ivzpetvhons wvdev s as - Thu . ngud opprnslvc cunducl 22 In summary, P alleged mallhese were the oppressive ms upon mm (at Rumaval an F as diveomrohhe Company‘ em vnIn:bcuFE.gam»axvsxA ‘ “Nair saw nmhnrwm be a... a may .. mm.u-y -mm: dnuamnl VI nF\uNfl v-max ta) Mlsavvmvrlalmrl oltne lunds and assets olrne Companyt to) Fallure prnealect tn manaam tna allarrs oltne Culvlvanil and tol rarlura to oonvone a momoers meetlng ls vaquesled by P 23 ll ls my flndlng lnat P nas not pmven his case at oppresslon Here are my reasons (1) Removal ol rm Plalnrlu as dlruclol of rm company 24 l accem rna De1em1anls' aaaemon tnal lna removal el F as dlrector of tne Company was a last reson lo 101! hi rnlo resumlng no wont. P was unooncerned about n removal as dlrecluv at all matenal Ilmss. He drd not do anytmng abcul his removal VI November 2019 Em rmw claims tnal ne nas a legmrnate expeclatlon to remarn as a dlrectur ol the Cumpany 25. l relecl P's odntenllon mat the Company la a quasi-parlrlershlp Because tnrs ls not borne out by me laela To hagln wllht Hoan Heang Tong was never a panneramp Hnon Heang Tong remained a sole proprretorsmp rlgnt upt ‘ts termlnamn II was not a case ol a parlnershlp that was convened into a ted oomcany 2a. The launder ol the Company‘s buslness was Ihe Deceased sne tralnad Chaw and P lo him over me larmly buslrless. The lncarpor n ol tne company was a deolslon by me Daoaased. lt was she who wanted all ner sans lu be members pl tne Oompany 27. Further, as admllled by P at paragraph 13.3 cl ms arfidaurt In suppnrl dated t3 10.2022‘ there ls no shareholders‘ agreement belween the 2"“ to 4"‘ Delendanls and mm. 2a ln tms regard‘ me Slngapore Cuurl at Appeal case ol Tmo Syn Kym Wendy and olrrers v mo 5 Pyn and olrrers and olhar appeals [2013] 2 SLR 755 is lns|mc1lve The srngapore Cuurl 0! Appeal nelo tat page 792) '6 we met mm Ills ./udqe r rlndmg tnat Ina Thlo group wu no! run as a quaswannsvslllp Mr mm was a lradmonal palnacn wna nad ss/actlvuly groomed his sous la liko overt». «amuy ouslness 7n. maanaa afiuws mal lna plmnms we only glvun wan: av Mr no bemus: Mam Km had mstslerl mar thuy rr. glwrl nnanaral pml/lsmn and Mr rmd oonarderod lhal tna shame We a means ol «mannal pmvmon met me olernlr/Ir could nol muarldsr 5 SN vnIn:ocuFE-nalmdxrsxA “Nana a.n.l luvlhnrwlll a. u... a mm r... annnmry mm. dnuavlml v. .nuna WVM 1 Second, wa also aim ma mgaa nnmng ma! (M prunma am no! have a Vsgmmalu upmanan mat they wam mmam I1Nt:1ors cflhe omwamss n ma Tluo gmun as my a: may wana snamhddovs“ 29 In any even!‘ Hm Ihal P \s not anuuea to any legitimate expeaanon because na haa abandoned ms pus! 1n Maren 2013. Without mm mamlammg ma GMP moms. lhe Company evenmauy had to slop manuvamunng 30 Moreover. shareholders have a statutory right to remove dweclors under semen zoe 0! ma compamaa Act 2015 The Cuurl at Appeal In Tuan Ha/r /shak bm lsmar! V Lsong Hup Holdings and and may appeals [1995] 1 MLJ 661 held Dial the s|aIulnry nghl M sharehokiers to remove direckirs under 361311011 128(1) of the Cnmpamss AC1 1965 cannot be imerfevzd WM‘. 31 The Cuurl av Appear said [at page 698) “Trinsposad to a 129(1) av aw Act, llm pmpar maanmg av A public company may by military raaammnn remaw a mrvclur 'mear-Is ma: a annpre mqonry of me shamhamers ov me company may ma lo remove a r1Inc1ov an no agmement meet by ma dwuclnrs or me mmpany can ram: lhalnghl rna marl: ww /vol /nlorhm wvlh ma :1aIumry ragn: arana/anacam to rumave dnclnra n‘ my wuw, mereloren me menu runmrsswn araa sumvsdx and mam must a. Add An ovsmds nna pmvmon 5/5181 - mu aualo nwrdiug ol nu intormal muting 32 P submmed max lhe audwo recnrdmg 0! me mlonnal meelmg held around March 2015 showed that mere existed an unaarsxanamg rna\ all sharehmdevs were to pamcipace m lhe husmass ad the company However, 1 agvee with ma Deiendancs Ihatlhe Inlormal masung cannot be oonslrued mm way because Chow‘s daughler, wnu is a nawahareholder. a\so amended me wanna‘ maeung. 33. In me aumo «ecmdmg ollhe Inlormal meanng. what P declared al the meeung Is notewcrlhy: nauan pmpefly har, man nmpslly mar, hm ume he an immdry an. m «mm say nano we nun do man, we mm ave aapame to 90 on‘corvec1’? Ynflay Weave u lmnlm In as, a. . mm us enough mmady Nuawu mun dn man Now um am» or you do Ian I dun’! nmnm mm ynu am vnw:ncuFE.gawnaxrsxA 5 “Nana am.‘ nmhnrwm a. a... a my a. anan.u-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum v-max you listen to ni listen to me. one rrevroosty ooin at us were managing what you are lalklng aboul I kwnrw we hnve n Dmblem, Ihafs why i don‘! want mm we are saying liulwl both An old Alnady, want in leave it tar you an to do there is no rusoiitor ml to some nor: to watch mry d-y' 34. From the transcript at the audio recording above, it appears that P was willing to leave the management oi the company to D2 and D3, ailing old age 35. P stopped working in the company immediately aiter the inionnal meeting. He tried to iustity his conduct tiy accusing the Delendanta ot removing him trorri the management oi the company and denying him access to the Ccmpany‘s premisea This however conlvadlcied with his case that he was removed lrom the management oi the company in year 2o19at the EGM on 2911 znis 36 There is no evidenoe to support P's allegation that he was asked to return the keys |o the Compariy‘s premises The «acts suggest that P was not denied aoceea lo the company's premises, As admitted oy P himselt, he regularly entered the company: premises to buy pvoducls lor his business Ji| Kang 37 in his amdayil in reply dated 13 a 2021 P states “M saya senoin yaiio mengtiaoin oi pianii; aeieiidan laeriama iersebm umuk menennia Ilok Umuk ssllan pesanan myl ‘ 38 H can be Seen (mm the audio recording that |he decision not to work in the Company was P‘: decision P himsell lnllialsd his exclusion (mm the management of the Company March 2018. His action in my view. has extinguished any legitimate expecialiun that he may have had P cannot lake am/ari|sge M his own doing arid be heavd In complain years later. 39 P also relied on the ledgeis tor the monthly salaries oi all brothers But the ledgers are challenged by DA tieoaiise oeing a non-execullve dileclori he never received any salary (ti) nie allugaflon almllappmprhllon ouunds 40 P made an alleg n or mlsappmpnahon oi tiinda and assets oi the Company. Bul no parllculars or evidenoe were provided. This is a bare allegation that is unsubstantiated 1 SN vnIn:ocuFE.galntoxrsxA “Nair s.n.i luvlhnrwlll be u... a my i... nflgiruiily MIMI dnuavlml VI nFluNQ pnnxi 41 H‘ mus alleganon ls Ime. P would have filed lhe Origln ' summons lne momenl he dlscovered lhal there was mlsappropriauon ol lunos. lns1ead nlwaillng lor a lew years lor me Cnmpsrly lo slop rnanulaclurlng (c) Thu Illognlion pmlluu or nlglect in manlglng llu allalm pm. Company 42 F’ made a iunher iiflegallon of Vailule DI neglam In managlng the aflalls pl lne company, Agaln no evldence ur any parllculars were provlded 43 ll lhis aHega|ian ls lrue, JI| Karlg would nol have been able 11: make any purchase lrorn lhe Company 1n 2019. There would be no stock to sell lo new cuslomers hke an Kang slnoe P alleged lhal lnere was already a senous shonage lo even luml lhe exlshng customers‘ orders. (-1) nm allagnlon M lallur. to aonvene a mamhorr muting as vaquwsttd by «he Plalntlfl 44 The Defendants oenlend that the rlnllce I0 convene a members’ meellng was lssued by P to suppon lha Orlglnatlng Summons and IS salt serving 45 on 114 20221 F knew lronn cnows daughhar lhal lne Company was unoonlaclable by «he Drug oonuol Aulhumy because «he company had ceased opsrallorls. Yel P dld nvl send lhe nulice aaleo 5.5 2022 lo lhe 2"“ la 4“ Delenoanla alreelly Instead P chose lu send me nolloe lo me Company's vaclory premrses uesplle krlowlrlg lhal lhe |ac1ory was man Dpevallng slnce January 2022 45 l llrld lhal P made no lzflon Io brlrlg the name to lhe allenlioh of the Delendanls For lnslanoe, he hal hrlng the nolll:B lo the allerlllon ol lhe Delenuanls during lhe EGM an 16.12 2022. Desplle meellrlg D2 and D3 lace lo lace at that lime He did nol lellpw up on the nollce al all P cannal now oornplaln ma: lhe rneehng he requeslecl was not convened Other matters 47 ln submlssmnsy 5- oamplalnsd aboln lhe non-deelaranon ol vldends by me Company However‘ P am nol false non-declarallon or vidends as one of lhe grounds a1 hls oornplaml lor oppression ln any cl his amdavlls Aloen 1hal pvayerA Mme onglnanng Summons soughl lor an order lhal lhe 2"‘ lo 4'" Delendanls indemnify P m respepl ol all dlvldends a srn vlw:hcl.lFE.palmoxrsxA «mu a.n.1 nuvlhnrwm u. LAIQ4 m mm r... mnn.1.y snn. dnuuvlnnl y.. .nune puns! declared and paid lo me 2” In 4“ Devenoancs Irorn year 2019 in year 2022 43 se Inar as II rnay, Ins ewdence shows mar dlvldsnds were never declared since |he Inooroorauon or Ine company Tnare was no am In oppression agamsl P as none 01 me oIner snarenomrs recewsd any dwldsnds as won 49. Ills pamnem In new that Ihe dweclers’ rernurIeI-a|IorI and fees were not Increased Tms can be seen In the aumtea financlal Moons of the Company In Ian, Ine dIvec1ors' rernuneranon and fees were aaoraaaea slgnlficanlly In year 2019 The dIrecIms' remuneraliun was Iunnar decreased In Ine year 2020. 50. Next, P mmpIaIrIs ov lhs Delsndanls' retusal Io r1IscIose oerlam IunnaIIan and ducumems ouna Company Io nIrn. Even II |rI.IeI such a bleach per so warm ncI| neoessamy arnounr Io oppression. Tne Defendants aver InnI as a shareholder, P Is not enmled Io Ina documents requesred 51 In Ihrs regard‘ I concur wItn Ine Iollowing remarks oI Ine HIgh Cuurl In Lraw Ysau I-man y Wong Ksa K/an & ors [2016] MLJU 1589 my In the man: one however, even Innena was such a yromron by tho delemlanls m not pemmlrr-Iq the plamt/N access Io msomron at :ornp.ny documents (but see further osrowr n my I/Isw, me wlrui pluuasmon rs ms! sum a breach per se and wmvuul man, does no! nmssanvy amount In an opprossron or ornsr on/actionable vondud rusrrrymg rener under Ssulan mm [721 /1 I: Ime, as I have stated eamsr mar the Fsflera! Court In Dwan srrn y Puaseu Jays Sdn Iana held Ina: a smgls act or arrIIssIorI on me par: 0/ Ins wrangdoera rnay eons!/lute aoumssmn I7IauI.IslIfIs:mIIsV, Du! Inn, in my new, Is any amonama wnere oyu: vsrynalum, wen i:1oramI.uIon has so rlsvasrsnng or Iar reacmng a wnsvqluncs upon In. ngnrs or a msmher nre enema and oorvssquormes ormu sung/5 no wmlld Du me Irey lacus “ 52 In prayer 5 ov Ine onginaung Summcns, I= sougm Ior an on.1erIhaI the 2''‘ lo 4' Deiendams buy om ms snares In Ina Cumpany at currenr markeI value Tne Devendams assen Inan P med this ongrnanng summons «or a Douala:-al purpose. Namely Io em Ine company at a premlum pnce Ior hIs shares. 53 The Devendancs wmplam InaI Ina rIsga(IalIons Ior Ihe we of Ine company [all Ihrougn because P nad Imposed unreasunama aarnanas. P a srn vnIn:bcI.IFE.gaInn:xrm<A “None s.r.I nanhnrwm .. II... a navy I... mn.I.y mm: m.r.n y. muna puns! wanted RMZDDDDO to be deduaed «mm the sale price and paid Io mm as damages and lees for cammencmg lhis Origlnalmg Summons 54 m response to a wrmen ofler lvom the pmspecmve pumflas/sf, F via his sohL:\Iors' Wetter dated 10 5 ma demanded. -3 our mm M: rm abpemon Var yum chums pmpuun an «axe evev me mono un|| Mshnve V01 4 eonsmsrauen at RMz,son,ouu on nvavmad that me sum cl RM20D.000 an 4RM4o,oan an «crew. shavehmder at me cnmpanyt new we masts and aamaaas mum man pa and m our chem and payable from In- puwivass pubs - 55 AH in a\|, I lind that none ol the ads oomplamed 0! by P amounts to oppressmn, dwsregard at Interests, unfair discnmmalion or pvejudvcual 9GI1dllC|W\|hIfI|he mm of section 345 cc the Companies Act 2015 Conclusion as For me reasons above, I dwsnussed me Ongmaung Summons. I ordered P to pay costs 43! RM10.000 lo lhe Delendanls Dated 24 October 2023 any cmw Soon Judge High Court at Ma\aya‘ Penang cw Dwwsron NCVC 1 caumx. Eng Km" Neck and s.-. Umrmvul Syamnah (Meuv: Stephen 4. Ca} inrme Plamhfl Wan um Earn and Lea KM We: (Miss: ya ww; M In: Deflendami sm vnw:ncuFE.gammxrsxA 1“ “Nair 5.4.‘ nmhnrwm .. 4.... .4 mm .. mmmuny mm: dnuumnl _ mum W

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BK-A53KJ-74-03/2021

PLAINTIF DEVARAJAN A/L KUNASEKARAN DEFENDAN 1. ) LEON NGIM CHONG 2. ) TEE SOK KHIM

personal injury claim arising from a road traffic collision. plaintiff claimed general damages- loss of consciousness, laceration, multiple abrasions, fractures, severe head injury with intracranial bleed, Periorbital hematoma, multiple facial bone fractures, lunate and ulna dislocation and fracture, avulsed tooth, osteoarthritis, muscle wasting and scarring. for special damages-loss of future earnings, loss of actual earning, future operations, pain and suffering &a travelling expenses

06/12/2023

Dr. AZROL BIN ABDULLAH

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=caf34c7f-b97d-431a-921d-e78f9373704c&Inline=true

1 DI DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI SEPANG DI DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN MALAYSIA SAMAN NO: BK-A53KJ-74-03/2021 ANTARA DEVARAJAN A/L KUNASEKARAN …PLAINTIF DAN LEON NGIM CHONG TEE SOK KHIM …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN SESSIONS COURT (SEPANG) Dr. Azrol Bin Abdullah CIVIL SUIT NO BK-A53KJ-74-03/2021 25 August 2023 Representation Dato’ Manjeet Singh a/l Darshan Singh (Messrs. Darshan, Syed, Amarjit & Partners) for Plaintif: Mr. Giri Raj a/l N.Krishna Raja (Messrs. Kalai & Partners) for Defendants GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A) INTRODUCTION [1] This is a personal injury claim arising from a road traffic collision between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The second defendant was the owner of the vehicle driven by the first defendant. The plaintiff suffered multiple injuries due to the said collision. The plaintiff thereby claimed damages against both defendants before this court. 06/12/2023 12:43:17 BK-A53KJ-74-03/2021 Kand. 41 S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [2] This court had been relieved from appraising the distribution of liability because both parties have agreed that the defendants were 90% negligent and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was 10%. The remaining issue for adjudication by this court was only on the assessment of quantum. [3] The plaintiff demanded the sum of RM337,000 for general damages, and RM501,142 for special damages. The defendants in retort submitted that the plaintiff should only be awarded with RM 85,333 for general damages (with 10% deduction for overlapping injuries) and RM12,833 for special damages. [4] I have striven to consider all evidence in context, had close regard to the consistency of witnesses’ testimonies and the reliability of the documentary records produced before this court. I found that the plaintiff has proven his case on the balance of probability. I therefore allowed the plaintiff’s claim for general damages, special damages, the costs for documents and interests. [5] Dissatisfied, the plaintiff is now appealing to the High Court against my decision on the decided quantum. Hence this judgment. B) BACKGROUND OF FACTS [6] The whole facts of this case may not contribute to the pith and substance of this judgment because both parties have agreed on the distribution of liability. However, for the completeness to this judgment, suffice for me to narrate the facts of this case in brief. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [7] On 17.05.2020, around 4.00 pm, the plaintiff was riding his motorcycle travelling from Taman Permatang Jaya towards Banting Baru. Upon reaching KM5 Jalan Banting-Jugra, the first defendant who was driving a multi-purpose vehicle from the opposite lane entered the Plaintiff’s right of way, hitting the front part of the plaintiff’s motorcycle. The plaintiff was thrown onto the road and suffered injuries. The plaintiff was brought to the emergency department at Banting Hospital to receive his immediate emergency treatment before he was transferred to Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital in Klang. The plaintiff sustained multiple injuries as described in the medical report and also suffered material losses. [8] There were only two witnesses called during the trial namely, the previous employer of the plaintiff (SP1) and the plaintiff himself. The testimonies of both SP1 and the plaintiff were mainly focused on plaintiff’s employment and the plaintiff’s salary. The defendants closed their case without calling any witnesses. [9] Oral testimonies from the medical experts were not offered to this court since both counsels were in agreement with all of the medical reports subject to submission. There were 11 medical reports produced by both parties: i) Medical report from Banting Hospital, prepared by Dr. Al Azril B Arifin, dated 4.8.2020. ii) Medical report (dental) from University of Malaya Medical Centre, prepared by Dr. Dhanya Darshinee Sivamuni, dated 24.2.2021. iii) Medical report from University of Malaya Medical Centre, prepared by Dr. Joseph Jacob Danasamy, dated 24.2.2021. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 iv) Medical report from Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital Klang, prepared by Dr.Shobna a/p Veerpan dated 27.5.2021. v) Medical report from Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital Klang, prepared by Dr. Jason Lee Gan Yi, dated 30.07.2021. vi) Clarification report (orthopedic) from University of Malaya Medical Centre, prepared by Dr. Carol Ling Sze Yee, dated 9.8.2021. vii) Clarification report from Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital Klang, prepared by Dr. Jason Lee Gan Yi, dated 21.10.2021. viii) Specialist report (orthopedic) from Manu Orthopaedic & Trauma Clinic, prepared by Dr. Hj. Mohd Noor Manukaran, dated 24.10.2021. ix) Summary report from Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital Klang, prepared by Dr Phung Sy Thong, dated 18.11.2021. x) Specialist report from UMSC, prepared by Professor Dato’ Dr. Zainal Ariff Abdul Rahman (Consultant oral and maxillofacial surgeon), dated 15.1.2022. xi) Specialist report from UMSC, prepared by Professor Dr. Vivek Ajit Singh (Consultant orthopaedic surgeon), dated 15.3.2022. xii) Specialist report by Professor Dr. Ngeow Wei Cheong (Oral and Maxillofacial/dental), dated 10.7.2022. [10] I allowed the plaintiff’s claim and awarded the plaintiff with the sum of RM149,000 for general damages, the sum of RM18,264 for special damages, RM 2,692.80 for the costs of documents (to be included in the legal fees) and interests. For ease of reference, I produce the table below itemising the general damages and special damages I awarded to the plaintiff based on 100% liability. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 i) General Damages (based on 100% liability) INJURY PLAINTIFF (RM) DEFENDANTS (RM) COMPENDIUM (RM) COURT’S AWARD (RM) COURT’S ANALYSIS IN THIS JUDGMENT Loss of Consciousness 6,000 Not proven 6,000 Dismissed (not proven) Para 16-24 Laceration: a) Laceration wound over left forehead 3cm b) Deep laceration wound over right fore arm c) Laceration wound over right mandibular with positive through and through 20,000 3,000 2,500-9,500 5,000 (for multiple lacerations) Para 25-31 Multiple abrasions 12,000 2,000 1,300-5,000 2,000 Para 32-34 Fractures: a) Open fracture over right mandible (lower jaw) b) Right parasymphysis mandible fracture 25,000 15,000 14,500-30,000 Awarded as global sum under the heading of multiple fractures of the facial bones Para 60-62 Bilateral lung contusion 12,000 5,000 10,000 Para 35-36 Severe head injury with intracranial bleed: a) Right Frontal subarachnoid bleed, b) Right frontal lobe contusional bleed 120,000 20,000 40,000 Para 37-44 Periorbital hematoma (black eye) and subconjunctival 8,000 18,000 (including zygomatic fracture) 3,000-4000 5,000 Para 45-49 S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 hemorrhage of right eye a) Left lunate dislocation b) Left ulna styloid fracture (Dr. vivek Ajit singh: injuries will result overlapping residues) a) 14,000 b) 20,000 To be rejected or in alternative global award 13,333.00 a) 5,000-8,500 b) 9,000 14,000 (global sum for both fractures) Para 50-53 Multiple Facial bone fractures: a) Right maxillary sinus, b) Right pterygoid, c) Right zygoma extending to orbital wall, d) right orbital floor, e) arch fracture, f) fracture over right mandible (lower jaw) g) Right Parasymphysis h) mandible fracture 100,00 - - 60,000 Para 54-59 Avulsed 42 tooth Nil 3,000 3000-3500 3,000 Para 60-62 Osteoarthritis Nil 3,000 3,000 Para 63-65 Muscle wasting Nil 3,000 3,000 Para 66-69 Scarring Nil 4,000 4,000 Para 70-73 overlapping Nil 10% deduction 10% deduction Para 120- 122 TOTAL 149,000* *subject to 10% overlapping deduction S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 ii) Special Damages ITEMS PLAINTIFF (RM) DEFENDANTS (RM) COURT’S AWARD (RM) COURT’S ANALYSIS IN THIS JUDGMENT Perbelanjaan keluarga melawat 4300 Not proven Dismissed (Not proven) Para 75-78 Perbelanjaan Plaintif untuk rawatan pesakit luar 5842 Not proven 5631 Para 79-80 Perbelanjaan plaintif untuk rawatan di hospital Not proven Kos rawatan dan pembedahan pada masa akan datang: a) Removal implant left wrist b) Scar revision c) Dental implant d) Removal of metal plates and screws e) Physiotherapy and medication 8,000 3,000 7,000 5,000 4,000 2,333 1,000 2,333.00/ 4,000 2,000 1,600 2,333 1,000 4,000 2,000 1,600 (without interest) Para 81-97 Pain and suffering for future operation 20,000 RM8000 (for four future operations without interest) Para 98-99 Loss of earning 1,700 1,700 Para 100-105 Loss of future earning 384,000 Not proven Dismissed Para 106-119 TOTAL RM 26,264 C) ANALYSIS [11] At the outset, befitting to mention here that assessment of damages is a diligent judicial exercise that exacts careful perusal of all evidence and records produced before the court. Brief exasperation may permeate especially when lukewarm submission by the representing counsel unable to render assistance to the court. I appreciate the S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 judicial observation made by Gill FCJ (as he then was) in the case of United Plywood & Sawmill Ltd v Lock Ngan Loi [1970] 1 LNS 164 wherein he observed: “… As has been said again and again, the assessment of damages in cases of personal injury is one of the most difficult things for either a judge in the first instance or a Court of Appeal. When a man has lost his arm there is no sum in the world that can be in the true sense compensate for it. Yet compensation in the form of money is the only way in which he can be granted redress for injury he has suffered. It is neither possible nor desirable for damages for the loss of an arm to be standardised or rigidly classified, as no two cases are ever alike. But in order to maintain some semblance of uniformity, the amount awarded in past cases, which bear reasonable comparison with the case under review, should serve as useful guide…” [12] I bear in mind that an award must be fair whereby proper compensation for the injury suffered and the loss sustained. I am reminded by the long-established principle enunciated in Lim Poh Choo and Islington Area Health Authority [1980] AC 174, wherein Lord Scarmen had this to say: “… the principle of the law is that compensation should as nearly as possible put the party who has suffered in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong … There is no room here for considering the consequence of a high award on the wrongdoer or those who finance him.” [13] Both parties in this case filed their respective written submissions. I found that most of the cases mentioned in the plaintiff’s submission especially those cited in the general damages section (presented in S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 the form of schedule) were merely case citations sans explanation. Worst still, the plaintiff’s omission to file the bundle of authorities had exerted this court to immolate additional judicial hours searching for the cited cases and extract the relevant parts in those cited cases that support the plaintiff’s submission. An inconvenience indeed caused to this court. [14] However, I had diligently scrutinised past cases available in the databases that borne resemblance to the injuries suffered by the plaintiff together with the cases submitted by both counsels as guidance in delivering this judgment. [15] Expatiated below are my reasons for the awards given in favour of the plaintiff based on100% liability. A) GENERAL DAMAGES i) Loss of Consciousness [16] The plaintiff’s counsel in his submission demanded the sum of RM6,000 for loss of consciousness. The defendants’ counsel argued that the plaintiff did not suffer from any retrograde amnesia. [17] I am mindful about separating the wheat from the chaff. There were twelve medical documents produced in this case comprising eight medical reports and four specialist reports. These medical documents did not mention about loss of consciousness except for two medical documents that had mentioned otherwise. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [18] The first medical document was the medical report prepared by Dr. Joseph Jacob Danasamy from the Ophthalmology Department UMMC Hospital which was prepared about 9 months after the accident. The second medical document was the specialist report prepared by Professor Dato’ Dr. Zainal Ariff Abdul Rahman which was prepared 32 months after the accident. [19] The veracity about plaintiff’s consciousness mentioned in both reports were unable to be clarified by this court because both doctors were was not called to give evidence. At this point, it is not farfetched for me to believe that there is a high probability that the information about plaintiff’s consciousness was obtained by the said doctors from their interviews with the plaintiff. [20] In this regard, it is my considered view that the historical assessments contained in the medical reports prepared by Professor Dato’ Dr. Zainal Ariff Abdul Rahman and Dr. Joseph Jacob Danasamy were unable outweigh the first-hand medical assessment performed by the doctors at the Emergency Department Banting Hospital. [21] The medical report from the Banting Hospital dated 4.8.2020 did not mention anything about the plaintiff’s consciousness when the emergency department received the plaintiff for treatment on 17.5.2020. I am confident that the emergency department would have mentioned so if the plaintiff had really lost his consciousness when he arrived at the emergency department. [22] The Emergency Department Banting Hospital had the first opportunity to provide medical treatment for the plaintiff when the plaintiff arrived S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 there from the accident scene. Since there was no evidence to show that the Emergency Department Banting Hospital had overlooked about plaintiff’s consciousness, I accept the medical report prepared by the Emergency Department Banting Hospital as accurate. I am therefore convinced that the plaintiff did not suffer from loss of consciousness and plaintiff’s counsel failed to convince this court to believe otherwise. At this point it is safe for me to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for loss of consciousness. [23] On the contrary, even if the plaintiff’s contention that he had loss of consciousness was true, the award would have been covered by the award granted by this court for plaintiff’s head injury. In fact, the High Court in the case of Lee Meng Jun v Abd Rahman bin M Harun & Anor [2022] MLJU 3338 reminded that the claim of loss of consciousness must be dismissed if an award has been made for head injury. [24] Applying the principle in Lee Meng Jun to the present case, even if the plaintiff succeeded in proving loss of consciousness, the claim would still be dismissed because I have awarded the plaintiff general damages for head injury. ii) Laceration [25] Laceration wounds suffered by the plaintiff were as follows: a) Laceration wound over left forehead 3cm; b) Deep laceration wound over right forearm; and c) Laceration wound over right mandibular with positive through and through S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [26] Under this heading, the plaintiff’s counsel sought general damages in the sum of RM20,000 unsupported with any authorities. The defendants’ counsel submitted that the plaintiff should only be awarded with RM3,000 for the laceration wounds based on the previous decisions delivered by the Sessions Courts in Siti Zaleha Bt Abdul Hamid (mendakwa sebagai ibu yang sah mewakili tanggungan atas Mohamad Akmar Hakimie b Mohamad Fuad) & Anor v Mohamad Nazir b Ismail & 2 Ors [2022] 2 PIR (8) (laceration inner lower lip) and Dominic Menonraj a/l Satenasamy v Sugumar a/l Neelamagam (2021) 1 PIR (15) (laceration upper lid). [27] I have considered both authorities submitted by the defendants’ counsel. Unfortunately, both authorities were not helpful as both authorities were discussing on lacerations located at other parts of the human body, different from those sustained by the plaintiff. [28] I sought solace to the Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards dated 6 July 2018 (the Compendium) which suggested that the reasonable scale of compensation for multiple lacerations was between RM2,500 to RM 9,500. [29] I am also persuaded to adopt the decision of the High Court in the case of Nik Shamerul Hafizi bin Nik Mazlan & Anor v Khairulanwar bin nawi & Anor [2020] MLJU 2331. In Nik Shamerul, the High Court had affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court in awarding RM6,000 for multiple deep laceration wounds of the right forearm. [30] The plaintiff in the present case suffered deep laceration wound over his forearm but not in multiple form. Therefore, it is my considered S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 decision that an award in the sum of RM5,000 is fair and reasonable to be awarded to the plaintiff for his deep laceration wound over right forearm 3cm and laceration wound over left forehead 3cm. [31] Regarding the plaintiff’s claim for laceration wound over right mandibular with positive through and through, I have dealt it together with the plaintiff’s claim for facial injuries. My reasonings in awarding a global figure are explained in the later paragraphs of this judgment. iii) Multiple Abrasions [32] The plaintiff claimed for the amount of RM12,000 for multiple abrasions and cited a Sessions Court’s decision in the case of Satesh Kumar a/l Johnson (seorang kurang upaya yang mendakwa melalui ibu yang sah dan wakil litigasinya plaintif kedua) & Anor v Aminuddin bin Mohd Zain & 2 ors [2021] 1 PIR 59. The defendants argued that RM12,000 demanded by the plaintiff should be dismissed since the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof and failed to clarify about the multiple abrasions suffered by the plaintiff. In alternative, the defendants contended that the plaintiff be given a nominal sum for multiple abrasions. The defendants did not produce any authorities to support their arguments under this heading. [33] In this respect, I prefer to be guided by the decision of the High Court in the case of Muhammad Nur Hafiz Fahum bin Rahim v Mat Saad bin dan satu lagi [2023] MLJU 179 wherein the High Court had affirmed the decision of the lower court in awarding the respondent RM4,000 for multiple abrasion wounds over occipital region, face, shoulder, elbow and back hematoma. Whereas, the compendium S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 suggested the scale between RM1,300-RM5,000 for multiple abrasions. [34] I am satisfied that the plaintiff in the present case has proven that he suffered multiple abrasions due to the accident based on the the Banting Hospital medical report. I am agreeable with defendants’ contention that there was no explanation given about the exact region of the abrasion wounds suffered by the plaintiff. Therefore, I found that the sum of RM2,000 for multiple abrasions as fair and reasonable to be awarded to the plaintiff. iv) Bilateral lung contusion [35] The plaintiff demanded the sum of RM12,000 for bilateral lung contusion and cited a Sessions Court’s decision in the case of Rugayah binti Mamat v Xavier a/l Thamboo (abu Kassim bin Kamaruddin & Anor-Third parties) [2022] 1 PIR 9. On the contrary, the defendants referred to the case of Kumar a/l Kathavirajan & Anor v Norhammimi bin Ja’at & Anor [2022] 1 PIR 22 wherein the Sessions Court awarded only RM6,000 for lung contusion with pneumothorax. The defendants argued that the plaintiff in the present case did not suffer from pneumothorax; so, the plaintiff ought to be compensated with only RM5,000. [36] I found force in the decision of the High Court in Lee Meng Jun v Abd Rahman bin M Harun & Anor [2022] MLJU 3338. In Lee Meng Jun, the High Court had affirmed the awarded sum of RM10,000 for bilateral lung contusion injury. The similarity on the type of injury in Lee Meng Jun and the injury sustained by the plaintiff in the present S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 case is apparent. Therefore, I awarded the plaintiff the sum of RM10,000 for his bilateral lung contusion. v) Severe head injury with intracranial bleed [37] Under this heading, the plaintiff suffered severe head injury with intracranial bleed with right frontal subarachnoid bleed and right frontal lobe contusion bleed due to the accident. The counsel for the plaintiff prayed for the sum of RM120,000 to be awarded to the plaintiff after citing the decision made by the Sessions Court in the case of Khairulanwar bin Hamid (seorang kanak-kanak yang belum dewasa mendakwa melalui sahabat wakil dan bapanya yang sah iaitu Hamid bin Sukardi) v Ganeswari a/p Muniandi & Anor [2020] 1 PIR 6. The plaintiff’s counsel did not submit in detail about the demanded sum. [38] Upon careful perusal, I found that the court in Khairulanwar awarded the sum of RM120,000 because the plaintiff in Khairulanwar suffered severe head injury with skull fracture, intracranial bleed of subdural types, loss of consciousness with Glasgow coma score of 8/15 and subdural hemorrhage in the temporal region. [39] It is my humble observation that the plaintiff’s condition in the present case cannot be equated with the situation in Khairulanwar. The plaintiff in Khairulanwar suffered Glasgow coma based on the GCS classification of acute traumatic brain injury. However, the plaintiff in this present case was neither in coma nor suffered permanent brain damage. This vivid distinction had been overlooked by the plaintiff’s submission. Due to this reason, I disregarded the decision in Khairulanwar. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [40] Conversely, the counsel for the defendants persuaded this court to award the plaintiff only RM20,000 based on the decisions in the case of Mohd Azlan bin Ab Mutalib & Anor v Mohd Muniri bin Ab Rashad & 2 Ors [2020] 2 PIR 48 and Alwee Alywin Bin Azlim v Muhammad Shahid Bin Toha [2020] 2 PIR 33. [41] Unfortunately, I also found that the cases referred by the defendants’ counsel to discount the plaintiff’s submission were not helpful as both cases were not related to intracranial bleed. [42] I referred to several decisions of the High Court in previous cases in determining a fair and reasonable award for the plaintiff’s intracranial bleed. I considered the following cases: (i) Mohd Amien bin Mohd Ali v Hong Chee How dan satu lagi kes [2022] MLJU 3667, the High Court awarded RM100,000 for intracranial bleed, cerebral concussion, fracture of the skull, brain damage and Glasgow coma. (ii) Lee Meng Jun v Abd Rahman bin M Harun & Anor [2022] MLJU 3338, the High Court allowed RM80,000 to be awarded for skull fracture and intracranial bleed. (iii) Kanagesh Kumar a/l Mahendran v Sadiah bt Muhammad Taib [2022] MLJU 23, the High Court awarded RM30,000 for mild head injury with skull fracture with intracranial bleed of subdural type. (iv) Jamal Bin Abd Karal v Rekha Binti Nustari & Ors (High Court Tawau 2021 AMEJ 1262 Civil Appeal no. Twu-12B-1/2-2021, the High Court awarded RM50,000 for right parietal bone depressed fracture extending to frontal and parietal bone and moderate traumatic brain injury with intracranial hemorrhage. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [43] The foregoing High Court decisions demonstrated that the courts would readily award RM100,000 or more, in cases where the victims suffer serious head injuries especially brain damage and Glasgow coma. Although the plaintiff in the present case was diagnosed with severe head injury with intracranial bleed, he did not suffer from any residual effects. I could not find any sufficient reason to hold that the plaintiff in this case suffered any residual effects due to his head injury. The medical reports were also silent on any residual effects of the plaintiff’s head injury. The plaintiff in this case also did not suffer from any skull fracture. At this juncture, I found that the amount RM120,000 claimed by the plaintiff for intracranial bleed excessive. [44] I had the opportunity to personally observe the plaintiff when he was called to give his oral testimony before this court. From the observation of my own, the plaintiff was able to respond to the all of the questions posed to him during examinations with full coherence, able to remember and narrate past events. I reiterate the aforementioned reasons and I awarded the plaintiff the sum of RM40,000 for his severe head injury with intracranial bleed. vi) Periorbital hematoma (black eye) and subconjunctival hemorrhage of right eye [45] The plaintiff claimed for the sum of RM8,000 for periorbital hematoma and subconjunctival hemorrhage injuries and cited a Sessions Court’s decision in Loo Jun Kai v Muhammad Firdaus b Idris (Wakil perseorangan menggantikan Idris b Maidin) & Anor [2013] 2 PIR 26 without any detailed submission. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [46] The defendants moved this court to award a global sum of RM18,000 for three injuries sustained by the plaintiff namely periorbital hematoma, subconjunctival hemorrhage and fracture of the right zygomatic because these injuries located within the same region of the eye. The defendants referred to the decision in Kumar a/l Kathavirajan & Anor v Norhammimi b. Ja’at & Anor (2022) 1 PIR (22) wherein the Sessions Court’s Judge awarded RM10,000 for right zygomatic arch fracture. Reference was also made to the case of Wong Zhen Quan v Inai Transport Co. Sdn Bhd (2022) 1 PIR (18) wherein the Sessions Court Judge awarded RM 8,000 for fracture of the right orbital floor, medial wall and roof. [47] With respect, I do not think that it was suitable for me to compute zygomatic fracture together with periorbital hematoma and subconjunctival hemorrhage. To my mind, zygomatic fracture involves facial bone fracture. Therefore, zygomatic fracture ought to be awarded together with other facial bone fractures which I have addressed in the succeeding paragraphs. [48] The compendium suggested that the range of award for hematoma for one eye was between RM3,000-RM4,000. Meanwhile, the High Court in Siti Hajar bt Ibrahim dan satu lagi v Chuan Kiat Cheng [2022] MLJU 3692 affirmed the decision of the lower court in awarding RM5,000 for left eye subconjunctival haemorrhage and periorbital hematoma. [49] As I saw it, the plaintiff’s eye injuries were similar to those injuries sustained by the plaintiff in Siti Hajar. Therefore, I awarded the S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 plaintiff in this present case the sum of RM5,000 for periorbital hematoma (black eye) and subconjunctival hemorrhage of right eye. vii) Left Lunate dislocation and Left Ulna Styloid fracture. [50] The plaintiff claimed for the sum of RM14,000 for Left lunate dislocation with medial nerve injury and cited the decision in Nurul Hisam bin Ishak v Lee Yoon Cheong@ Lee Gen Chong & Anor [2018] 2 PIR(16). The plaintiff also claimed RM20,000 for left ulna styloid fracture by citing the decision in Mohd Faiz Izwan b Jamaludin (tindakan ini dibawa oleh Puan Jama’ayah bt Mohamed sebagai ibu kandung dan sahabat wakil yang sah) & Anor v Nordin bin A. Kadir [2013] 1 PIR (29). [51] The defendants argued that plaintiff’s claim for these injuries should be dismissed because these injuries were not mentioned in the early medical report. These injuries were only mentioned later by another hospital. The defendants aver that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden in proving these injuries and the plaintiff also failed to provide any clarifications whether the injuries were linked to the same accident. In alternative, the defendants submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to only RM13,333.00 for these injuries (1/3 deduction from the RM20,000 claimed by the plaintiff) since the fracture did not involve shortening but merely dislocation of the lunate. The Plaintiff did not put forth any further arguments on this matter. [52] In this respect, I agree with the defendant’s submission that these injuries were not mentioned in the early medical report. However, these injuries only appeared in the Clarification report (orthopedic) University of Malaya Medical Centre by Dr. Carol Ling Sze Yee, dated S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 9.8.2021. Granted, that there are situations where injuries may have been overlooked or undetected at initial stage and the court may consider such situation. In Soo Hoo Seng Koon v Lee Seng & Anor [2020] 3 MLJ 405. In Soo Hoo Seng Koon, the High Court ruled that unless there is evidence to show that the claimant involved in another accident, the injury that is discovered later can be taken as injury sustained from the same accident. [53] Applying the same principle to the present context, I found that there was nothing to suggest that the plaintiff involved in a subsequent accident other than the accident in the present case. Therefore, it would be safe for me to accept that the plaintiff’s injuries relating to left lunate dislocation and left ulna styloid fracture were due to the same accident. For the above reasons, I awarded the plaintiff the global sum of RM14,000 for left lunate dislocation and left ulna styloid fracture. viii) Multiple Facial Fractures [54] At the outset, I did not lose sight about the legal principle set out in Tay Tong Chew & Anor v Abdul Rahman bin Haji Ahmad [1985] 1 MLJ 50 wherein the Federal Court enunciated that a global figure has to be awarded for injuries that are connected to the same human anatomy. The application of the above principle had been demonstrated in Ridhwan bin Ahmad v Lee Yin Liang & Anor [2022] MLJU 1102, wherein the High Court had assessed together all of the injuries at the head area. [55] In the present case, the plaintiff claimed for the global sum of RM100,000 for facial bone fracture (including avulsed 42 tooth) and S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 cited the case of Ahmad Sairan bin Yusak & 8 Ors v Khoo Hun Cheong & Anor [2014] 1 PIR (69). The defendants in posited that the plaintiff should only be awarded with RM15,000 for fracture of his right parasymphysis mandible and RM18,000 for right zygomatic and right orbital wall fractures. [56] Several decisions of the High Court worth to be mentioned here to support this court’s finding on the quantum. I considered the following cases: i) In A Child (a minor through Mohamad Radzhi bin Hassan as adopted father and litigation representative) & Ors v Fazilah bt Abdul Aziz [2023] 12 MLJ 487, the High Court had affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court in awarding RM 44,000 for multiple facial bone fractures. ii) In Amira Husna bt Ahmad (minor, mendakwa melalui wakil litigasi, Ahmad Nazir bin Mat Asin) & Anor v Abdullah bin Mat Tahir & Ors [2023] MLJU 1175, the High Court recorded consent judgment in the sum of RM40,000 for multiple facial fractures pertaining to six different types of bones. iii) In Ridhwan bin Ahmad v Lee Yin Liang & Anor [2022] MLJU 1102, the High Court did not disturb the findings made by the Sessions Court which awarded the Plaintiff RM40,000 for multiple facial bones fractures. iv) In Lee Meng Jun v Abd Rahman bin M Harun & Anor [2022] MLJU 3338, the High Court affirmed the decision of the lower court in awarding RM50,000 for four facial bones fractures comprising left zygomatic complex fracture, fracture right and left para symphysis of mandible, left maxillary dentoalveolar fracture and left orbital wall fracture. The High Court in Lee Meng Jun S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 affirmed the two references made by the Sessions Court Judge as correct in deciding the awards particularly the cases of Ng Sing Howe @ Ng Mook Cheong v. Wan Muhamad Rosmadi bin Wan Zahri & Ors (Mok Amoii & Anor, Third Parties) [2012] MLJU 481 and the case of Tiong Hock Yong lwn. Muhammad Amsyar Kamaruzzaman & Satu Lagi [2019] 1 LNS where in both cases the courts awarded RM45,000.00 dan RM50,000.00 respectively for similar injuries. [57] The aforementioned High Court decisions indicated that a fair and reasonable sum of award for multiple facial injuries ranged between RM40,000 to RM50,000 depending on the number of fractures on the facial region. [58] Reverting to the present case, the specialist report (Oral and Maxillofacial/dental) by Professor Dr. Ngeow Wei Cheong stated that the plaintiff’s facial injuries did not affect the symmetry of the plaintiff’s face. [59] To my mind, the plaintiff has recovered from his facial injuries. I had assessed together plaintiff’s facial injuries comprising right parasymphysis mandible fracture, right zygomatic-maxillary complex fracture, right orbital wall and floor fracture. After taking into consideration that the plaintiff’s multiple facial bones fractures, I awarded the plaintiff in this case the sum RM60,000 for right parasymphysis mandible fracture, right zygomatic-maxillary complex fracture, right orbital wall and floor fracture. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 ix) Avulsed 42 tooth [60] The plaintiff in this case had submitted on avulsed tooth together with multiple facial fractures. Meanwhile, the defendants submitted separately on avulsed 42 tooth. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff was entitled for RM2,000 for avulsed 42 tooth after relying on a Magistrates’ Court’s decision in Abd Halim Bin Ariffin & Anor v Mohd Sabri bin Salleh & Anor (April 2022) 1 PIR (27). [61] After careful perusal, I found that the defendants’ counsel’s submission on this point had misdirected this court because in Abd Halim Bin Ariffin the Magistrate awarded RM3,000 for dental trauma and not RM2,000. To my mind, the award given by the Magistrate in Abd Halim Bin Ariffin was well within the range suggested by the compendium. The compendium suggested the award for loss of tooth between RM3,000 to RM3,500. [62] I am persuaded to refer to the decision of the High Court in Pengurus Kawasan, Selia Selenggara Selatan Sdn Bhd & Anor v Iqmal Izzuddeen bin Mohd Rosthy [2023] 11 MLJ 182 wherein the learned judge had affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court in awarding RM3,000 for loss of tooth. Applying the same range to the present case, I am convinced that the sum of RM3,000 is fair and reasonable to be awarded to the plaintiff for his avulsed 42 tooth. X) Osteoarthritis of left wrist [63] The plaintiff’s counsel omitted to submit on the osteoarthritis of plaintiff’s left wrist even though the specialist report (orthopedic) by Dr. Hj. Mohd Noor Manukaran, had confirmed on the condition. The defendants’ counsel submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove this S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 point and the claim must be dismissed. In alternative, the defendants counsel submitted that the plaintiff should be awarded with only RM3,000 for osteoarthritis based on the decision delivered by the Sessions Court in Helmi bin Abdullah v Mohammad Mustafar Kamal bin Adnan & Anor. (Nov 2022) 2 PIR (44). [64] This court must still consider the residual effect of the plaintiff’s condition based on the assessment made by the specialist even in the absence of any submission by the plaintiff’s counsel for this injury. Although the compendium suggested the award for osteoarthritis was RM5,000, the High Court in Helmi bin Abdullah v Mohammad Mustafar Kamal bin Adnan dan satu lagi [2021] MLJU 1634 affirmed an award of RM3,000 for osteoarthritis as fair and reasonable. [65] Applying the preceding guiding points to the present context, I found that the sum of RM3,000 as fair and reasonable to be awarded to the plaintiff for the osteoarthritis on this left wrist. XI) Muscle Wasting of Left Arm and Forearm [66] The plaintiff’s counsel had overlooked to submit on muscle wasting of plaintiff’s left arm and forearm even though the specialist report (orthopedic) by Dr. Hj. Mohd Noor Manukaran had confirmed the condition. The said specialist report remarked that the muscle wasting of plaintiff’s left arm and forearm would not be fully improved even with physiotherapy. [67] On the contrary, the defendants’ counsel submitted that the claim for muscle wasting should be dismissed since the it was not proven. In alternative, the defendants’ counsel submitted that the plaintiffs S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 should only be awarded RM2,000 for muscle wasting because the plaintiff’s mild muscle wasting of the left upper limb muscle would eventually improve with regular usage based on the specialist report by Professor Dr. Vivek Ajit Singh. [68] In the absence of any submission by the plaintiff on this injury, this court must still consider the residual effect of the plaintiff’s condition based on the assessment made by the specialist. The compendium suggested that a fair and reasonable award for muscle wasting ranged between RM3,000 to RM5,000. In Abdul Halim bin A Tambi v Yong Kim Moon & Ors [2022] 9 MLJ 604, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court in awarding RM5,000 for the claimants’ muscle wasting of the claimants’ left arm and forearm. However, the learned judge in Abdul Halim bin A Tambi did not deliberate on whether the girth measurement of muscle wasting was correlated with the award value. [69] In contrast, it is my considered opinion that girth measurement must be taken into consideration in determining the award value. In the present case, the plaintiff had 1.5 cm of muscle wasting on his left arm and 1 cm muscle wasting on his left forearm. The specialist report by Professor Dr. Vivek Ajit Singh stated that the plaintiff’s muscle wasting was mild and would improve with regular usage. Therefore, I awarded the sum of RM3,000 for muscle wasting of the plaintiff’s left arm and forearm. XII) Scarring [70] The plaintiff’s counsel did not offer any submission on plaintiff’s scarring even though the specialist reports have confirmed about the S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 visible scars. The defendants’ counsel submitted that the reasonable award for multiple scarring was RM4,000 based on the decisions made in Abdullah Sani Bin Che Mat & Anor v Ahmad Kamal Bin Ramli & Anor [2019] 1 PIR (46) and Muhammad Saiful Suffian Bin Zulkafli v Mohamed Razif Bin Hashim & Anor [2020] 2 PIR (17). In both cases, the courts awarded RM5,000 for multiple scarring. [71] In the absence of any submission by the plaintiff for this injury, this court must still consider the residual effect of the plaintiff’s condition based on the assessment made by the specialist. The specialist reports have stated that the plaintiff sustained multiple scars namely 16x2 cm laceration scar over right forearm, 7x1cm surgical scar of the left wrist, 2x1cm surgical scar over dorsum of the left wrist, 4x 1cm laceration scar at the back of the neck, 3 cm laceration scar under the chin, 4 cm laceration scar over the forehead, 2x1cm laceration scar over the dorsum of the right hand. [72] The compendium suggested that reasonable award for minor scarring to arm ranged between RM2,200 to RM3,850; facial scarring ranged between RM6,000 to RM36,500; and operation scars ranged between RM2,750 to RM12,000. [73] I found that the scars sustained by the plaintiff were not extensive and I agree with the specialist report that the plaintiff will benefit from scar revision. I also observed that most of the scars were consequential to the primary injuries which have been awarded in the earlier paragraphs. There may be overlapping. Therefore, I awarded the plaintiff in the sum of RM4,000 for his scars. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 [74] I shall now move on to the awards for special damages. Special Damages i) travelling expenses [75] The plaintiff demanded the total sum of RM4,300.00 for the travelling expenses for: a) RM100 for the plaintiff’s and his family’s travelling costs to Hospital Banting; b) RM1,800 for the plaintiff’s travelling costs to Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Hospital for 6 days (RM300 each day); c) RM 2,400 travelling costs for follow up treatments at PPUM for 8 days (RM300 each day). [76] The defendants’ counsel submitted that the claim for plaintiff’s travelling should be dismissed as it was not proven by the plaintiff. [77] In this respect, I agree with the defendants’ submission that the plaintiff failed to prove the incurred travelling expenses. I observe that there was no documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff before this court to prove the said travelling expenses. Further, there was nothing from the testimony of the plaintiff about the frequency of the travellings made by him or his family to the said hospitals. [78] I found that the travelling frequency to the hospitals mentioned the plaintiff’s submission had been made without any evidence. In the absence of cogent evidence from the plaintiff about the travelling expanses, I found that the claim under this heading has not been proven. Therefore, I dismiss plaintiff’s claim for the travelling expenses. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 ii) Hospital Bills [79] Regarding the hospital bills, the plaintiff demanded for the sum of RM5,842. Whilst the defendants submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove this claim. [80] Upon my careful perusal over all of the hospital bills produced before this court, I found that the actual amount that should be awarded to the plaintiff was only RM5,631 and not RM5,482 as claimed by the plaintiff. I acknowledge that there was a difference of RM 211 between my awarded sum and the amount claimed by the plaintiff. The reason being, the plaintiff’s counsel had added the amount in page 4 together with the amount in page 3 of Bundle C. Whereas, both pages were referring to the same transaction. i.e. page 4 was the receipt of payment for the invoices at page 3 of Bundle C. Adding pages 4 and 3 of Bundle C together would result duplicity. Therefore, I awarded RM5,631 being the correct amount for the hospital bills. iii) Future Operations. [81] The counsel for the plaintiff claimed for a total sum of RM27,000 for plaintiff’s four future operations that consists of: a) Revision of scar tissue (RM3,000); b) Removal of bone plates and screws at the right mandible (RM5,000); c) Dental implant to replace missing 42 tooth (RM7,000); and d) Physiotherapy and medication (RM4,000). In addition, the plaintiff’s counsel also claimed for RM5,000 for pain and suffering for each future operation. Thus, bringing the overall S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 claim for pain and suffering for future operations at a total of RM20,000. [82] I found that the plaintiff’s counsel had miscalculated the total amount for the four future operations. The actual figure should only be RM19,000 after adding up all of the four estimated costs for future operations and not RM27,000. All of the future operation costs submitted by the plaintiff were the estimated figure if all of the operations are performed at any private hospitals. [83] In contrast, the defendants submitted that the costs for four future operations should be reduced based on the following arguments: a) Revision of scar tissue could be performed at Pusat Perubatan University Malaya (PPUM) which would cost only RM700 as compared to UM Specialist Centre which would cost RM3,000. (see specialist report prepared by Professor Dr. Ngeow Wei Cheong at page 8 Bundle I). Alternatively, the defendants were agreeable with the sum of RM1,000 being 1/3 deduction from RM3,000. b) Removal of implants at the right mandible (upper limb) could be performed at any government hospitals that would cost around RM1,000 as compared to RM7,000 at private hospital (see specialist report prepared by Professor Dr. Vivek Ajit Singh at page 4, Bundle H). Alternatively, the defendants were agreeable with the sum of RM2,333.00 being 1/3 deduction from RM7,000. c) Dental implant to replace missing 42 tooth could be performed at Faculty of Dentistry University of Malaya which would cost only RM4,000 as compared to UM Specialist Centre which would cost S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 RM7,000. (see specialist report prepared by Professor Dr. Ngeow Wei Cheong at page 8 Bundle I). Alternatively, the defendants were agreeable with the sum of RM2,333 being 1/3 deduction from RM7,000 or RM4,000 without interest. d) Based on the specialist report by Professor Dr. Vivek Ajit Singh, the plaintiff could benefit from 20 sessions physiotherapy which would cost RM80 per session. The plaintiff should only be awarded the sum of RM1600 without interest for physiotherapy. e) Removal of plates and screws could be performed at PPUM which would cost only RM2,000 as compared to UM Specialist Centre which would cost RM5,000. (see specialist report prepared by Professor Dr. Ngeow Wei Cheong at page 8 Bundle I). Alternatively, the defendants were agreeable with the sum of RM1,667 being 1/3 deduction from RM5,000 or RM2,000 without interest. [84] The Defendants’ counsel alluded that the 1/3 deduction was based on the decision made by the Court of Appeal in Chai Yee Chong v Lew Thai [2004] 2 MLJ 465. In Chai Yee Chong, Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ (as he then was) ruled that: “60 If the court is not satisfied that the plaintiff is justified to seek treatment at a private hospital then, depending on the facts and the circumstances of each case, the court should either dismiss the claim altogether as was done by the Supreme Court in Pengarah Institut Perubatan & Anor and by this court in Hj Ariffin Hj Ismail or award an amount not exceeding one-third of the expenses as was done by the Supreme Court in Tang Sia Bak. It must be noted that the one-third is nowhere fixed by any written law. It is a matter of practice. If it is shown that in a particular case, even one-third is excessive, considering the S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 expenses that otherwise would have been incurred in a government hospital, an amount less than one-third may be awarded.” [85] The defendants’ counsel further referred this court to the decision in Peraganathan a/l Karpaya v Choong Yuk Sang & Anor, Mallal’s Digest 1995. Unfortunately, I was unable to read the copy of this reference because the copy attached in the defendants’ was illegible. [86] In principle, in Peraganathan a/l Karpaya v Chong Yuk Sang & Anor [1995] MLJU 246 the learned judge had this to say: “It is my opinion that when the Court is called upon to determine whether or not the expenses incurred in a private hospital should be allowed in such cases, it should not rely on medical advice solely as such, but whether in this particular circumstances of the case, the hospital concerned is ready and able to provide adequate facility, expertise and treatment to the patient.” [87] I carefully perused all of the estimations given by the specialist reports produced by both parties and the given estimations were at odds. [88] Before this court could make proper assessment on the award for future operations, the plaintiff must convince this court that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to seek future treatments at private hospitals. In this respect I was bound by the decision of the Federal Court in Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 1 MLRA 647 wherein Abdul Hamid Embong FCJ (as he then was) said: S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 “[36]...In determining a claim for future medical treatment, be it at private, or at a public hospital, the question of reasonableness in making such a claim should always be the paramount consideration. The plaintiff not only needs to justify, for instance, why he chooses treatment at a private hospital over a public one, but he must also show that the amount claimed for such treatment is reasonable.” [89] The next legal poser is how to pass the reasonableness test threshold. In this respect, I sought solace to the guiding principle set out in Muhammad Yassein Zuliskandar (A Child Suing Through His Father and Next Friend; Zuliskandar Md Pechor) v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2019] 4 CLJ 289. In this case, the Court of Appeal ruled: “The test of reasonableness applies in two ways. First, the plaintiff must justify why he chooses treatment at a private hospital over a public hospital. Secondly, the plaintiff must show that the cost of treatment at a private hospital was reasonable. In determining whether it is, or was, reasonable or justifiable in resorting to treatment at a private hospital, there can be no fixed or inflexible rules simply because of the myriad of reasons or circumstances why treatment is sought or intended to be sought at a private hospital.” [90] Further guidance was also given by the High Court in Surendran a/l Jaya Seelan v Muhammad Aizat Mohd Sani [2023] MLJU 608. In his case, it was observed by the learned High Court Judge observed that: “(9) Although the Court of Appeal’s case in Chai Yee Chong (supra) dealt with past costs of medical treatments, the logic and good sense of its following dicta regarding the first hurdle should apply with equal force to both the past costs of medical treatments and the future costs of medical treatments: For ‘the first hurdle that he has to cross: S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 (a) He must prove that that particular treatment is not available at the government hospital either due to the unavailability of the necessary equipment or qualified doctors or other sufficient reasons; or (b) He must prove that though the treatment is available at a general hospital, it is not available within a reasonable period considering the urgency of the treatment. This may be due to the congestion at the government hospital or for other sufficient reasons; or (c) He must prove that that the treatment at the government hospital though available, is grossly inadequate. This may be due to lack of trained doctors in that particular field or for some other good reasons. ... I agree, we are concerned with treatment, not accommodation.’; Proof of any one of the abovementioned alternative criteria is sufficient to cross the first hurdle.” [91] The principle on reasonableness can be illustrated from the decision in Muhammad Yazid bin Tasra dan satu lagi lwn Purwanto bin Purwadi dan satu lagi [2020] MLJU 112. In Muhammad Yazid bin Tasra, the High Court in principle ruled that the plaintiff must provide sufficient justification to the court as to why he sought treatment from private hospital and the cost must be reasonable. The High Court had reduced the claim made by the plaintiff for future operations because he failed to produce any appointment cards to prove a long waiting period for operation at government hospital. Mere assertions by the counsel about the waiting period based on general knowledge was insufficient. [92] Applying the aforementioned principles to the present case, I found that the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probability that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to seek treatment for future S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 operations at private hospitals. There was nothing in the plaintiff’s testimony explaining about the reasonableness for him to undergo four future operations at private hospital. The plaintiff also failed to prove that the cost for the four future operations were reasonable. [93] There was nothing from the plaintiff’s evidence to prove that the treatments were not available at the government hospital either due to the unavailability of the necessary equipment; or qualified doctors or other sufficient reasons; or the treatment is not available within a reasonable period considering the urgency of the treatment or the treatment at the government hospital though available, grossly inadequate. [94] The plaintiff in the present case failed to provide reasonable justification in seeking future operations at private hospital and failed to prove that the operation cost estimations were reasonable. Further, the medical reports showed that the plaintiff had all the while sought medical treatments in connection to the accident at government hospitals. In this respect, I must hold that the plaintiff had ultimately failed to satisfy the reasonableness test as imposed by the Federal Court in Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi. [95] Since the plaintiff failed to pass the reasonableness threshold, what is there left for the plaintiff to claim for his future operations? In this respect, I had only two options: either to dismiss the claim for future operations altogether as was done by the Supreme Court in Pengarah Institut Perubatan & Anor v Inthra Dewi & Anor [1987] 2 CLJ 420 ; or award an amount not exceeding 1/3 of the expenses as S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 was done in Tang Kia Bak v Mooi Kim Ming & Anor [2004] Mallal’s Digest 1595. I am also minded that 1/3 is no where fixed by any written law but as a matter of practice. Again, in Surendran a/l Jaya Seelan, the High Court ruled that “if it is shown that in a particular case, even one-third is excessive, considering the expenses that otherwise would have been incurred in a government hospital, an amount less than one-third may be awarded” [96] After considering the specialist reports produced from both sides, I observed that it was necessary for the plaintiff to undergo the four suggested operations. Despite the plaintiff’s failure to discharge the onus of proof, I found that it would be fair and reasonable to award plaintiff with nominal damages for his four future operations. In this respect, I did not lose sight the decision of the Federal Court in the case of Guan Soon Tin Mining Co v. Wong Fook Huan [1969] 1 MLJ 99; [1968] 1 LNS 43 wherein One Hock Thye FJ (as he then was) ruled: “…as plaintiff, of course had to discharge the burden of proving both the fact and the amount of damages before he could recover. Where he succeeded in proving neither fact nor amount of damage he must lose the action or, if a right was infringed, he would recover only nominal damages. Where he succeeded in proving the fact of damage, but not its amount, he would again be entitled to an award of nominal damages only.” [97] In so deciding, I found myself agreeable with the submission by the defendants’ counsel that 1/3 deduction from the estimated cost as fair and reasonable. Therefore, I awarded the plaintiff with the following sum (without interest) for plaintiff’s future operations: a) Removal implant left wrist RM 2,333 S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 b) Scar revision RM 1,000 c) Dental implant RM 4,000 d) Removal of metal plates and screws RM 2,000 e) Physiotherapy and medication RM 1,600 [98] In addition, regarding the plaintiff’s claim for future pain and suffering, I regarded the decision of the High Court in the case of Jason Lim Tzy Sheng v Roald Karl – Henz Mafessanti & Anor [2020] MLJU 2172 as helpful. In Lim Tzy Sheng, the High Court dismissed the appellants appeal because the appellant failed to show medical evidence on the extent of future pain and suffering of the future operations. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ claim for RM15,000 for both operations and affirmed the sessions court’s award RM5,000 for future pain and suffering. [99] Same here. The plaintiff in the present case failed to adduce medical evidence to prove the extent of the future pain and suffering of the future operations. Therefore, I found that it would be fair and reasonable for the plaintiff to be awarded with the sum of RM8,000 (without interest) for plaintiff’s future pain and suffering for the four future operations (i.e. RM2000 for each operation). (iv) Actual Loss of Earning [100] The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the plaintiff was earning RM2,000 per month when he was employed at Sivakumar Transport and the plaintiff did not receive any salaries when he was on medical leave due to the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel also submitted that the plaintiff was unable to work due to the sustained injuries. Plaintiff claimed for the sum of RM60,000 for loss of earning for 30 months. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 [101] The defendants’ counsel argued that plaintiff’s take home pay in average was RM1,700 per month (based on 3 months’ salary calculation i.e. RM1,500, RM1,900 and RM1,700). The defendant also argued that the medical certificate showed that the plaintiff was given 27 days medical leave. Therefore, the defendants aver that a fair and reasonable sum for loss of earning should only be RM1700 being the plaintiff’s one-month salary. The defendants impressed upon this court on the legal position taken the superior court in awarding actual loss of earning based on the actual number of days stated in medical certificate. [102] In this respect, I found that the defendants’ counsel had rightfully directed this court’s attention to the decision in Abdul Waffiy bin Whubbi & Anor v A K Nazaruddin bin Ahmad [2017] MLJU 761, wherein the High Court allowed loss of earning for four months based on the medical certificate. Similarly, in Lai Sin Yuen v Ainor Bt Abdullah & Anor [2021] MLJU 415, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court that the number of loss of earning should only be limited to 20 months based on what had been stated in the medical leave. [103] SP1 testified that the plaintiff worked at his company as a supervisor/ lorry assistant for 6 months prior to the accident. According to SP2, the plaintiff’s basic salary was RM1,700 per month and the plaintiff was given RM300 for shift allowance and RM200 for transport allowance. During cross examination, SP1 testified that plaintiff’s nature of work mainly to refill petrol, supervising the unloading areas, sending out spare parts of the lorries, and handing S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 out cash to the lorry drivers. During cross examination, SP1 confirmed that the plaintiff was on medical leave for one month. [104] It pertinent to emphasis here that, the medical certificate produced by the plaintiff in the present case was only marked as an ID3. It is trite that document marked as ID does not form part of the proceeding record and inadmissible as evidence (see SS Legend Nautilus (M) Sdn Bhd v Hamzah bin Mohd Ghauth & Ors [2013] MLJU 153, RNS Oil and Gas Sdn Bhd v Norhayati binti Ahmad Kamal [2016] MLJU 934, Dr yang Xin Ha & Anor v Dato’ Dr Nellie Tan Swee Lain & Ors [2018] MLJU 1180). Although I did not consider ID3 as evidence, I accepted plaintiff’s oral evidence that he was on medical leave for 27 days and SP1’s testimony that the plaintiff was on medical leave for one month. [105] Flowing from the above facts, I conclude that the plaintiff was on medical leave for 27 days and plaintiff’s basic salary per month was RM1700 (excluding allowances). Therefore, I awarded the plaintiff with the sum of RM1,700 for his actual loss of earning. iv) Loss of Future Earnings [106] The plaintiff pleaded to this court to be awarded with loss of future earnings. Unfortunately, the plaintiff’s submission did not submit in detail on this award. I produce below the meagre three-line submission by the plaintiff’s counsel (refer paragraph 30 of plaintiff’s submission) requesting this court to award loss of future earning to the plaintiff in the sum of RM384,000. S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 “TUNTUTAN KEHILANGAN MASA HADAPAN 30. Memandangkan Plaintif tidak lagi boleh bekerja sehingga sekarang, adalah wajar untuk Mahkamah membenarkan Tuntutan kehilangan masa hadapan: RM2000 x (16 years x 12 months) = RM384,000.00 Jumlah Tuntutan kehilangan masa hadapan: RM384,000.00” [107] The Defendants submitted that the plaintiff was able to return to work based on the plaintiff’s testimony. In fact, the plaintiff went to meet SP1 to resume his employment but SP1 refused to take him back. [108] The plaintiff during cross examination told this court that he worked at a car wash for 26 days after the accident. However, the plaintiff later changed his testimony during re-examination and said that he worked at the car wash before the accident. The plaintiff further said that he could not work because he had metal plates in his hand. [109] To my mind, plaintiff’s answer during re-examination that he worked at the car wash before the accident could not match the line of evidence produced in court. Reason being, all of the testimonies given during trial led to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not work anywhere else before the accident but with SP1’s company. Therefore, it would be more sensible for this court to believe that the defendant worked at a car wash after the accident but not before. [110] The defendants’ counsel further submitted that the plaintiff’s claim for loss of future earning should to be dismissed because the specialist report did not mention anything about the plaintiff’s loss of ability to work. Compounding the matter further, even the orthopedic S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 specialist report also confirmed that the plaintiff suited for sedentary jobs. [111] The defendants’ counsel referred the decision in Sumarni v Yow Bing Kwong & Anor [2008] 1 MLJ 608 wherein the Court of Appeal ruled that in order to succeed in claim for loss of future earnings, the plaintiff must prove real substantial loss with reasonable amount of certainty that the plaintiff would unable to secure a job in future. [112] In assessing plaintiff’s claim for loss of future earning, it would be pertinent to mention section 28A(2) of the Civil Law Act 1956 (CLA) that provides statutory requirement of the same. “Section 28A (2) In assessing damages under this section — …(c)in awarding damages for loss of future earnings the Court shall take into account: (i) that in the case of a plaintiff who has attained the age of fifty- five years or above at the time when he was injured, no damages for such loss shall be awarded; and in any other case, damages for such loss shall not be awarded unless it is proved or admitted that the plaintiff was in good health but for the injury and was receiving earnings by his own labour or other gainful activity before he was injured; (ii) only the amount relating to his earnings as aforesaid at the time when he was injured and the Court shall not take into account any prospect of the earnings as aforesaid being increased at some time in the future; (iii) any diminution of any such amount as aforesaid by such sum as is proved or admitted to be the living expenses of the plaintiff at the time when he was injured; (d)in assessing damages for loss of future earnings the court shall take into account that — S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 (i) in the case of a person who was of the age of thirty years or below at the time when he was injured, the number of years' purchase shall be 16; and (ii) in the case of any other person who was of the age range extending between thirty-one years and fifty-four years at the time when he was injured, the number of years 'purchase shall be calculated by using the figure 55, minus the age of the person at the time when he was injured and dividing the remainder by the figure 2. [113] I respectfully found that the defendants’ counsel was correct in referring to the principle in Sumarni in deciding loss of future earnings. The Federal Court in Sumarni ruled that in limine the first test that needs to be passed by the plaintiff is to fulfill the statutory requirement under section 28A(2)(c)(i) CLA that the plaintiff was in good health before the accident but for the injury. The second test, the plaintiff must show that it was but for the injury and that he was receiving earnings by his own labour or other gainful activity before he was injured. Both tests must be fulfilled by the plaintiff. [114] Regarding the phrase but for the injury, there must be evidence to show that but for the injury the plaintiff is not able to earn in the future. This qualification of not being able to earn in the future must be read as a consequence to but for the injury to give full effect to section 28A(2)(c) CLA which is basically intended to cater for loss of future earnings as a result of personal injury. [115] Apart from the above principle, I find that it is also apposite to place a reliance on the decision of the Federal Court in Aidi Abdullah v S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 Ngooi Ku Sio Ng & Anor [1985] 1 MLJ 30 wherein Syed Agil Barakbah (FCJ) (as he then was) held that: “It is therefore immaterial whether the plaintiff was in or out of employment at the time of the trial so long as the court is satisfied there is substantial or real risk that he will some time at the end of his working life lose his job or get a less paid employment because of the effect of the injuries sustained. (See Denning M.R. in Cook v. Consolidated Fisheries Ltd. (supra) page 639).” [116] I observed that nothing from the evidence or the testimonies of the witnesses able to prove about the plaintiff’s overall health condition before the accident. Perhaps a simple question to the medical doctors called as witnesses on his overall health condition could have resolved the doubt. Since that was not done, I was of the view that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the statutory requirement under 28A(2)(c)(i) CLA and did not pass the first test in Sumarni. Regarding the second test set Sumarni, the plaintiff had successfully proved that he was receiving earnings by his own labour or other gainful activity before he was injured. Partial fulfillment of the test set out in Sumarni has negated the plaintiff’s success in his claim before this court for loss of future earnings. [117] I also found that the method of calculation devised by the plaintiff’s counsel for loss of future earnings also did not conform to the standard of calculation for loss of earnings as stipulated by section 28A(2)(d) of CLA. [118] The specialist reports produced by both the plaintiff and the defendants concurred that the plaintiff is unable perform S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 strenuous tasks and carry heavy things with the left upper limb (see reports from Professor Dr Vivek Ajit Singh and Dr. Hj Mohd Noor Manukaran). But there was nothing from the said reports suggesting that the plaintiff is unable to be employed. [119] In fact, Professor Dr Vivek Ajit Singh mentioned in his report that the plaintiff could still be employed to do sedentary works. The evidence adduced through SP1 suggested that the plaintiff at all material times performed supervisory duties while working with SP1 before the accident. This Inevitably leads to the conclusion that the Plaintiff never been employed to do heavy lifting or heavy tasks even before the accident. Therefore, the plaintiff’s present working ability would not impede him from working in a new employment that has similar nature of work to his previous employment in SP1’s company. The given reasons led me to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for loss of future earnings. v) Overlapping issue [120] The Defendants submitted that 10% to be deducted from the total awarded general damages for overlapping. The defendants supported their submission based on the decision of the High Court in Mohamad Khirul Mizan Bin Shafie & Anor v Yue Ah Kai [2002] 6 MLJ 471. The plaintiff’s counsel however did not submit in reply regarding this issue. [121] To my mind, even though there was no submission in reply by the plaintiff on this issue, overlapping cannot be disregarded. In fact, it has become the duty of the court to deal with issue on overlapping. In this respect, the High Court in Azami bin Ahmad and Anor v Mohd S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 Yunan bin Che Ya [2009] MLJU 0715 held that it is the duty of the court to take into account overlapping in the awards even if there is no submission by either party. In Azami, the High Court deducted 10% from the pain and suffering for overlapping. [122] I found myself agreeable with the issue on overlapping raised by the defendants’ counsel. Therefore, I allowed 10% deduction from the total amount of general damages awarded in this case for overlapping. CONCLUSION [123] For the reasons adumbrated above, I awarded the above damages on a 100% liability basis with interests and costs. For costs: The costs for police report, medical reports, medical expert reports, JPJ report in the total sum of RM2692.80 shall be payable as legal fees without interest as requested by the plaintiff’s counsel. For interests: (i) 5% per annum for general damages from the date service of writ to the date of judgment; (ii) 2.5% per annum for special damages from the date of accident to the date of judgment; and (iii) 5% per annuum on the judgment sum from the date of judgment to the date of final settlement. ……………sgd…..………… DR. AZROL BIN ABDULLAH JUDGE SESSIONS COURT SEPANG S/N f0zzyn25GkOSHeePk3NwTA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-22IP-66-11/2021

PLAINTIF JAYONIK MSC SDN BHD DEFENDAN 1. ) AGRIQUIP MACHINERY SDN BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD SAFIUDDIN BIN ABDUL LATIF 3. ) MUHAMMAD TAUFIK BIN BADARUDDIN

Breach of confidence/confidentiality in the disclosure of the trade secrets and confidential information and conspiracy to injure; Claim dismissed with costs.

06/12/2023

YA Tuan Azlan bin Sulaiman

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=dcb5c647-1a96-4442-9132-306bc8afb1ca&Inline=true

06/12/2023 11:01:32 WA-22IP-66-11/2021 Kand. 80 S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N R8a13JYaQkSRMjBryKxyg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal vm—22n>—ss—11/2021 Kand. so Cb/12/201] 11:01-31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAVA AT KUALA LuM PUR I SUIT No WA»: 1 BETWEEN JAYONIK sun EHD PLAINYIFF AND 1. AGRIQUIP MACHINERV SDN BHD 2. MuHAMMAn sAFIunnIN am ABDUL LATIF 3. MUHAMMAD TAUFIK am BADARUDDIN DEFENDANTS JUDGM§_N [Aner rnar] A. lnlroduction 1 Even mougn «ms action was mad agams| three Deflendanls, me mu trial amy proceeded agamsl me 2"“ and 3"’ Delendams, me P\aInufl‘s Vormer smpkvyees as on 27.5 2022 me Plamw and the 1“ Defendant recorded a wnsenl wdgmenl between mam (-ma Cnnsem Judgment“) 2 The Havnnfls causes oi aclron against me 2/-1 and 3“ Dedandants are lwo. nama\y breach ol cnnhdenoe I oonndemiamy m ma msmusure ouhe Plammrs trade sscra|s and canfIdsrIua\ mvmnaunn m the 1" Delenaanc and, nogemerwmn me 1“ Delsndanl, oansplracy lo mm: |he Plamhff Page 1 at 13 sw HaaI:Jvam.sHM:avyKxw . -um Sum ...m.. WW .. used M vs-W u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm 3 Deciding the Plainws claims agarnsl the 2"‘ and 3'“ Delendenl will firs! rleoessnale an examlnallon and analysis at me saherll background lacls and me consenl Juogenreni, B. Saliunl background fans and mu consent Judgornorn 4 since ils ionnamn in 2002, me Plernlilr nas oeen involved in «no research. dsvslanmenl and cnmmerclalisahon cl slmulahon and mus: reallly orooucls one ol ils producis IS an wroorr owing snnuieior and crew Training /or Airport Grwrld Handing" ('Airside ass Simulalar“) lnal il developed oerween oclober 20:7 and ueoernoer 2013. 5 Tire Airside GSE Slmulakzv IS used to slmulala ihe aperallorl of ground venicles :( Elrnnrls, sucn as haggagelrac1ors,conveyor bell loaders and pinl cargo panel loaders, io Iraln alrporl perscnnei an lne use el inese venicles, salely Indoors prolecied lronr inclenneni wealner lnoorooraied mm ils aoperaius is e 360 t1egree—vlew mock oockplt inal allows me operalor |o VISW all angles and dlreclmns of me surmundlngs, and a plug and may lunciiun that allows me aneralavlo swlldl irom one sucn uenrclela anoiner al ease. Utilized on me Airside GSE snnulelur is a an model me Plamlill relerred ic as ‘KLIA an Model: ier use. obvlously, ai ine KLIA Alrporl. 6. ln in around July 2019 la Maren 2019, me Plalnlill carrled out discussions and negollalmns wlth P05 Aviation sdn Bhd (‘PBS Aviaiion ) and AemDaraISeMoes sun and (‘AeruDara!“) io sell and supply me Alrslde GSE Slmulalor ic each onnern. 7:12 1 at x) IN wsalalvnmswmlawmw None Smnl In-vlhnrwm be used m mm r.. nflnlnnllly mm: dun-mm VII munc v-mxl defendants had used manuvacmnng xeaumquea devebped by me puaimms. and me delendanlslhmugh 2nd Defendam had umawmuy key! or possessed me mpyngh| malsnals of ma mainlifls wnhnut me knumedge or aumanzaum of the praimms; and mm me delendanls had approached and slolen some at me p|ninMs' clients. In paragraphs [27] to [291 0! ma Judgmenl, Richard Ma\anjum CJ1Sabah & Sarawak) sand: We we ma: ma ns nammg In ms sfatsruemofclamv mdrcanng me! me plarrmfls maimed me» «am an beam L7/confidermelllly c/am: anryan manwpmaummea On the mntraryme dawn rs casm me bmaaasl Asmupaum/I mdudmg mo var/nus pwpomd ads commmod by In: seeund dalandarvl ma-my m mum ulhls nuvurunls wllh mo ptamms Wm/e VI .5 we ma: ma I:/mm or In: ma»-ms is my (0 sniavca me contractual C/auws mated to oonfidenbal Vnlhrmarion eniemd and agreed upon ayme semnd aeranaam we do nu! mm ms sulflmomm 1». slnlnmcnt otuamv by mam/y Jlaunq ma: ma sucund duiendunl »aa maappmmma we pvvart and mmnm mlnrmatrcn ov me pIfir‘nMVA' Smaly more pamcurars shuu/:1 have been given an the a/Ieged muapnmpnatgd plrvara am conmenna: Infurmalmn The semnfl aaramam .5 evmlled Ia mm Mia! are M: pm/alo and covvlrdavvtrul mlormu/on at/ogedry Ia nava been Imsayprapnalod by mm 1: would mm allow Nmla mmuslms am afprlvacyanaconfldonuurllyummsa miomnlran Mm-u mfovmahon ml/only mpmaammvaan pmpady by massed as . mm mm 0! as malaria! man. we not pmpsny to be desmbed as a lmda scant rs m an ms nwvumsianws :1! saw a mgnry connaermarnarm as to reqwe the same pmlecban .4 a made me: 99 nwmns (sue Fawsnda Chmkevu Ltd v Fow!e([V9H7] cn ma 1: all! am Rs:I:uv-uusfiwfitykxw mm. Snr1n\nuuhnrwH\I>e LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! fflandhxora Trading lnmrpolalcfl and ammw v Jones am: arIaI!Ier(198§} VF is rages: 11 [199o1FsR 251; - 19. In smash Raia a/I Nagaiall 5 on v NR Ruhbnr Induxlrlu sun and [2017] 2 MLJ 396, Hamid Sultan JCA said rneiuiempieaamge uswcflaxpvoolplayari impovlaritpadmdeafiflg wnh cases miaiea ie confidential m/ulmulwi me com:-ms Ind mrinpiu app!!! 10 be imiremi M common law /unsdlcliuns II is III: ruqmurmrit mi 1701 pludmga mas! malady n1uIm1y Inn Vnlmmutron mg-menaw Docrilmpartsdln narifiduneu sndla have been rmaussd by the delendaril In secure an equitable remedy such as irwnumri moms, etc If his pleadings an/y wdanllfy a genuric Dmacli ul an agreement, men a: me most me Iehefmay be damages for head: of wntma i 20 Whz| inese Ma casas mean lo we case here is mat, ii me Piaimifl is auegmg that me 2‘-1 and am neienaems have oomrmnad a breach av mnfldenca in rsepeci oi HS pnvaie and mnfidanhal inioimenen ieiaung |o me Airsiae GSE Equipmerm men I! neeas in piead and prove aeiaiie or me pnva|a and mnneenuai mimnaiion of me namware and sonwaie 0! lbs misiae sse Equ-pmeni man may are alleged in hava ruueived in confidence and passed an and oemmumceied Inlha1“ nevenaam Ag; 5.; and aeeieion 21. me 2"“ and 3N naiendanie are indeed ioimer empioyaes at me Piamiiu Thu 2“ ueienaani was empiayeu as a mechanical engineer from 20 4 2016 lo 9.1.2021, and me 3"’ neiendeni was Fuezxuvll am weaim.mswis~ww _ “Nair s.n.i iuvihnrwm be LAIQ4 M may .. nflginnflly mi. dun-mm VII .mm mm employed Is a grapmc scflware enqmeer «mm 15.4.2015 In 29 1.2021. Aparflmm thew leller :1! employment em olthem alsn signed an "Employee Non-Disclosu/a Aglss/nen!’('NDA') Save my Clause 7 of NBA‘ the other terms ov me NBA each of them signed were Idenlicm Clause 7 of me 2-»! Defendant‘: um prumded ‘Employee 591265 In pay bqwdarvd damages In Me amount av [RMWOODOIIWJ my any mam al the cavemen! no! In drsdase mnlntenlml trvlnnmlrun nonlamsd M 0:45 Agreement ' Clause 7 ov me 3'“ Detenaanrs NDA pmvided' ‘Employee emu: m pay nquuutuu dsrvngcs m we Imolml m be nucrdodbyme wmoany For any vloialran afma mvanslvlnul in mum mnfidenba! mramamn wmnmed m rms Awssmeni ’ 2 Clause 1 ohhe NDA exmsay pmwded ‘comnnsmmurv Empmysa acknowladges mu: m m. cows: of Employee 5 employment by Inc company, ./ayomk use Sun and naa.sre.m, Employ" will bl expound lo vahmblv can/rdarvnu! nu ma. snail mfolmabon 12! Company Emwoyee agtees to may mu. mlnimuvrurv as azrvfiniumul and to me 3N neuussavy pvncaunons agams1 of such mimnanon m mm name: mmng and any ms Mm 0/(ms Agreement Emplnyu anknowloogns lnal trade ssaela olllny Company wm conga-A albm WI" not :» nonusunly mm to -..,..;m; sm Rs:I:uv.uusRM:BtyKxw mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl y.. mum Wm! a; Yechmcal Iniwmalrorv E/scmmm dxagmms mechamcal amwmgs, wmauierpmgvams source nudes, souls‘: mes, an models, msmoas Dmcesses formulae, mrnmsman: systems, Iscnnraues, wwenlvons mazmnvs, and mssamh prupcts a) Busrnorsmformalmn Custwnerluta pnmg am saunas or mppvy finarmal data and markelmg pmduman or mmunamngsysmmsozptans Empluyes understands ma! nus Agreement woes no: and wvll not mm: nun/Irev mm Marking for any other Camoanysubsequenl In the ummnm or mslhul lmplnymanl as Ipocnficd vn ma smpmyvnem agreement wrlh ms Comaunya: long u an Emplayvs am norm or msclosc any sum conflaermar and pmunstavy mfulmalron of mu company’ 23 The P\aumfi‘s dawn against the 2"“ and 3'" Defendants is that they had breached the NBA and the P\aIn|iWs mnhdenue m disclusmg me Plamurrs trade secrets and oormdenl mnrma on to the 1*" Devendanx The F\aInIiH draws man conduslun on me assumpucn |haI.asIhe1" Delemanl was ame to market and trade tn me Awsme GSE Snmmalar bath dunng the subsistence oi and afler the |emuna|mn of me Exduswe Dtslnbulor Agreement‘ men surely n was me 2"‘ and 3'“ Delendanls, who had access In the Fanmfrs nonfidenual mlnrmalmn whfle under me Plaumirrs employ, who had pmvnded Ihalm1orma1iun and know-how |o Ihe 1‘ De«enaan1. »... u m 2; sm wsaI:uv.uv.swM:BvyKxw _ mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pm 24 rn paragraph 47 0! lhe Pemyalaan mnman, me Plamlnfi pleaded seven (7) pamcmars at me 2'-1 and am Deiermanrs breach at confidence /oonfidanlvalvly rn pamcmar, m sukrparagraphs A72 and 47.3 Mme Famyalaan Tumuzan, the Plamm contended’ -47 2 /lkan Istam ksduadua Delendan Kedua flan Defender: kelngs drdflpan harap amha: xemar Iian mam ke prerrus Defends!-v Panama dr Sepang Sslangov oarur Ensan, sqvrus se/was lama! psrkmdmalan mereka m syurksl Plamtv/, av nlnna my. cum ratogran/bargabar Isiah mramdkan Ptsmhl pads tankn natu1I>9IH smra ucaru harwslan, as man, De/emu mg. jug: Man dnambvl gambv bcltau sodang msngendaldxan set demomtrast Annie 555 Equipment {yang mum tndak drpmangkan Delsmian Panama kspada Flam!/Y sehmgga lselvan rrmpada 14Me:2A72V * 25. m my view, Ihese panibulats are Insumaenl and ran way snon av whal (he law reqmres the P1a\nMf lo Mead, Vn INS Instance, We Flamlifl lailed to [Head the pamcwarsol the urwale and confidenlxsfl inlarrnalwun DI the Alrsme GSE SVIIIJISIOV which the 2"’ and 3'“ Defendants are alleged in have renewed m cnnfldanoa and than nusappmprialad and oommumcaled In live I'‘‘ Defendant, wmch womd have enabled lhem Io pmpefly and adequaluy Oofllfil Ihe Flalnmfs claim led 07 filleen nlams or talegones, name\y electrunvc anagrams, 26. Accordmg to the NBA, the ma mrs leclvucal In1nrma|Ionoon mechamcal arawmgs, computer pmgrams, source codes, source Was. an rnwexs, methods, processes, formulae, oamposmons, me as my sm ws:I:uv-uv.swM:BvyKxw _ mm. saw n-uhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. nrimnnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum wrm syslerns, techniques‘ inventions‘ rnacnines. and research pmlecis. 01 me meen, ihe Plelniiii eugm |o have pleaded which or them were the alleged eanneenlial iniann n that had allegedly been lmparled io ins 2"“ and am Defendants in circumstances importing an obligation or cenndence and which may are allegea la have disdosed hi the Plalniiil 27 l bellevs lhe need «or me Plainlill Io have specifically pleaded ueialls oi irre pnvaie and confidential inlomlahorl Mme hardware and saflware onrre Airslfle sse Equrprneni mat lhey are alleged to nave passed on and cerrimurncaleu la «rue 15* Delendarlt is all me more crucial here given man the 2" and 3'" neienuanl each possess diilererii aualilicaiiens and capamlnes, were engaged by me Flalnllfl WI emerenl rulesana napacllies. and werealliereni cogs VI irie wheel M We piainnilrs operahons. Wha| prlva|e and wnfidenhal iniennauen lnai was wrnrnunmaiee lo each would have been different and a| diflsleni urnes They each umuglri Ihelr own qualifications. background and experience In their rules (0 me exlenl iriai ii is uniair lo characlenze lnem as one and the sarne 2a Ey not pleading ihose pamculars oi the privaie and ocnfideniial inienriaiiori oi lhe Airside GSE Slmulalor which «he 2"’ and 3'“ Deierreanls are alleged In have received in confidence arm ilren rrnsaaprnpnaied and eomrnumcalea |o me 1‘ Deienearu, Ihe P|ain| is in eflecl requesling ilris ceun |o assume inal, Just because it alleges inai the equlpmem which the 1*‘ Deiendani markeled and pmduced Sn closely resembled |he Airsiae GSE slrnulaior mai ll rnusi have been the 2" and 3'“ Defendanls‘ inerr iermer ernplnyees who rnusl have ceinrnunicaleu me F|aIn|IWs memru r~ Rsalziv-utsRMlEIyKxw lmae snn n-vlhnrwm a. u... m may i... nflmrraflly snri. dun-mm VII nFluNG WM! private and oonfidenhal nnlurmauon lo the 1' Delendanl. Tnal ls a quantum leap that mls Court is unwilllng lo like 29. The need for «he Plalnlm lo have slnflclenfly pleaded those panlculars ls lunner helghlened in lnis case by me real than me P ‘ :11 had aarlier pmvided me 1* nelenaanl mm the Danmnslralmn sel Tnls means lnal me 2"‘ and 3*‘ Datenpanls were not me sole link belween lne Plalrlllfl and the 1" Delendanl vis a vis me Anslaa GSE Slmulalnr so As lcr being seen at lhe 1“ Delenpanrs premlsss and me 3"’ nelenaanl belng pnolognapnea operating lhe Alvslde GSE Slmulamv, lne P1aInlIfl had expressly pleaded lnal that was afler lney nad boon lell lne P|alrlIlN3 emplvy. As lhere was no pmnmniun nr legal impedlmerll on mam loinlrlg me 1-“ Defendant. lnere was nothing wrong mn lhal. Tnena was np abllgaimn an |hem1o lnform me Planmw wnera may were muvlng unto. even ll [hey nad been asked. slnoe me 1- Delenaanl was lneir new employer, enlenng and leavlrlg me Delsnclanrs pvemises would he natural Fenunalely lcrlhe Plalnllfl, me 2"-1 and 3"’ Delendarlts had nm |skerl ISSUG Wllh lne Plalnms ques|ionable lacllc or clandosllnely keeping lnem under survelllarloe afler may naa left me Plalnllffs emplwy 31 Even ll the 2"“ and 3" Defendants had been spelled snlenng or exmng me 1" Deferldanfs premlses whllsl sull ln lne Plalncllrs employ (which ms never alleged), that alone does no: nbvlate or excuse me need lo: me Plllnlifllo plead and prove wnal privale and cunrldenual lnvennamon of lne hardware and software oi the Pig: :7 nl 23 n Rsalzlv-uvswMlEIyKxw )"NnI2e s.n.l nnvlhnrwlll .. LAIQ4 m mm he nflnlnallly ml. dun-mm wa mane Wrul Aiiside GSE simulator that they are eaeti alleged in have eonimunicated in1hE1" Devendant. 32. In ltiese circumstances, wind that me Plaintiff tiad tailed to establish or prove its claim lei bieaeti in mimdenoe against eiitier the 2"“ nelendant or ttie am Delendant and trterelore dismiss ttiis claim against min at itiem D. Thu Plainfllfl claim «or against mu 2'” and 3‘ Dvfondalln lav consplncyta illjurn (ha Plaintiff Some basic gnnclg ee 33 in R-naiilt SA v. lnokom Corp sdn and A Aner and olhor applals [N10] 5 MLJ 394, me cuiirl el Appeal set nut ine ldui Ingredients lei pnwing the tort Dlconsplracy in iniure Ttiey are ta) an agieemenl tielween two or more persons: (tit tlie agreement IS tni «tie purpose M iniuring another; (cj aeis dune in execution of trial agreement resimed Vi damage to iris olhsr: (d) damage resulted Pdgellnlli IN E52131‘/aDv5RMlElVKxW ‘Nata Smnl nnvlhnrwm be in... M mm i.. nflmnallly MIN: dun-mm VI] nFiuNG WM! 34 In respecx clan agreement belween Iwoor more persons, In Renau/t SA, supra‘ KN Segala JCA said (HI paragraph 33 cnne Judgment) “n a war ma! me very rm erement m be snewn mus! In an agreemenl between me ar more persons ror me purpose or In/um-vg Vrmkom and Quasar Agraerrnnr Is not fvrmtsd lo a signed and semen! agmsmsru but any rnlarmal agvuarmm, rndudmq a comlzmallarv omronsprmea/»agedce.mnap.am Alvarmnl, nm In be mawn or .: Ins! -Ikgcd that acts warn dang In axnculmn :7! ma: agruamlnl mm. rdwllsdm camp. to lnmrn and Quasar rn rm: case, me act: rlnna would nave to as unlawm name/y the a/rogaa ra/es mpmsenmpnrnadepy Rnnaufllo /nokum and Ouasar as to ma levalalmwslrmml lnakorn and Quasar wnl have In rnak: ror me xangoo mwea ‘ 35 In Motordnu R lurch Conuonlum sdn Bhd v. Annuu snnnrn bln Ahflullnh a. 011 [21111] MLJU 1137. Wong Klan xneang JG (now JCA) neld, rnrer aha‘ |ha| such an agreement or comhinafian may be and may be In wnnng or by word av moum Amxyns and demswon as Thu Pmnnwfs pleaded parlicmars cl I|s claxm lor conspiracy xp Imurs agamsl an (mes Devendanvs are .n paragraph 49 01 na Pslnystsan Tunlvlanr and can be sumrnanzed as (allows [I] The 2‘ and 3'" Dafendams bath resigned from me Plamlws employ m January 2021 and nad pom worked an we development 1.11 we Ansne GSE Simulator mum In me Plamhffs empb ' lag: 1; nl 2; srn ws:I:uv-uv.sRM:BvyKxw _ mm. snn n-nhnrwm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum perm (in Ths1‘ Defendant launched its own Avsme GSE sumdramnne follnwlng month. my The 1* Detendant had advemsed and marketed me Airslds GSE Simulator as as awn‘ (w) The 15* Detendant had also apnmached other Pxammrs employees enncmg them to leave the Pwammrs employ and pm me 1“ Deaendant. M The 1‘ Defendant was sun able to access me Demnnstratinn Set even lhauqh the Plaintiff had tucked it remotelw and (VI) The 1* Derendanl was ame to devetup ms own Avsxde SSE Sm-ulanor after the 2'-1 and 3" Delendants mined m 37 In my new, mass pamoulars are msumczem and 13H way short 01 what the law requues the Puamuv to pwead In (ms mslanoe. the Pwamml Failed anagemev to plead any agreement between the Defendants that they had purportedly entered Into for the purpose at mpurmg me Plamm, is! alone any pamculars The mainmv also failed to plead the specmc acts that they had dune In execution 01 that aweged agreement Having had access to the Pxamms aonndenuax mtormatmn. joining the 1- Delendant. bemg seen entering me 15* Derenaanrs premxses and being photographed nperalirlg the Demnnshahon Set. even taken cuHec1Ave\y. do not B oonspvacy to Inwre make van :0 at 13 m ws:I:uv.uvswM:EryKxw 3%.. saw ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm 7 At around the same llme. |he Flatnnfi was cunlaaed by and conducted dlscusslans and rIegn|la|ions wttn the 1- Defendant for the latter to be Ippnlnled as its excluslve dislrlbulor at the P|alrlIIWs pruducls. mcluding the Airslde ass slrnulelor Those dlscusslflrls and negonatmns wlmlnated tn the Bxecullon between them at an Exclusive Dtsllibutor Agreement ttatea t1 3 2019 (‘Exclusive Dlstrlbutor Agreement“). The Exclusive Dlstnbutur Agreement. rnlsr alls. proh had the 1" Delendanl lrorn aealtng er rtepettatlrtg wllh etther was Avlatlcn or AeraDaral slrtce the Platntltv was already ln dlscusslons with both at them 3. oh the 1“ Delendanrs request, the Ptathtm suppllod the t“ netehaant wtth a demunslration set of the Alrslde GSE Slntulawr (‘the Dernanstratmn set") that was purely meant to aE~SIS| the 1“ DeIerldan| in marketing |he Atrslde GSE strnulater and the F'|iln|Ifl's other pmducts. 9 The Platnms clalm agatnst the V“ Detertttant was based on several allegatlonsl which can be summanxed as tallaws. (I) The 1" Ddendam. wllhoul the Plalntrlfs consent, had dealt dtracily mm P05 Avlatlon and Aamoarat in breach of the Exclusive Dlslrlbutur Agreement: tn) The 1' Dclenaartt had allowed Pos Aviatton to use the Demonstrallnn sat to train its employees wllhout the Pletntttre consent; vuesmxs IN wsatzlv-uvswmlfivykxw _«wa.. s.n.l n-vlhnrwlll s. u... M my t... nflmhallly mm. flan-vlnhl VII .nune Wml as tn my mew, ma P\ainI\W is again expecung «ms Connie assume, ms! because me 2'-= and 3" netendams were prevwously smmoyed by ma Plammv. had access to me PIamm'1's cnrvfidenhal Informahon on me Awrswde GSE Slmmalon men mined ma 1=* Defendant who developed ns own Aumue GSE Slmuhalor, mat there was a eonspmcy between mam m injure me Flalnlrfl. 39 In my wew. it any. n was me 15* Defendam who was me cause ollhe Praimws woes and gnevances, and me Plainmv was sore that me 2"“ and 3'“ Defendants had jawed (he 1" Defendant aner mamsdam m w?uchIhe1“DelendanI had dean mm me Pramm However, as me mavniif had arready recorded me Oonsent Judgmamwim 0191“ Defendant, (hal 15 (he Dargam me: n has reached Mm ma 1" Datendam. Bul that Bargain does rml wewgh m av make Ihe 2" and an Defendants liable to me Prammv Var any at us dalms agamsl men. 40. In «re circumstances, x mm fund lhzl me maimiw had ra-led to establish or prove us claim fur cunsplmcylo inwre as sgamsune W or 3” nerenaam E. Conclusion 4:. On the Plainmfs masaea case and on me ewdence, I find Ihal lhe P\a|nIM has (aned Io es'ah|ish ov prove us clams ul ember breach of confidence roormaermauny ov conspvlacy lo vuure as agamsl ma 2» and 3'" Deienasms vzgpuulu IN ws:I:uv.mswM:EryKxw ‘Nata sm.‘ n-nhnrwm as used m mm ms mm-y mm: dun-mm wn snum v-vrm A2 43 44 as l ewomlngly alsmlss Xhis amen as agems1 the 2"’ and 3'“ Delendanls For casts, m lhelr Wrillen Submlsslans and Reply Wrlllen Submission the 2"“ and am Defendanls had Donslslently asked for costs ol RM15,DDD so sea: In my eplniun, mel sum ls panry compared to me lacl that «his was a lnal m me Hlgh court over several days, wlth the Court havlng |o pemse a mulmuae at documents and take me evlaem :11 several wumesses, and conclude (ha! me Plalntlff had emery not adequalely or sulfiezemly pleaded lls case I will, hawever. assume that aespna being sued by |helr leaner me 2"“ and am Derenuenle are elmply helng magnanimuus m asklrlg (or |ha( sum Who knows lhal me iuhma holds employer, Accedlng lo «hen wlshas, YD msmlsslng ms new I therefore order me Plelnufl to pay eosls of RM15,lmo no la eam onne 2*“ and 3"‘ uelendents Dated the 7"" day of November 2023 hp 11 M n counsel: Hazeeq Fadxli Bin Hasml Sam (Messrs Aklam Htzn Azad s Amw) {or the Plamnn. Akmm Manzavee (Messrs Akmsl Msnzalss A Ca) Inr ma Dafandanls. casas Mama: ET Engmeenng sun Bhd v Team Uniled Resources Sun 3»: & Anon [2012] 5 ML.) 720 Cow v AN c1ar1<[Engmeevs)L|d[19e9] RPC 41 Conn of Appea\ in N9 Kim Fang v Menang Comelauon (M) Sdn End [2020] MLJU 544 Dynacasl [Melakz) Sun and A Dis 1/ Vlsmn Casi sun BM 8. Anor [2015] 3 MLJ 417 Facoenda Cmcken v Fowler [1935] FSR 105 Ganesh Ra[a a/1 Nagalah & Ors v NR Rubber mausmes Sdn Ehd [2017] 2 MLJ 396 Metordala Research Cnnsnmum Sdn Bhd v Ahmad sr-ahn[ hm Abdullah & Ors [2017] MLJU11B7 Renauh SA v. lnokom Corp San arm 8. Anor and other appeals [2010] 5 MLJ 394 Seager v capyaex, Lld [1967] 2 AH ER 415 u... u nl n [N ws:I:uv.mswM[EryKxw ‘Nata 5.1.1 In-v1hnrwH\ be used m mm .. m1n.u-y mm. dun-mm VII nF[uNG v-mm The 1* Delendartl had rrrarketed and promoted the Arrstda GSE simulator and the Demonstration set as rt they were rts own rnventrens and products: (Iv) The 1‘ Delennarrt had breached the Excluslve nrstrrtmtor Agreement tn lattrng tn make same at the payments to the Ptarrrtm prsscrtbsd thereunder; (V) The 1* Defendant had breached the Exclusrve Drstrrbutor Agreement In ltadlng wrtn Ihtrd parties to supply vtvducls similar to the Plarntm, including the Arrside SSE snnulator. (yr) The 1‘ Devendant had breached the Excluslvs Dislvlbulur Agreement rn approachlrtgr eorrtactrng and trvduclng the 2'“ ans: 3'" Defendznlla leave the Plarntrrrs amvluy and wurk r-nth rt: (vllj All at the t=‘ Deterrctanrs actrons were breaches of the Plarrrtrlvs rnteltectual Droyerly rights rn the Altslde GSE srrnulator and thus adversely aflecled me Platnlrffs trade and caused rt loss and damage, and (vrrr) Desptle the tennlnatron at the Exclusive Distrlbutar Agreement. the 1“ Defendant retained possessrorr at the Dernonstratron set and conttnued to use rt to market rts own products that were Identical or srmrlar In the Ptarntitrs pmdttas‘ rncludrng the Atrsrde GSE srnrutater r... A an; rn Rsatztv-uvswMtEIyKxw )"Nntn s.rr.r ...n.rwrrr .. t... M my r... mrmrrry utrhln m.r.n VII nrluhc v-mat 10. The Plamwrs clam against me 1“ Defendant was lav breach or lhe Exclusive Dlslnhular Agveemem, mlringemem oi the Prammrs InIeHec1ua\ Dmperty rights, and wnspiracy la mjure ma Plarrmfl‘. 11 on 27 6.2022, |he P\amhff and me 1* Defendanl regarded lhe Consent Judgement. It was ml Ixans\aIed mm English. The terms oi the Psnghakiman Pelsetujuan are TAMPA gzggagms PENGAKIIAN TERHADAP APA-ADA uAa:urI mew MAMA-MAMA PIHAK or rwqu KAN sscuu rswauuamu psnssrwum mm mm m mama" Firlnmn /mngsku pm. am»... a mmaa. snare servdmnya arm mm. syirvhal-syankal am. pongalafr pcnyamh. pegawarvévawaf nsngklmmab uangkhmnul darn/alau qen-e/fin memka) Irdak alcan mendekatr, memamu. nlengnubwm memomng, menawarkan pekequarv mm... melskuknn spa-spa perbuatan post!!! Aamadap manamna pcngaralhpengsrsn, peguwa!-plguwm‘ p.»gmam.u. plngklvfidrvlel dun/may spn-ojvn ;-mm mg: mm mm... rn€nuImmlpclwIyaPli»nll.‘darv/alzu rnelanggarhskhanumrslak. ransra dsaafiqan/pemnsgasn din makhlniat sum Flamtvfl 42; Plsfnnl dmnvkan unluk memasma menus Delendan Panama unluk mengambfl kcmbun pcrkakasan flan psnstan set flommslrasr An/as 555 Srmululur (Ismail kapuda parwzlrv vmulnr darn/Maw slam mayn yang mgurlnknn Dag: set msum. papal: tlslvrmmk an knvunghs bagrsrslvmpsrvdnrmnn3B17dMjl!h (Jena-gvecs wawldan SD-iapa Dar-alalan durlpeflxtarv lam yang aksn a..~;.u semulu om. F/imlrf aanpaaa Dsmrvdan Pewmma) m dalam keadaan senem mans act; (as rs mus; rmkm Impada pzambuyumrv svmula men Flavnmkepada Defends/1 Pertams mm: Hg: 5 at u sm wsaI:uv.uv.swM:BvyKxw _ mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pm nary: yang ikan dmmdmv mu dmnpkan nlahmv lakawn Mahhamahyav:gM1lfuwn(sotv/anmmlakdepvusrastperkakasdan psnsaalv) den selehh peralamnveralatart larubcn drlamahlwn man. Plambf, Doisndan Psvlzma mempunyar nan mullsk kapada nununnn. panvlltnn lam yang ndak Isaak/uk kepada Psnnluh Parvafvakrmlrv Plrsolujuan Mr, :3; Doisrrdan Panama merrgsku/arm bahawl n mn nlongmrvnhln sabarsng pembangunan, per-Iggunaan sum! pengkulvlwwan perkakasan flan pensvan Aamde sss Simulator mg a/oangunnan ale): P/amhf .:.n apnpa simulator lam rang monggulmta/v rokaan, mm, nnn lmnsep n.n. meter, mime a.g.ng.n/p.nu.g..n van maklumal MM Pmmm dun Frnmm mlrvmxnmun mm purvsan yang dlkmah mm, s/Mmc yang bunmmtmwa Iulsn drlmmukilarv Aetrka pendemwmn pumlohonan Pia/rm! me/arm Non: Pemuuhanan P/umlff yang benaflkh 15 112cm (Limoorirv 4; m dalam Guaman Na wk 22/Mwaozy; aaaan Dakar! peilsran yang mnmpalun hakrn/Vin mm». Flumlfl. (41 uernnann Pan-ma mnngalumanp Dunnwn n llun nlanwntrmknn flan rvlurnndamkan wmuu mm pemmnsn, pmnm. dun pengudana" (samada sewla mwv9rus4 msannn ates Ianan ran/ms‘) atau medmm bukan am: labarv) yang 0:08:15 my damn hawabsn Du/-ndan Perhma Denenaan Derkahasen den Densun Anna. G55 Slnwlatnl mu «par spa s/nw/atar /am yang menggunakan sablrang nmvn, ruknnn, rungu dun Noruep rm. wank, rulma ddfiflflvln/Dwnrlgisn dln rmkhmul sum milk Pvannwz 45; Delendsn Penami Inananic bank can memulangkan semu/a Iwpada Plarnhl kesemmhan fietlvakasarv senu peustarl Day: 5:! mm as: Somuhmr yang mbekalkan Plambi unmk mm: men Dalsndan Panama iwpnda Anna! Awcbon Trilnmg Contra, Iraq Pay s M 2: sm Rsaluvnausfimlfivykxw «mm. s.nn nmhnrwm .. U... w my n. DVWMIWY mm: dnuumnl Vfl nF\uNa v-max (pads keadaan sepem mane ads (‘as rs muss-)) dllam mvuaon enam pa; bulun am Ianklv Penghalmnan Fbrsenuuan In! (den Def;-maan Panama bemak mermlvon Iarvpltirv mas: sslama we (3; balm dun mm aw mvmk psnankan ba/»k man pemulangan mm kassrumnln puksflasan Jana par/Alan bag! 59! mm 555 Srmulnlar yang mbtkllkln Ptamnllavstbvl , 45; Merwuk kepeda oblrgasr Dvtundarv Ponama m perv-wan 5 Penglvakwan Perseiuman WW, »a Imulduk Iulpadu Dayiran mesa bag: kas pengangkulall vtan Demhayamn sen-ml: mummn ;wa3,amaa mam; Piamm Iupada Delsmtan uenma abu kapada poguammra F/umhf nclmgm punog-ng um».-n rm Auteur‘) dn/am tampon Mull m nun Um mum Purvmalaman Femelnquan «mam Em boqamlah mw7,oou;oa rlrbayar puma: mpada Defsmiarv Pemams abu poguamcam Defender: Vemsnn semigav pamagirvg ranman {‘:!5lv:Imher:') urvtuk drlepaskzn selelah peaenmaan kaselurulvan Dcrkahasan acne Dsnsan Dag: set Arman 555 Slmulnlor kapada Ptammdatam tampon yang doelapkan. m Tmlalwk kspada Ifirml-lurml Pcrryhahman Pusalufilhn nu. mamnr mmank narvk semaa Iurmnannya rumamw Dciundan Panama d-an Dviandan Panama msnank baflk Nalrs Permononan Derlankn 3105 2022 yang Mam-an uosm-ya av dalam 1Guama/I No w/«V221 P—5&11Q021I bedvewman mam kabanamn umuk msmta/lkmv nmmm bu/as Ismadup Plan-um, lanpa permlan m».mnnm,aan an fiadapslmlsh barkanearv A11: Dlgv Ponynlkvnan Psmetllluan Am.’ w... my as sm Rs:I:uv.msRM:BvyKxw «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! C. nu Plnlntllrs claim against ill. 2''‘ and 3" Dotondanta lor h acll af breach of uunfldnncn I confidomialily in ma disclosure emu Plaimilrs undo ucnll Samg gs; 9 print.‘ ales 12 In Coca v AN Clark (Enuinaon) ml mm) are 41‘ Megarry J sald ‘In my mgmem, three elemenls are mm-aw Iuqllllud if, even nom ml-llracr, a me of bmacll ul umfiaenoe IS to succeed Flr:1, lhe Ir-Iolmatlon llsell In In: wonisaluavd Guam, M R m me salmlan case on use: 215‘ mus! ‘have (he necessary qlm/lly 17/ canlldlllcs nboulrl Sqrzamfly Mal mlnrm-Iron mus! haw mm rmpbmsdlrl rxmumxlunixs lmpoflrrlg an ubllgmlorl al eorlfidwrlue wary, mm mm as an unaumorlsed use or max lrllarmatlorl Io me aommm or me parry mmrrlurllcatlng It “ 13 Thus, the three elemenls lor eslabllshlng breach 01 confidence are (l) The iniurmallon ls confldenllall on the mlormalmn was communicated ln clrwmslances umpamng an obllgaliorl or conmenee; and my lmauihorlsed use of lnal Infcrmallun la me delnmerlt ulme party Dommunlcallng iL mama; sw ws:I:uv.nv.swMlEvyKxw 3 «-ms Smnl ...m.mm be flied M van; .. nflglnnllly MIN: dun-mm VII .mm mm ta. tn sugervcopydux. Ltd [1967] ZAII ER us‘ Lord Denrrrng MR sald’ The law an mrs srrarera does not depend on any lmplled mnlrac! It depends on me bmad pnnerrle or sqully ma! ne wno has woerved lnlormatrovl rn wnlidsnee shall no! Lek: unlnlr advantage or l! He must rlalmrlko use air! lo the urs_lud/ct! olmm wlm gave rr wllllaul nbtlsmmg Ill: Lxmaunl The pm-lelple r. dslsr enough whirl an. wnoh or rn. lnlomnanorl ls pvlvalv ' t5. ln ET Enginuaring Sdn Bhd v Turn Unllnd Rnorrrrm Sdn Em! A. Anor, [mm 5 ML: 720, Harrrpan Fankullah Jc (now JCA) reterreo to Fncnindrl Clliclmn v FowIer[1DE5] FSR 105 that essentially categorlzed three tyoes uf rnlorrrretlun lor oonsrdering whether there had been a breach at cunfiderlce try an employee or ex—emp|oyee' tr) rrrlormalran wtrrcn because ol ns lrlvlal character or easy accssslbllllylrum publlv: resouroes cannot be regarded by reasonable persons or by the law as mnfiderlllal. The employee rs at llberly to drsclose rt durlng MS servlee or aflerwards as he pleases. even to a eonrperitor. tr) inlorrnalran whlch me employee must treat as confloential (ellher because he ls expressly tald il ls or because lrenr the character il ls cbvlously wnfidanual) but whlch once reamed necessarlly remalns rrr the employee's head and becomes panel hrs awn sxlll and knawiedge applied in the course at hrs errrployers busmess. so long as the employment mnllnues, he cannot atrrerwrse use or rare 9 .r rs slN wsalzlv-uv.sRMlEryKxw 3 «me Smnl In-vlhnrwm re used M van; me nflglnnllly sun. dun-mm VII .rluNG penal disclose such inlormaltcn. But when he ts ho lnnger in the same sennoe. the law autms mm to use his full sktll and kndwtedge tar hrs own tzenemt In oumpemtcn wtlh hts tormet master; and oh) specific trade secrets so eohndehttat that, even though may necessartty have been teamed by heart and even thdugh the employee may have ten the service cannoI\aw1uHy be used save rat the employer's benefit. 15 The court amzput in N9 Klm Fang V Menang Corpotatiull (Ill) Sdn am: [2020] MLJIJ 544 referved In and approved of INS P355396 W 57 Engtneermg (see paragraph \35 Dflhe Judgment of s Nanlha aateh JCA). 17 To those cases on what mrtstrtutes breach 0! confidence / cortfidenttahty can be added the toutwvmg two on the essehttats at what must be pteaded by the ptatrrtm tor such clam: Fnr, rt ts on what a plamtm pteads that devendahts ww know what case they have to use up tn meet and oppose 13 In Dynncasl (Mulaka) sdr. Ehd 5. Ors vVision cast sch end 5 Am)! 12am 3 MLJ m. the pl rts etteged breach or wnfidence by the defendants The 2* delendanl, betng the major drrectercum sharehdtderer lhe 1* nevertdant had set up a hvat edmpahy. the 1st uerender-t, lo carry out the same tdrtd 0! business The ptatrttitr alleged that the 2m oetehdeht had auegedty used the krtcwiedge and oonfidenhal hterrhahor. he had obtatned during his tenure Mm the Dlamhff to gain an unfatr advantage over the plamhfl: lhal the Pageinans IN atstatvsmsamte-hum ‘Nata Smut n-vthnrwm be ts... M mm ms ntwtrraflly mt. dun-mm VI] aF\uNG mm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-41S-6-03/2022

PERAYU Ee Yong Nan RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA ]

Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - s.307 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ) – kegagalan memfailkan petisyen rayuan dalam tempoh empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh penerimaan alasan penghakiman dan nota keterangan – tiada permohonan pelanjutan masa untuk pemfailan petisyen rayuan di luar tempoh masa - hampir dua setengah bulan dari tarikh penerimaan alasan penghakiman dan nota keterangan.

06/12/2023

YA Dr Wendy Ooi Su Ghee

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=9a3f69c3-f7e1-47d5-9a7c-90ff5822f009&Inline=true

06/12/2023 14:32:47 BA-41S-6-03/2022 Kand. 36 S/N w2k/muH31UeafJD/WCLwCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w2k/muH31UeafJD/WCLwCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w2k/muH31UeafJD/WCLwCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w2k/muH31UeafJD/WCLwCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w2k/muH31UeafJD/WCLwCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N w2k/muH31UeafJD/WCLwCQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mx—us—s—n3/2022 Kand. 36 Jb/)2/201] ,4 '32 av DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI sum ALAM uALAM NEGERI ssumoon DARUL ENSAN FERBICAKAAN JENAYAN NO BA-425-4-47:!/M22 a ANTARA EE vane NAN vsmvu (Nombor. K/P: 9ao1ue—uH3na) DAN PENDAKWA RAVA RESFONDEN 51,555 EENQNAKIMAN Pannlnalin [11 ml mm pevrnahonan psvayu mm psnangguhan ks: bag pelamikan paguzm bani memvaukan psnsyen rayuan Lntamelikang K 5 [21 Pads 23 a2 2022, perayu man disahnlkan dangan kesamhan m bawah s 323 Kanun Ksseksaan ('kasa\aI1an s 323 KK“) an 5 37511) Kamm Keseksaan rkasalahan 5.37am KK") aleh Mahkamah Sasyen Kuala Kubu sham, Smangur Keane-aua kssmahan 5323 KK dan kasalahan s 376(1) KK «sum dldengzrsszzam bursama (31 Bag! kesawanan s.a23 KK. perayu cavan amuxum penjam selama lapan (5) bulan dari tankh jaluh hukum 12:: n2 21122) manakaia hag! kesalahan 537511) KK, De41auIe\ahdmukum penjava sa\ama dua ba\as x w wrzx/mu>uIua:uDrwcLw<:o -ms Sum IHIWDIY M“ be .15.. m van; M nugvuuly mm; mm. VII mum puns! (12) (ahun nan tarikh ianm hukum (25 02 2022; dan Yuma (5) sahalan «man Keane-dua hukuman lwa lelnh fllarahkan barrjalln sscars serenlak [41 Terkrlan dangan ksvulusan-kepulusin hikim Mcara, pelayu |a\aI1 memlIHksn Moms Rayuan~No(Is Rsyuan oenanxn 2: 02.2023 bag! kesalahan s.32s KK (wens Rayuiin s 323 KK‘) nan luau baa! kssalahan 5 370(1) KK(‘Nn(is Rayuan 5.378(1) KK"| malami paguambexam Teluan . Solehuddln 5. mm yang Jusla mempakan Déguambma bagi psrayu di Danngkal mahknmah blcara. (51 nenoqsmunoan Derllksanaan nukuman-huxuman demen Jaminan bemaaar sebenyak RM15,Dau—uD dengan secrang penmmm natas Pannohonan nerayu. mankaman mcara |s|ah mamhanavkan [61 Nov: Rsyuan :. 323 KK wan asasnsman an bawah kas Na BA-41S- ‘ 6-U3/2022 maneksla Nous Rayuan s 375(1) KK xewan umnankan an hawah kss Nu. EA—42S—4-03/2022. m Taflkh peflgurusan kes panama (15: cm) bag! kedus-dua ruyuan mu man dvlslapkan pada 07.04 2022 Salanjumya, baberapa usnkh Parwumsan ks: lug: Ie\ah anexapxan. Iiflu 20.05 2022 ('20 cm. 07 07 2022 (“am cm"). 24.00 2022 (an cm’): 24 11.2022 cs“ cm; 22.02 2023 ('6" cm; 20 03 2023 (“7‘'‘ cm), on 06 2023 (-50 cm); 13.01 2023 (‘am cm, 2300 2023 {"100 cm as alas alasan bahawa alasan Denghakvman den nova kalarangan 1'APNK1a|3sbul‘)be1um sadva unmk d\:e(ahkIn kepada nmyu den nmak resnonaen [3] Dari |ankh 07 04 2022 @ 1-‘ cm tehingga 21.09 2022 @ 4'0 cm, pevayu nadir ssndin dan man msmaldumkan kepada mahkamah bag: bullau mun mslanux paauam. Olah nu. pm 24 11 2022 @ Oarikh pengurusan kehma @ 5*“ cm, perayu (elah d\wak\1< o\eh Teluan Rayshan Tan 5. Co 1'peguambe\a perayu'). sw wzb-/muHaIua:uDIwcLwcu -um smm ...m.mm be 0;... .2 mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [9] Selanjulnya, ma\a\u1 surll Mshkamah Sssyen Kus1a Kuhn Eham, selsngar benalikh u4.u9.2u23, APNK wvsebm lalah mssrankan mam pos berda1tarA R kepada psquambeli perayu dart pihak ruponden [111] Pm 21o1:.2a2a(-11"- cm), paguambela parayu 1e1an mengakm menenma APNK Iersehut can mamakmmkan nmwa muruka dalam omses memfallkan pshsyen rayuan-peflsyen myuan. Olsh 1111, tarikh pengurusan aalanjulnya Ielah amupxan pads ns.112o2a (-12* cm unluk psguambela perayu bemuatdsrmkian. [11] Pads us11 202:1 @ 12- CM, peguamnexa pemyu (e\ah mamakmmkan kepada mahkamah Im bahawa peflsyen myuan1)sI1syan rzyuin maslh mum umkan. Namun. mereka aken mamiaflkan permnhorvarwelmohonan umuk Iamulan mm memandangkan 1emapa1 1 hebarapa dokuman yang dlpsflukan dun Mahkamah Kuala Kuhn Eharu. Selangor. Mm‘ um psngumsan sslanju|nya man aneaapkan paua 25.11 2023 (-13'" cm [12] Namun. sehari sabalum lankh Dengurusin kes @ 13“ CM‘ peguambeva pemyu 1a1ah msanaaukan sum benankn 27112025 dan memakmmkan bahawa merska man menaflmaarahan umuk manank uni danpada mewaklll parayu di alas a\asan»aIasan bahawa — a) Kegagalan anakguam msmbeflkan kelerangan yang benar (hue ms ems case) b) Kagagalan anakguarn unmk mambekmkan dckumen asal sepem yang man dusnflkan c) Kegagamn unmk membayar fee peguam sapam yang dliannkan wavaupun man yang mencukupi man dlberikan sw urzu/muH.nua:uuIwcLwcu --um s.n.1...m.m111.. 1;... 1: van; .. nr1g\ruHIy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum wrm rm oven Ilu, pads 23112023 (-13'" cw. parayu man new ax mahkamah um canoe Denuambela dan marnnllnn panangguhan kss unluk me\an(Ik Penuambem baru. unannu-ununna [141 Talacara rayuan janayan ke Mahkamah Tmggi adalah lelkanflung dslam 5.301 KTJ sag: Muan pamnonan inn, 3 sum) dan 5.30719) KTJ mam. dllujuk Bag! ksmudahan vemahaman din Nlukan, yaksyelv sekswn barksnaan adalah d\nya|akan m bawah ml — s cm Pruoudum [or upon! r41 Wm" Ioumen day! liter the copy was amum a/d-asvnn has [nan “ma as pm»/mudm suasodmfl 13;, m. PDIILIHI smmodyu mm In. mm of the Magmm com 51 ma. ms ms! was my 5 Damon M Man»! In mpllmtc 5497215211 1.: the Mgll Conn (5) {er (7) 151 m; n - mm». or Ippsal rs rlol fiodged wvmm me lime pruaeflbsd by mu semen We appeal my a. damned In have been Mmdmwn Ind rm mar Cam! sum mom Rs sunluncc m ondur Nany my 0/txacul/an ha: om Srunl:d,bmno1MVwIm=In cwvtslnzd mu bu dc-mm In hvmtorrI.w!<( L»: paws conlsrrad upon a Mos by mm m nanaun Mahkamah [151 Nasan-alasan wng flxbengknkan o\eh perayu umuk penangguhan kss adalah disebahkan peuuamhala parayu Ielah menank um dan mewakm behau dan peraw mam melsmlk psguambsia ham. Foauamhnla Ptrnyu [vs] Menunfl perayu. psguambewanya musk lag! mewukih behau malalui surat banarikh 21112023. [111 Elarpun demvklan. padl 21092023 lallu mm panguvusan ks: kesebelas (-11' cur), peguambela psmyu menglkm lelah menenmu APNK tamabulyang dmamarsevah kepadu memka melalm surat bznankh on o9.2a23 secara hardnflar AR Peguambslz parayu juga msmaklumkun bahawa mernka dalam pfrnsas mamiallkan psfisyan rayualrpelisyen riyuan (1a) Akan lelapu hukan sahqa psguamhela perayu (shah gaqal memvaukan pehsyan riyusn-pefsysn rzyuan mam (empah amnal mm :14) man man Iankh penerrimaan APNK lerssbul benkman s.3n1m KN, mama, sslwmga ks 25112023 iailu nampxr due selengah {Man dan (ankh penenmnan APNK leuebul. veguamhala perayu masih «max mengamun apaapa langkah unmk mamiaxlkan pennohanan-pavmuhonan pilaruulan mass unmk perrflailan pedsyen rayuarvpeliswn vayuan en mar Iempuh mesa. [191 Semara rumusan, adalah dapavan mahknmah nu bahawa perayu flan/alau peguambexa perayu max mamsnenng serius umang myuan~ rayuan (euebut Pemnnukan-pemnmm menganai lalacara rayuan ianayah kn Mishkamah Tmgm adalah jaflas tsrkandung damn 5 am KTJ Pamnmkan-pemnlukan seharusnya dlpandang mus clam p\hak perayu aanrmau paguamuexa perayu Ismmanin lag! rayuan lersebul berkailan kebebasan psrayu senmn Tldak ada mnkna unluk pe-wnukan— perunlukan ax bavmh 5.3111(4) den 5 307(9) dmya|akan sesnuamya max aua mans-mama plhak yang memmumm sw wrzh/muH.1Iua:uDrwcLwcu -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! K-simpul-n my Eardasavkan kepada huraiarvhurman m alas beflkmsn 530719) KTJ. rawan-rayuan nerayu hendaklah avswankan ssbagaw hzlah manx bahk 0\ah nu‘ rawan-rswan persyu adalah a-naan Inn dlbalalkan Banankh Dad: 3 Navembev 2023 (VA. DR. WENDY ISU cuss) Pesumruaya ehakiman Mahkamah Tlnggw s eh Nam (Jenaynh 5) Pmak max Pendakwaan Tuan Mohsmad flrdaoua Mn Mohamed ldris, nmnalan Pendakwz Raya danpada Kamar Panasihal Undang—Undang Nsgen Selangar Peguamhelzr Teman Rayslan Tan 5 ca Klang sw wrzh/muHaIua:uDIwcLw<:u -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

WA-25-104-04/2023

PEMOHON 1. ) Ronald Kiandee 2. ) Datuk Kapten (B) Muhammad Suhaimi Yahya RESPONDEN 1. ) YAB Dato Johari bin Abdul 2. ) Datuk Armizan Bin Mohd Ali 3. ) Khairul Firdaus Akbar Khan 4. ) Jonathan Bin Yasin 5. ) Datuk Matbali Bin Musah

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Parliament – Privileges and immunities – Article 49A of the Federal Constitution – Speaker conferred power to establish casual vacancy – Speaker held that there was no casual vacancy – Decision of Speaker challenged – Whether Speaker immune from being challenged in court – Whether Speaker’s decision immune under Article 63(1) of the Federal ConstitutionADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Leave for judicial review application – Judicial proceedings against Speaker of the House of Representatives – Principles and procedures – The test – Whether leave ought to be granted when subject matter is settled law

06/12/2023

YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=f80e74c2-219c-40c4-abcf-ca7d0c58a9b8&Inline=true

06/12/2023 15:19:26 WA-25-104-04/2023 Kand. 32 S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N wnQOJwhxECrz8p9DFipuA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w.\—25—1o4—oa/2023 Kand. 32 be/12/2:223 15:19-26 DALAM MAHKAMAH TVNGGI MALAVA D1 KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI W|LAVAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN KUASA-KUASA KHA5) SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN N0: WA-25-104-04/2023 Dalam perkara permuhunan unluk Semakan Kehakrman dz bawah Aluran 53 Kaedih-Kasdah Mahkamih 2012 Dan Dalam perkara Parkara 49A Ferlembagaan Persekuman Dan Dalsm perkara Seksyen 25(2) ma Mahkamah Kehakxman 1954 Dan Dalam Derkara Aluran 92 Kaedarh Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 den kua5a xersema aaa Mahkamah Tmgg: Ma\aya Dan Dalam parkara Seksyen 44(1) Ana Re|ilSpesmk1950 sm wnDOJvmxECr1ArflDFUuA Amara 1. Ronaki Kiandee 2. Datuk Kaplen my Muhammad suhamm Vahya qsenaga. pegawav awam penubuhan yang mdanaman sebagm Pam Pnburm Eersalu Mslayswa) Pemnhampemonnn Dan 1 Data Johan Em Abdm Idxsaman Sebagal Vang di-Panua Dewan Rakyalj 2 Daluk Armizan hm Mohd All 3 Khavm Flrdaus Akbar Khan 4 Junaman bin Yasm 5 Datuk Matbali bun Musah Reswnden-Raspenuen JUDGMENT numonucnon [<1 The npphcan|s am olfiee bearer: of Pm: Pnbum: Bersa|u Malaysxa (-mam“) They man this appmuon (or leave m wnDO.AvmxEGm!v‘1DFuuA «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! ‘HIE ATYORNEY GENERAIJS POSITION [12] The Allomey General sunmtttea that [he impugned aectsion was not amensbte to tudiciut revtsw as -t was made In me exerctse of the lunchan as the Speaker tor the House and was protectea undermltcle as mine Fsderal Consllluttnn The 2" lo st" respondents‘ counset an tnvttahon of thus court ta submfl on the tunsutcttonat tssue was of the same position. THE TEST A7 LEAVE sue: [I3] A| the outset and before pvoeeeding to oonstder the issue :2! tusltctabtlily I kept tn mtnd the mnctten at the man Court at teave stage at the judicial review proceedtngs 1 start wtth ttte test Yo obtain leave of com to commence ]|ldlOa\ rewew, the eslabhshed test I! set nut by the Federal Courl tn WRP Ali: Pnclflc sun Bhd v Tunaga Nastnnat and [2012] 4 CLJ 475 tn the following words Wtlhmtl the need In go mw depth of the abundant autttcrtttes, suffice tl we state that leave may be granted -1 the tesve apphcalton V5 not thought at as u m wnDO.tvmxECm!v‘1DFuuIt «mm. s.n.t nuvthnrwm s. med a may he mm-v -mm: dnuuvtml vn mum vtmxt frlvolousl and ll leave is granled, an arguable case ln Ill/our ol glanling me lellel sought al me subslanlllle Ileanrlfl may be me resunanl outcome. A rlder musl he allaonea la llle anpllcallan Waugh 76, unless the matter lcr plmolal lemw IS amenable m ludiual revlew absolutely no success may be erwlsaged. [14] The (as! m WRP Asla Pamfic Sdn and envlsages Wee mleguries where leave ol eoun wlll be relused. The ms: is where the appllcauon V5 luurld la be ‘lrlvolous and vexahous‘. In Tang Kwor Ham 5 Or: v Pnngurunn Dnnalum Nulonal End 5 Ors [2005] l cm 927; [2006] 5 MLJ so and Tall elm Hona v Plrhldanan nmmg Fundldlkln Thlggi llumul lzolel 2 CLJ 762‘ [2015] 3 AMR 35 me Courl ol Appeal set ou| me establlshed lrivuluus and vexalious sllualions, namely, where lhe applicallorl‘ (l) ls made by a busybady; (ii) ls mlssiuldad ur mlscorlcswsd or ale lrlvlal oomnlalnls or aamlnlslrallva errors: Ilil) is made outside me prescribed ume: )2 m wnDO.lvmxECr-LSVYDFUMA “Nair Smnl luvlhnrwlll .. UIQG m may he nflnlrullly ml. mm. VI nFluNa ml (W) is made against e uemn oi body iiiei is iininuniseo riuin being Impleaded iii iegei proceedings, and (V! Where (here is an eiieineiiiie rfimedy DI more approprisle iemeay. us] The second enses when the sppiioeiion iii noi rouno In be mvoious and uexeuousi ieeve win iieueniieiess be ierusea where an erguabie case for iunnei invesfigaliun at the subslamive siege is noi nieoe oui rne iriiesiioia «oi irus snualmn is very iuw, Au iriai is iequueo at mus siege is for irie iudge to peruse me inaceiiai placed by me eopiiisini oeioie me ooun. ii oeing an ex parte apphca|ian. |:) see wiieinei ‘an arguable case in riivoui oi gra ' g the mist sougni at me subslannve heeniig may be me iesuiiani ouioiiiiie‘ Leave of win win he gianioa unless "absameiy no success may be envisaged“. [15] his iriina is where me VIIIIIQF ioi review is noi ainenabie Io iudioiei review we eiiiieiion iiiciuaes iiieueis iriei are noniusiioieniei policy cansiaeiaiions and nianageineiii pverogafive in lhis iegsiu, me Feoeioi Cnurl in in MIEIII 13 SN uiiooimiieonmuroun “Nair s.n.i navihnrwm be UIQG In new i... iniin.iiii MIMI dnunvilnl VI nF\uNfl Wm! Jcyllumul Dcvaraj v Foguam uogm Illnllylix [2013] 2 cu I009 sum [25] As la lhe zna quesnon. me jusllcwabnluy e! such decxswon -s aeuenaenn an we pamculsr [acts of me case on the facts 0! «ms case, we agree mm me can MApDeaI max me vssues reused m the names of manon (or weave were not ;udm\aHy revlewahle and hence nnl ;ushfieb\e Jusflclablllty [171 The oflamquoled case on (he Vaw cl Aushclabnhly M an appllcahon (or leave for ;ud\c\a\ rev-ew us me case 01 1-ngku Muhlmmnd Fakhry Fun lbni Sulfan Ismail Petra v Yang Mnhz Mulii Pnmanuku Raj: Kullnlun 5 on [2011] 1 MLJ 125, [mm] 1 LNS 1390 where Mohamad Anw Md vusuv J (as Hus Lardsmp men was) sam met me (am ‘]ushcwabxl|Iy' radars to ma smcamriuy lur. or amenabmy no, ;udicIa\ remew al a paniculav admmlstrauve declsxon or mass 4:! decxsnnns. Thus, a rnanev or decxslon may be non—]usuc|ahKe' by a com wnere us resamuon 14 m wnDO.AvmxEGm!v‘1DFuuA «mm. smm ...n.mm .. U... m may he mm-y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl nF\uNa Wm! anhsr rs beyond me msmunonal competence ur [ha cam or would /rwolva szappmg outsrds us appropriate conslilutronal ms [is] In another onen-quo|sd case. Tang Kwor Ham 5. 0!: v Ponguruun Dnruhlna Nulon I and a On [zaos] 5 MLJ so; [2006] 1 cu 921, me Conn or Appeal 5 that apan horn lnvelous apnl-canons whsra me Hugh cam wauld be jusufied m remsmg waave m /rmina max 50 mo M” the coun be ermlled to Infuse leave -1 us a case where the suayeu matter av we review .s one wmch by se1IIed<aw(e\mer wntten raw or the common Vaw) vs nan-;us|v::\ab\e. eg pmeeamgs m Farlvamem (see an. 63 al me Federal consmuman). Aniclc 63 ed‘ mu Fudurll Cunllltullun [19] Amcle saw unhe Federal consmuuon scales ma| The vahduy at any proceedings m enlher House 0! Pamamem or any cammmee (hereof shan not be quemoned any court. 15 m wnDO.AvmxEcrxAvYDFuuA «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! [20] The same pnvflege ws accorded to me Slate Leglslauve Assernbhes by Article 7211) 01 me Feaauax Ocnsmuhan m smmar mms, Thus. noun Amcles saw and 12m av me Federal Consmulmn are msxanoes of me dcclnne of separauon of Wwers wnerem me cams are not to oversleu as «women by auesuonmg me vannny o1 pmoeedmgs of me Houses a! Parliament or the suaxe Legislauve Assemblies. WHEIHER IMPLIGNED DECISION Is JusTIcIAaLE :21] The only vssue before me vrevermng leave In be granled us whemer me impugned decxsxon by me Speaker acung under Amde 49A of Lhe Federal Consnmmn ws jushcvame. In alher words. whelher the manor ws amenable lo wdwcwal review. [221 The wmpugned declsxon is made under Amcle 49A of me Federa\ Consmuhon wen pmvmes is lallows m wnDOJvmxECmSrflDFUuA «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! m Subjeclw the prevrsrons cums Amcler a member av ma Hausa av Represenballves snan cease |o be a member or man House and ms seal shafl became vacant rmmemacexy an a dare a casual vacancy is established by me Speaker under Clause (3) W — (a) having been awectaa to me House at Representatives as a member or a wmeal uarly — (1) he resigns as a member 0! the pohhcal Barty: or (H) he ceases In be a member br the puhflca‘ parly. or (b) having been elected 10 me House 0! Revresencauvar. omerwrse man as a member of a polmcal party, he lmns a palmcal parly as a member (2; A member of the House cl Repvesemalwes srran nor cease (D be a member 01 than House pursuant to W5 Amcle on\y by mason 0!- n m wr»Do.AwmxEL:nAvYDfuuA “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm .. U... a may r... anmnauly mm: dnuamnl VI mum war (a) the dlssoluuon ar cancanauen ol the regtslrahon at ms puhllcal pafly: polmcal pafly upon e\ec1Aun as a Speaker. or (c) the expwswon oi his memtmsrup of ms pohhcal pafly. 1:) Whenever me Sneaker receives a written nauce mam any member o1 me House or Rapmsenmnves on me occurrence cl a c.asua\ vacancy among me members 01 the House or Repnsssnlahves under his Amcle, the Speaker shall embltsh Ina! there re such a casual vacancy and nohfy me E\ecI\on Oommwssvon :cI:ordvng\y wnmn Manly one days fram me dale ne reoewea me wnuen name (4; For me Durbases ov hcfldmg en a\ec1ien under Amcle 54‘ such casual vacancy shaH be filled wmnm sixty days mm the date me Elecnon Commxsslon receives the notification (mm me Speiker 1: sm w»ooJwmxEcnAv*1DFuuA «we. em.‘ lunhnrwm e. med e may he nVW‘Hl‘W mum: flnuamnl VI mum v-ms! [231 The piovision IS clear mat inc casuai vacancy is II.) he atabllshed by me Speaker. That is what Ihe Speaker mo. The Speaker acled within the power conferred upon him under Article ASAU) read with Amcia 49A(3) oi the Federal Carismunon and dechdad inai there was no vacancy. in is perlinanl 10 Hole that i| was me I“ aponcam who wrcic ic the spaakar In invoke nis pnwers under Arucie 49:43) In establish that me saio iaur seats were vacani «or breach or the Ariicie 4€IA(I) onna Federal Canslimlian. [21] It is well estabhshed and IS sefllsd ‘aw Ihal the decision oi (he Speaker in deciding whether more is a caauai vacancy In me iegiaiaiore IS an inicrnai matter at Lhe legislahire falls WI in me prmiege oi me iegisiaiure and maretore pralecled under Article 72(1) of the Federal Consmullon (see ‘rang ciung Khlm u Badrul Hmmn Ahdulllh 5. Mar [2017] 9 CLJ 630, [2017] 5 MLJ 567) in this regard it is cruciallo note that Article 72(1) cf the Federal Cansliiulion is in par? mstana WIH1 Amde 63(1) 01 In: Federai Conslilulmn Thevelme‘ the decision in Teriu cnanq Khim IS binding on this Courl wncn eonsiucnnu Amcic 7211) at ine Federal oonsmmicn 19 rn wnDOJwmxECm!rflDFUuA “Nana a.n.i luvihnrwm n. .n... a my r... nflmnuiily MIMI dnuaviml vn mum Wm! The duclslon lu Tong Chung Kn/m [251 ln reng Chang Krrrm lhe queslron for delermlrlalicn belure me Feaeral calm was wnelrler a declslurl ol lrle Speaker :71 me selengar Leglslacve Assembly ln declarlng vaeanl a seal because u! a scale Assemblyrnarvs absence lur 6 munlns wllhoul leave cl me Speaker pursuam lo Anicle as ol llle selangor Consmullon can be challenged ln legal nrooeedlngs. havlng vegavd la mnsmulinnal privileges and rrnrnunllres conlevrsd on rne Speaker and me Legrslelrve Assembly, amongst cdhers, under Amcle 72 0! me Federal canslllullan The Federal Courl held as Iollows [23] Thus. there can be no dollar that me business of Parilsmerll and slale Legislalive Asssmbhes are lmmune lroln rualcral lnlerlerenee nra coufls have no powel to inlerfsw with the interns! manegsmel-rl 0/ Parliament or any slsla legrslalrve Assembly nrrs lmmurllly arlsss Irom me dccmne uf separation or powers between the (Ives prrncrpal organs of 2a m w»oo.lwmxEl:r-xAvYDFuuA “Nair Sum luvlhnrwm rs. UIQG w my r... mlnllrr mum: m.n.n VI nFluNa Wm! la commence 1udicIa\ review proeaaamgs for me loibwlng ralwels (a) an order lav cemoran‘ w remove We xms Conn and quash ma deasmn av me 1-‘ respondam, me Speaker of the House at Represemauvas (‘the Speaker‘ and “the House" respecuvely) m a lsller amen 16* January 2023 (‘k: the wee: that (heve vs no casum vacanues tor me Pamamemary consmuenmea of Paparu Batu sap., Ranau, and svpmang under Amde Mann) 0101: Federal cansmuuan (-ma xmpugned dec|smn“L (:2) a declaralion that me rd in 5“ raspondsnls have ceased to he Members 01 the House pursuant \o Amde 49A of me Federifl Oonsutunorh (:2) a uauaranon that the seats at In Famamenvary Cons1nuencies olFapar, Balu Sam, Ranau, and Svpllang hive become vacant and (d) an order ior mandamus duremmg the speaker to eslabhsh max there is a casual vacanty m Manon to me 2 m wnDo.AvmxEcnAvYDFuuA «mu. Snr1|\nmhnrwH\I>e med u may u. nrW\ruH|Y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! government, namely, me exacunve. ms legislature and me Nd/cvary. [36] The question ws wn-mar me sneakers aclmn in declaring Badrufs seal car we consmuency at N46 Fe\aDLman K\ang vacant at a press conlerenoe was m exercise of ms mncmons to regulate ms -mama: afliws or me am arm was immune «mm chaHenge on com. Our smwrsns in me afimuam Frrsliy, me dsclsratron was purely made wflhm the parameters set am by an as al the Sela;-Igor Constitution Semnd/y, ms declaration was mevrranly ccnnected to (he essezma/ busmes: afrhs SLA and was made m the performance 11/ me speaker’: essenrm Iuncnon as a Speaker. [37] mmvore, we are or View lhal ma speaker m me present case had acted legally under an 69 of me ss/angm Conshmllon m dsclsnng Badrufs N46 Pa/abuhan K/ang cansmuency sea! vacant The course taken by me speaks! rs non-yuslrcfah/e as :1 is pmtsclsd by an 72(v) uf the Federal cansmumzn and 2; m u...aom.m.murm «mm. Snr1I\nmhnrwH\I>e U... w may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! paras 2-3 of (he Schedu/s to an 77 of ma Salangcl Conslrlulion [51] In mrvcmslorv, we are or the View mar rn Ihe prssanl case, (he speaker was acrmg wrmm me wmrs 0/(he power grven to mm under an 59 01 me Selangar consmunorr when he use/area me N46 Ps/abuhan Klang constrmenoy sea! vacant. Even Ihough me declarahon was made amsme the SLA pmoeemngs, n was Inewlably Donnaded wim me essenuax husmess ol (he SLA. made wmmn the paramelers set am by an 59 of the Selangnr Consululi n, and was made to vegulate (he mtemal aflairs of me SLA, Consequently, we mls ms: the speakers ac! Is nomjusltcrab/e and the speaker rs enmled re the prorecmn ofpamsmenlary pnwrege enjoyed by the su: as provided for undar an 72(1) oflhs Federal Consltlulinn and paras 24 0/ me Schedule to art 77 olme Se/anger consmunon. (er-nnhasxs addedh m wnDo.AwmxEcr-xAvYDFuuA «mm. sm-1 nmhnrwm .. U... w my r... mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! (ac) In Tang Chang Khim me Federal coun msnmgmshea me cases of us Data‘ Dr Znmhry Ahd Kzdlr 5. are v vs Sivakumar Varalharaju Naidu; Anom-y Gonnral Melaym (Inlorvnmr) [zoos] 4 cu 243 and Dawn und-ngm Nognrl se ngav a. on v Mom! Hahrlnm bln Hzrurl [2016] 7 CLJ I43 the Federal court held that [50] As m zemmys case, on me lads, Ha/anzanfs ms: us also aisunguisnable iron: the presem case In bolh cases, the respecxwe Legvslahve Assemblies had exceeded as Jurwsflnmans as prwxuea under me consmuucn or each sxace hence there was room «or manna! mterlerence [27] m ma Data’ Dr Zambry u was he\d that the main veason the Sneakers acls were Juslvcxable was because me Speaker‘: eenons and ulhmalsly me den: on namng merelrom we contempt or me Vegislalive assemmy was not provided lor under the Perak sxaxa canemumn, Ihe Slandmg Orders or me Perak Leglsmuve Assembly (Frmleges) Enaamenl 1959. 2; m umDO.1vmxEcrxAv‘1DFuuA «mm. smm ...m.mm .. H... e may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! [231 4n Mona He/snzem hm Hsmn, me plalnhfl an advocate and Snhclmr, acting on the mslrucuen 0! hls client, Issued a leller pv demand lor payment 01 casls awarded m the owl! sum men by ms cuenn against me Speaker of the Selanqor Legrsmwe A.sSemb\y (SLA) The Iellel was served on the solicxtor 07 the Sneaker wmcn was brought to the attention ml nne SLA The SLA men passed a mouon resouwnp (hal Halanzam and ms clnenl be revened to me cemmmee o! mgms and Privileges (cammmee) of me SLAy on me cnarge thal may have cam-nmea an enema against the Assembly by Issuing a ‘we! |D the Speaker wmch oanlamed Vanguage thal was mdeeem, mso\ent and Ihlealemng As a resun. the secnexary or the Cammmee issued a summons wmcn ordered Haianzam to appear bemre the Commmee to explain the aflegeu contempt Haranzam chaHenged the summons. Tne Feaeral Conn new: [46] As regards ms appeaL n us our yudgmenn me assemlfly must acl within ms eonsmuuanal and Vega! powers before the pnacecmn pmwdea lor by an 72(1) can anse, pevore passmg a resululiun 0! an act oi wnlempl havmg been wmlmlled beyond me weus of m wnoo.AwmxEcnAvYDFuuA «mm. ssnuw lunhnrwm s. p... n my me nflmnnflly mum: m.n.n VI muna v-NM me assembly The asserriws powers are limited by iris Selangav siare oarisiiiiiiieri [47] A careful perusal of me provisions oithe sciieaula iii me selarigor sraie carisiiiiiiiari, wriicri mrilers Ihe power arid privileges ol me assembly. reveal no provision Iha| movldes lur cofflempl coriirriimed nulslde lrie legislalive assembly The ueleriuariis (on have lalled to sriuw whim provision in me scriedule was Ielled on re pass me iesoluliori rrie assembly has lrierslore exceeded lrie iiirisaleliori prcvlded lor in me schedule. [29] rriiis, il me Speaker is aclirig wllhin irie powers mrilerrea upori riim by lrie Consfltutlcrl. wnemer Slate or Federal, iri uaclaririg n seal vaearil, which is lnexlrlcably eenrieclea wilri lrie esseiillsl business I)! me lsglslalure, siicli act is riari—iusliu'al:le arid the Speaker is enlined to the Dmlecllon al narliariierilary privilege enpyed by me SLA as pmvlded lor under Arllcles saw or 12(1) at llia Federal conslilumori 25 IN umDOJwmxECmSVYDFUuA «wii. Smll luvlhnrwlll be UIQG a may i... iriii.iiii MIMI flnuavlml VI nFl|.INfl mi [:0] In aka ng ml furlcllon as a Speaker |o delermlne wnelner a casual vacanw has uccunea in a oenaln seal, me Speaker would need lo ascenaln ll me Member al Parllamerll ln quesllon has done anylhlng whloh would cause ms seal lo become vacanl. Naturally, we musl lnclude delennlnallen ofwhelhsr me Member of Farllamenl nae eeasea Io be a member cl ma polillcal parly anal havlng been alecled In lne Hause ol Repvesenlauves as members at mat polmcal lzarly. as provided In Arllae 49A(1) cl lhe Federal cansmullon, [:11 ‘mus. me oonlelmenl of jlmsdldlorl m the Speaker lo Bslabllsh whamer a casual vacancy has occurred ur nal would elalnea lne speaker wlm me lmmunlly In Amele sum al lne Federal Ccnsmullorl as held In rang Chang Khim The ratio declderldl ol rang Chang Khlm Is not only senlsd law am is mnmng on me. In acung wllnm me lurlsdlcllon mnlen-ea upon mm, me Speaker nae ounslllullonal suppurl and ms decislon would not be Jushclible by v-nua ol Anlcle 63(1) of me Fadural 0orls|l|uuon. Funnel In ‘run su uluaa nl Amul A on v Tun oamk sen H] Fanglima Hi Juhzr Hi Manlruddin .5 Or: [2021] 3 cu at {mm} 3 ML.) 329. me Courl of Appeal held |hul 15 m wnDO.lwmxEGr-LSVYDFUMA “Nair Smul ...n.mul .. UIQG a may he nflmnnllly -mm: dnunvlml VI nFluNa Wm! [15] Funner. W a mailer is found to be not ‘us me. me de1:¢s\on—maKmg process leading to lhe nun— juslwciable matter should also be nut )usncxab\a. m «ms regavd, we are bound by me Fsdam cnurrs case of ./ura;m: Husm v Pardons Board, State a! Pahang & Dr: [2002] A CLJ 529 where n was sand. The premgauve of mercy was amongst me uuwevs Ihal was not susuepmme to ;ud\c\a\ review because its nature and sumeu matter was such as not to be amenable to me mama! nroeess (age p 537A-E): Councrl of CII/II Serv/cs L/mans 3: 075 V Mrnrxlel for IIIE cm! Sen//os [1954] 3 All ER 935 am Sim K19 Chan V supsnnrsndsm a(Pudu Prison 5 Or: /1555) cu Rep 293; [1955] 2 ML! 335 lnumved. The sflect 0! mskmg the daemon makmg prams jusmams would have me same effect as nawng ms dscfsron rmlnun 'abIe 17 m umao.AwmxEcnAvYDFuuA «mm. sm.‘ nmhnrwm s. U... w may he mm-y mum: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! consequently, any attempt! to make me daemon mekmg process /ustvcfsble wowd mcnrecuy make me dsctslon tlself mstrctable Accordingly, we decrsmn makmg pmcess oi me decision by me suuen of Pahang under an 15 0/ me Laws ol the consnmnon of Pahang. read Iogerhsr mm 34 42 of Ihs Federal cansmunon, was not/uslrcralfle (emphasis added] CONCLUSION [32] I am acutely aware M the VOVB of (he calm at the leava stage at me proceedings and of me pnnepne that a mu mnsiderancn ol the meme ough| my be done at me subsvamwe hearmg. The Federal Conn has held that me aecmon a! me Speaker m eslabhs 5; whether there \s a casual vacancy pursuant lo the powers onnferred upon the Speaker ye non1ushc\ah|e as u \s pm\eC|ed by Arlide 7211) and by extanmcn Anncie 3311) of the Federal Conslnulion. I cannol wgnore a b ng precedent and settled law As held m Tang Kwor Ham mewgn com womd be wsmied in vamsing leave in u m wnDo.1wmxEcnAvYDFuuA «we. smuw ...m.mm .. H... e may he mmuny mum: flnuamnl VI mum Wm! Itmme where the suhjecl matter 01 revwew ‘s one which is by wmtzen or seltlad law nun~]usIIc\ab\e [331 The decision m Tang Chang Kmm binds «ms Com The sumecl matter \s by sewed waw no\ amenabb In Name! review The apphcauon (or weave ws lar this reason dxsmnsssd «L Amaneex Sung Semi Smgh Judge Hvgh caun Kuala Lumpur Daled 27“ November znza Qgyugg gflhv Aggncation Azhar Azuzan Hamn. Chelan Jemwam, Pvavm Inangaram and Amuava Al Am1ra| Messrs Chelan Jelhwanl & company counsel of me Resgondenl Farah Syuhada Ramll, Senior Federal Counsel Anomey GeneraI‘s Chambers m wnDOJvmxECmSrflDFUuA «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! comm: olme 2" .5“ Rnsgandgg ; Data‘ Fm: Hussein Ahmad Jamamddm, Wafiy Azman, chm Sm Jm and W00 .1 EM Messrs Fm: Julian an sm w..ooMxm.muruu. «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! Parhamemary consmuency sea(s cl Fapar, Bam sapi. Ranau, and Sxpnlang respeclwely and lo noufy me Elecncn Oommxsslcn oi ms sand vacancy mm 21 days afme ordev ullhrs Hunoumlfle Conn [21 On 16"‘ November 2023‘ I menuesea me apphcalmn. This wdgmenl oon\ams the reasons lo! my deciswon BACKGROUND [3] The anpueanne bring Inis pmoeedmg on behaif ml PFEM as advice bearer am PPEMS pubhc ofioer respeclweiy The Members or Parliament whose seals are m dispute are the 2" to 5-" respanderns [4] The (ads show man the 2*, av and 5*" wspondenls were members of Umled Malays NaI\ona\ ozgamsanm (“UMNO'), a uumpunenl party 0! Bansan Nasuonai (‘BN“L They Veil UMND and ;mne.1 FFEM an 14" Apnl 2019. 4-“ May 2019 and 29*" December zma respecln/e\y The 4"‘ respcndem was formally a member o1 Pam Keaunan Rakyal [‘PKR"). He (on left m umDO.1vmxEcrxAv‘1DFuuA «mm. am ...m.mm .. U... a may he mm-y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! cans mama In: 1] WRP Asia Pac c Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasmnal Bud [2012] 4 CLJ 475 27 Yang Kwor mm 5 on v Fungurusan Dannnmn Nxslonul Ehd 5 Or: [2006] 1 CLJ 927. [2006] 5 MLJ so 3] Tu?! Gun! Ham; v Forhadanan Tahung Pnndidikan Tingni Nulonnl [2015] 2 cm 752, [2015] 3 AMR as 4] Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj v Pcgnam Negara Malaysia [ma] 2 cu mos 5] nngku Munammad Fnknry mu lhnl Sulun Ilnull mm v Vang Maha Mulia Punangku Raj: Kolaman 3. Ors [2011] 1 MLJ12fl:[2mO]1LNS1390 6] rang Kwov Ham 5 on v Panqumnn Danahnru Nlxlonxl BM 5. on [2006] 5 MLJ so] [man] 1 cu 927. 7] nng cnang Khim v Badrul NI-ham Ahdulllh 5. Ann! [2017] 9 cu 530, [2017] 5 MLJ 567) a] ma Dam‘ D1 Zambry Abd Kadir & Ors v VB Sivakumar Vzralllaraju Naidu: Anornuy Gonoul Malaysia [lnlovvo r) [2009] 4 cu 243 9] Dowan Undangan Negeri Selangor A Dr: v Mnhd Hzfarilam bin Hamil [2015] 7 cm 143 :1 sm wmD0.AvmxECrxAWDF1nuA are 5.1.] In-v1hnrwH] .. .4... w my 1... mm-y mm]: dun-mm VII .r[uNG v-ms] 1D)Tan Sri Mus: Hi Amln & Ors v Tun Damk Sari Hi Panqlimi N] Jun-r N] mmumaln A on [2021] 3 cm at [2021] 3 MLJ 329 n sm wmDO.AvmxECrxAWDF\nuA _«m.. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm PKR and en 4'" May 2021 jmnea FFBM PFBM was at max time a component party 0! Penxauan Nauana! (“FN‘|. [5] on 29'" Ju\y 2020. Gabungan Rakyal Sabuh (‘GR5“) was 521 up as an In!ormaI alnanee made up or FM. SN and Peru aersem Sabah H255“) to mnles1 m the Sabah State Elechon new on 25*" September 2020 Tnereanen on 1w March 2022‘ GRS was regrsxeree as a eea Ion party uneer the Sauehes Am 1965. on 15* Maren 2022‘ n was announced me: me GRS caahlrcn cunswsl ol the «ouowing pummel pames' (ij PPBM‘ my Pas, (In) sma, and on SAP? [5] Or! «am oemaer 2022, the House was dissolved pawn! me my lor me :5» General aecnrons wmch was held on 19"’ November 2022,7118 2”‘ 3". 4"‘ and 5"‘ respandenls were suooesslm candrdales for the sea\s they oontesled under me GRS Iago m Tne ouxmme or me 15'" General Elechons msufled m a hung Parharnem, rwo canmdaxes were In (he hurefronl: me cnarnnan of PPBM and the chairman of Pakalan Haranan. Damk sen Anwsr lbramm (“DSAl“). an pun I|s supparl bemnd 5 rn wnDo.AwmxEcr-xAvYDFuuA “Nana sen-w nmhnrwm e. med e may .. MEVHIUIY -mm: dnuamnl VI murm WM DSAI. Evemueuy, an 24% November 2022, me Yang di-Perluan Agony swore m DSAI as me Fnme Mimsler GRS also put us supparl bemnd Dam. m rnereener, me lcllcwmg events unlolded (I) on 10°‘ Daoember2D22‘ |hs Chairman MGRS issued a Dress slalsmenl to me efled me: me 20° to 5'" respondents have decided to leave PPEM on on um December 2022. me 2» respondent Issued a press smement mdwcaung that he V5 SH" a member of PPEM and “Vi! ha ountesled as a candldala fur GRS and nut PFBM. on 18’ December 2022. GRS Irmounced that It had removed PPBM from their ooahuon evvecwe 9'" December 2022. (iv) on um December 2022, the nru Famamemary sillmg aner GE15 was held, during whwch the 2"“ to 5'“ respondeme sa| on lhe government swde or me House 5 m umaodwmxicr-xAvYDFuuA «mu. sum nmhnrwm be mad u may r... mmuny -mm: dnuamnl VI mum v-max (v) On 21" December 2u22. PFEM1 secrerary Genera! Issued a rreuee to me 2* |o 5“ respormems mlormnng that Ihal may have eeascd lo be membels oi PPBM nursuanr ro clauses 10.2.2 and 10.2 3 0! PPBM crmsmmiorr The dauses stale that a member of PPEM will cease re be a membcr oi PFEM fl (a) he declares pmzlrevy mreugn any means war he intends to cease hang a member ol PPEM arm (in) he wins or becomes a member or anemer pohlical party (vi) On 27'" December 2022, me 1= appncam, In ms CFPECIW as the Member of Pamamenl (or (he ccrrsmuency or Bemran. vssued a wnllen norrce. umer Amde 49A(3) of the Fadera\ Constmmon, Informing the Speaker or the occurrence 0! a casual vacancy m ore seals he\d by the 2M lo 5-“ respondenls and «or me Speaker rp now me E\ecl|on cpmmresron acoordmgly wrmm rwen|y one days «ram me Iecelp or me sad nouoe (vu) On 30'" Deoember 2022, the Speaker replied rmormrng ma 1-! applicant mat he needs more 7 m wnDOJwmxECr-LSVYDFUMA «we. s.r.r nmhnrwm .. p... a may r... pnmneuly em. dnuamnl VI mum v-max rnrornrarron to make a oecraron on me auegoo vacancy. nn response. nne 1" applncanl provnosd nne runner renevanr rnronnanron reourreo by Ina Speaker [9] The above culnnnrnaled rn the letter oaneo 16"’ January 2023 containing cne impugned denision The Speaker staled lhal no had consroereo rne axnlarnalnarns on me 2"“ no 5*" resvondernts and esraonraneo um mere was no occurrence of vacancy The reasons prorrereo for rne impugned decnsron were as rouows pursuann no clause «a nu) ol lhe GRS Onnslnlminnr me 2“ no 5*" rosponuonra joined was as ‘direct members‘ snnoe 27'" conober 2022 whrcn was were me 15'" General Electncns Uvun rornrna GRS as dnrecl nnemherir pursuanr no cnause 1023 on nne FPBM consnrnurnon, rne 2“ no 5'" respanoonns oeaseo to be PPBM members [10] Aggneved wnth nne sand decnsnann PPEM through nne appnrcanrs mad the nnslanl judnclal review applncafion rn wrrao.AwmxEcr-xAvYDFuuA “None son-n ...n.rwur .. met! a my r... mrn.u-r mum: dnuarnml VI mum v-man GROUNDS OF REVIEW [11] The apphcanls, VI me o 53 slalemenl, alleged lnal lne impugned decislorl made by lhe speaker under Amcle 49m) read Wllh Arllcle 4913) or me Federal Cansmullcrl was lalnled Wllh l//egs/try‘ lnafianalily, u/tra vlres and/or was nnmnsIlm|lona| lur lne lollowlrlg reasons- (a) me cessahon ol PPEM members lles wlln me supreme cnuncil el FFEM pursuenl lo clause 10 3 and lnerelore lne Speaker aeled VI excess or lurlsdleuen ln decldlng lne Ilme me 2"’ lo 5°- respondents ceased to be members ol lhe FFBM: (bl me sneaker lallea to lake lnln aoeeunl mal lne 2"“ lo 5*" respnrldenls nad rI0| changed their polllical pany before 0! on pelllng day oi the 15*" General Elecudns ldr lne reason stated: (:1 the speaker failed |o lake lnlo account Ina! the names ol eessallon were only lssued on 21$‘ December 2022 3113: GRS made lne annuuncarrlenl on 10"‘ December s m wnDo.lvmxEcr-xAvYDFuuA “Nana s.n.l narlhnrwm .. UIQG e may r... nflilruflly -mm: mm. VI .nnnn Wm! 2022 at Ieevrng PPEM and lharsfurs tne 2w to 5% respondents ceased to be members of FPBM upon me tssuance cllhe §aId no|ioes, (.1) The speexer tertea to lake m|o aoooum that at at! malenal hmes betore and dunng we 15“ Generat Electrons me 2"“ to 5'" respondents were members at the PPEM es usmg me so n‘s logo in canlesl are not amount to a change of parly or bemg a member of FPEM tet tne speaker took Into account the exolanalton grven by me 2~= la 5*" resnondenls wllhoulgwmg FPBM a nghl Io wmmem on me same; and to me speaker varied to eenstaer that party happmg ts IHIQBI and the only reason «or atittng that me 2-’ to 5*" respondents were ens direcl members helore me 15"‘ Generat Etecuons was Io avoid tne enforcement at Anrcte 49A of lhe Feaeret Cansmulian. JD r~ w»ao.twmxEcrxAv*1DFuuA “Nate s.r.t navthnrwm be tr... e may r... nflmnuflly -mm: m.r.n VI mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

CA-A72NCvC-98-04/2022

PLAINTIF TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD DEFENDAN LOW THIAM ANN

STRIKING OUT - Whether the defendant had merits on defence - Registered consumer of the Plaintiff's company - Whether service irregular

06/12/2023

Puan Nor Izzati binti Zakaria

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=003ebfe3-011a-49f1-b334-827809603fd1&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT 1 IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT AT KUANTAN IN THE STATE OF PAHANG [CIVIL SUIT NO: CA-A72NCvC-98-04/2022] BETWEEN TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD [Company No.: 199001009294/ 200866-W] ...PLAINTIF DAN LOW THIAM ANN [Identity Card No.: 780717105943] ... DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (ENCLOSURE 19) Introduction [1] In this case, the Plaintiff filed a civil action against the Defendant for the loss of revenue under Electricity Supply Act 1990. Plaintiff obtained a judgment in default against the Defendant by the failure of the Defendant to enter appearance within the stipulated time. [2] The Defendant (vide Enclosure 19) then filed an application strike out the judgment in default entered against him pursuant to Order 13 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the ROC 2012"). 06/12/2023 16:32:25 CA-A72NCvC-98-04/2022 Kand. 39 S/N 478ABoB8UmzNIJ4CWA/0Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Brief Facts [2] The Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1965, having its registered address at No.129, Jalan Bangsar, 50732 Kuala Lumpur. Further, the Plaintiff is in the business of, inter alia, generating, transmitting and distributing electricity supply to various end users nationwide. [3] The Defendant is at all material times a consumer of the Plaintiff through the account No.6450210176150605 for the Defendant's premises having his registered address at No. 13 Atas, Jalan PNJ 1, Pinggiran Netas Jaya, 28400 Mentakab, Pahang Darul Makmur and/or No. 120, Batu 11 Cheras, Kampung Baru, 43200 Cheras, Selangor Darul Ehsan and/or No. 120 Kampung Baru, Batu 11 Cheras, 43200 Batu 9 Cheras, Selangor Darul Ehsan. [4] On or about 2/04/2020 the Plaintiff entered into a Power Supply Agreement signed by him dated 26/03/2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Agreement") with the Defendant wherein the Defendant had requested, and the Plaintiff had agreed, to provide the supply of electricity to the Defendant's premises at No. 13 Atas, Jalan PNJ 1, Pinggiran Netas Jaya, 28400 Mentakab, Pahang Darul Makmur. [5] The Defendant's application for electrical supply to the premises at No. 13 Atas, Jalan PNJ 1, Pinggiran Netas Jaya, 28400 Mentakab, Pahang Darul Makmur was made prior to the oral Tenancy Agreement dated 25/02/2020 with an individual named Yap Soon Tong. S/N 478ABoB8UmzNIJ4CWA/0Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 The Defendant's Application for Striking Out (Enclosure 19) [6] The Defendant applied an application to strike out the judgement in default pursuant to Order 13 Rule 8 the ROC 2012. The provision of Order 13 Rule 8 the ROC 2012 is reproduced hereunder: “8. Setting aside judgment (O. 13 r. 8) The Court may, on such terms as it thinks just, set aside or vary any judgment entered in pursuance of this Order. [7] The Defendant's application was supported by an affidavit (vide Enclosure 20) deposed by himself who after verifying the facts of the Defendant's application stated that he verily believed that the Defendant had defence with merits ('terdapat pembelaan bermerit', Enclosure 20, para. 46). [8] Upon perusing Enclosure 19, I believe there are two issues were raised by the Defendant. The first one is whether the service of the Writ Summons and Statement of Claim was perfectly served to the Defendant and the judgment was regularly obtained. The second issue is whether the Defendant had successfully stating facts showing that he had defence on merits. The Defendant’s arguments [9] The Defendant argued in the written submission (Enclosure 26) that Writ Summons and Statement of Claim were not perfectly served upon him as he claimed that he has never resided at his registered address at S/N 478ABoB8UmzNIJ4CWA/0Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 No. 13 Atas, Jalan PNJ 1, Pinggiran Netas Jaya, 28400 Mentakab, Pahang Darul Makmur. The Defendant further averred that although the service was served by way of substituted service, he was never been informed about the claim against him and had no knowledge about it until the judgment in default was entered against him. [10] The Defendant further argued that although the Court found that the service was perfectly served, the judgment still can be set aside when merits are disclosed and when the Court is satisfied that the defendant was not aware of the proceedings and was not avoiding service which is tantamount to knowledge of the proceeding. Thus, the Defendant submitted his defence by stating that Defendant had never ever requested from the Plaintiff to provide the supply of electricity to the Defendant's premises at No. 13 Atas, Jalan PNJ 1, Pinggiran Netas Jaya, 28400 Mentakab, Pahang Darul Makmur. The Plaintiff’s arguments [11] On the other side, the Plaintiff submitted that the Writ Summons and Statement of Claim was perfectly served to the Defendant by way of substituted service and the judgment was regularly obtained. However, the Defendant said that he doesn’t know about the claim. To rebut this, Plaintiff further asserted that it does not make sense as he was the one who acknowledged the Notice of Demand (NOD). Once the NOD was delivered to him, he must have known about the claim that was about to be taken against him. The Plaintiff submitted that the NOD was served to the Defendant on 14/2/2022 and it was delivered to him as he was the one who acknowledged the service by signing it at the back of the AR Registered Card. S/N 478ABoB8UmzNIJ4CWA/0Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Reasons for the decision i) Whether the Writ Summons and Statement of Claim were perfectly served; [12] As stated under Order 13 Rule 8 the ROC 2012, the Court may, on such terms as it thinks just, set aside or vary any judgment entered in pursuance of this Order. I refer to Order 42 Rule 13 the ROC 2012 that is stated as follows: “13. Setting aside or varying judgment and orders (O. 42 r. 13) Save as otherwise provided in these Rules, where provisions are made in these Rules for the setting aside or varying of any order or judgment, a party intending to set aside or to vary such order or judgment shall make an application to the Court and serve it on the party who has obtained the order or judgment within thirty days after the receipt of the order or judgment by him.” [13] In this case, the Writ Summons and Statement of Claim were served by way of submitted service. The Plaintiff had successfully proved to the Court that personal service was failed, thus substituted service was done and the judgment was obtained. I found nothing irregular in this process. In my opinion, the Defendant had slept on his rights when he received the NOD on 14/2/2022 and did nothing. He was supposed to immediately seek clarification from the Plaintiff when he received the said document denying the claim against him. S/N 478ABoB8UmzNIJ4CWA/0Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [14] The Defendant cannot turn around now saying that he does not know about the claim against him as the NOD was delivered to him and as he was the one who acknowledged the service by signing it at the back of the AR Registered Post Card. If necessary action was taken earlier by the Defendant, then this claim will not be taken place at all. Thus, I believe that the issue of service should not be discussed here because it was clear that Writ Summons and Statement of Claim was perfectly served to the Defendant by way of substituted service. ii) Whether the Defendant had successfully stating facts showing that he had defence on merits.; [15] In determining whether the Defendant had successfully stating facts that he had defence on merits, this Court is of the view to go thoroughly on the facts brought forward by the Defendant. The Defendant contended that he had never ever requested from the Plaintiff to provide the supply of electricity to the Defendant's premises at No. 13 Atas, Jalan PNJ 1, Pinggiran Netas Jaya, 28400 Mentakab, Pahang Darul Makmur. [16] It is germane for the Court to scrutinise this averment whether or not the Defendant had ever requested from the Plaintiff to provide the supply of electricity. Through my careful reading of both affidavits and submissions, there was rebuttal to this averment that the Defendant indeed had requested from the Plaintiff to provide the supply of electricity. This can be seen in the Afidavit Sokongan (Enclosure 20) under exhibit “LTA- 7”, where on 2/04/2020 the Plaintiff entered into the said agreement signed by him dated 26/03/2020 with the Defendant. S/N 478ABoB8UmzNIJ4CWA/0Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [17] This Court is of the view that the Defendant’s contention saying that he was not aware of the claim but the fact that he had signed at the back of AR Registered Post Card upon receiving the NOD was ridiculous. If that was so, why it took nearly 9 months long for the Defendant to file this application. An issue of forgery is so crucial and vital, an action should be taken earlier by the Defendant to make amend. It is pertinent for the Defendant to submit supporting argument in line with the Defendant’s narrative. A mere allegation is not enough and cannot sustain the argument. [18] After perusing the documents, in my opinion, the crux of the matter is whether the Defendant is at all material times a consumer of the Plaintiff through the account No.6450210176150605? The answer is positive. I refer to the High Court case in TENAGA NASIONAL BHD V EMPAYAR CANGGIH SDN BHD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ODVD MANUFACTURER SDN BHD) [2014] 8 MLJ 280 that provides as below: [25] I find the defendant's contention, that at the material time, the defendant's premise was rented out to Kemboja Jaguh Sdn Bhd (refer to paras 5.3 to 5.8 of the defence) to be without merits, as the supply of electricity to the defendant's premises is based on the power supply agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant (see exh P24) which at all material times, was valid and subsisting. Further the plaintiff's system still shows the defendant as the registered consumer and the monthly electricity bills for the defendant's premises are still issued in the name of the defendant. There was no evidence that the defendant has requested or managed to get the said Kemboja Jaguh Sdn Bhd to apply for a new meter or account with the S/N 478ABoB8UmzNIJ4CWA/0Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 plaintiff. Further the premise is owned by the defendant and as such the defendant is duly liable. [19] Reference also be made in the Court of Appeal case in THOMAS THOMAS @ MOHAN A/L K THOMAS v TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD [2018] 5 MLJ 831 provides as follows: “[16] Meter tampering, causing damage to meter or dishonest consumption of electricity are strictly criminal matters which do not and cannot affect TNB’s right to recover loss of revenue by way of civil proceedings pursuant to s 38(3)-(5). No registered consumer can walk away without paying anything to TNB on the ground that the meter had been damaged or tampered with without his knowledge. [17] In our view, in an action by TNB to recover loss of revenue resulting from meter tampering, a registered consumer cannot avail himself of such defence for the simple reason that it will result in unjust enrichment to the consumer. He can only be absolved of liability if he can show that no electricity was consumed at the premises during the period that the meter was tampered with. [18] It is not open to the appellant to say that he did not ‘benefit’ from the consumption of the electricity on the ground that the premises had been ‘continuously occupied by an unbroken chain of tenants’. The simple truth is, the premises belonged to him and he was the registered consumer under account No 012364675401.” S/N 478ABoB8UmzNIJ4CWA/0Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [20] Hence, it is crystal clear that the Defendant is up the creek without a paddle. From the principle as highlighted in both of the cases, it is an undoubted fact the Defendant is at all material times a consumer of the Plaintiff through the account No. 6450210176150605. Thus, I conclude that Defendant is therefore responsible for it and there were no merits in defence. Conclusion [21] For the reasons adumbrated above, this Court dismissed Enclosure 19 with cost RM500 to be paid to the Plaintiff. DATED: 6TH DECEMBER 2023 (NOR IZZATI BINTI ZAKARIA) Magistrate Magistrates' Court Kuantan, Pahang Counsel: For the Plaintiff – Sarita Ashok Khandhar from Messrs. Edorra Arfah Khandhar For the Defendant – Loo Pei Yen; Messrs. C.M. Lai & Partners S/N 478ABoB8UmzNIJ4CWA/0Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Legislation(s) referred: I) Order 13 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012; Case(s) referred: I) TENAGA NASIONAL BHD V EMPAYAR CANGGIH SDN BHD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ODVD MANUFACTURER SDN BHD) [2014] 8 MLJ 280; dan II) THOMAS THOMAS @ MOHAN A/L K THOMAS v TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD [2018] 5 MLJ 831 S/N 478ABoB8UmzNIJ4CWA/0Q **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-45A-48-08/2020

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] TERTUDUH Ong Hau Chan

Mahkamah ini telah mempertimbangkan dan memutuskan bahawa faktor kepentingan awam hendaklah diutamakan dan mengatasi kepentingan-kepentingan peribadi OKT. Ini kerana kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT adalah jenayah dadah yang merupakan suatu kesalahan yang berat dan serius.Setelah mendengar hujahan mitigasi dari kedua-dua pihak, Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara seumur hidup terhadap OKT dari tarikh tangkap dengan 12 kali sebatan sebagaimana diperuntukkan dalam seksyen 39B(2) ADB 1952 bagi pertuduhan pertama dan kedua.Kesalahan Di Bawah Seksyen 39A(1)Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa hukuman penjara 4 tahun (bermula dari tarikh tangkap) manakala hukuman sebatan tidak dikenakan menurut seksyen 288 KTJ kerana hukuman sebatan bagi pertuduhan Pertama dan Kedua ialah 24 sebatan kesemuanya. Kesalahan Di bawah Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa hukuman empat (4) tahun bagi pertuduhan terhadap OKT dari tarikh tangkap.Kesemua hukuman berjalan secara serentak dan dikira dari tarikh tangkapan. Segala ekshibit dikembalikan kepada polis melalui TPR untuk dilupuskan selepas rayuan. Ekshibit dokumentari disimpan dengan selamat di Mahkamah.

06/12/2023

YA Dr Suzana binti Muhamad Said

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=4482b488-5200-4ab4-9cfa-b7dd03a2b2c3&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: BA-45A-48-08/2020 DAN PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: BA-45A-49-08/2020 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN ONG HAU CHAN (NO KP: 911030-10-5813) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] Ong Hau Chan (OKT) telah dituduh dengan empat (4) pertuduhan iaitu dua (2) pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) dan satu (1) pertuduhan masing-masing di bawah seksyen 39A(1) dan seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (ADB) 1952. Pertuduhan-pertuduhan sepertimana di ekshibit P2 dan P4 seperti berikut: 06/12/2023 16:29:27 BA-45A-48-08/2020 Kand. 147 S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 (BA-45A-48-08/2020) Pertuduhan Pertama Bahawa kamu pada 25 Mei 2019, jam lebih kurang 9.45 malam bertempat di B-13-13, Tower B, Amerin Residence, Jalan Impian Indah, Taman Impian Indah, Seri Kembangan, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Ketamine seberat 37,623.9 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan dibawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39B(2) akta yang sama. Pertuduhan Kedua Bahawa kamu pada 25 Mei 2019, jam lebih kurang 9.45 malam bertempat di B-13-13, Tower B, Amerin Residence, Jalan Impian Indah, Taman Impian Indah, Seri Kembangan, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis 3,4 Methylenedioxy Methamphetamine (MDMA) seberat 299.15 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 39B(2) akta yang sama. Pertuduhan Ketiga S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Bahawa kamu pada 25 Mei 2019, jam lebih kurang 9.45 malam bertempat di B-13-13, Tower B, Amerin Residence, Jalan Impian Indah, Taman Impian Indah, Seri Kembangan, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam milikan dadah berbahaya jenis Methamphetamine seberat 15.30 gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39A(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen yang sama. BA-45A-49/2020 Pertuduhan Keempat Bahawa kamu pada 25 Mei 2019, jam lebih kurang 9.45 malam bertempat di B-13-13, Tower B, Amerin Residence, Jalan Impian Indah, Taman Impian Indah, Seri Kembangan, dalam Daerah Petaling, dalam negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah didapati dalam milikan dadah berbahaya jenis Nimetazepam seberat 1.25gram dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan dibawah seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum dibawah seksyen 12(3) akta yang sama. [2] Kesemua pertuduhan telah dibicarakan secara bersekali. NARATIF KES PENDAKWAAN [3] Pihak Pendakwaan telah mengemukakan seramai 6 orang saksi. Saksi-saksi tersebut adalah- S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 SP1 – Chee Kee Tong (Pemilik premis/rumah) SP2 – Sjn Md Suhaimi b Md Sihat (Jurufoto) SP3 – Insp Mohd Idzahar b Mohamed (Pengadu) SP4 – Insp Shaedan b Mohd Yusoff (Pegawai Penyiasat) SP5 – Sjn Muhammad Arwan b Masu’ut (Jurustor) SP6 – Khairul Anwar bin Norhan (Ahli Kimia) [4] Bertindak atas maklumat dadah maka pada 25 Mei 2019 satu tangkapan telah dibuat oleh Pengadu iaitu Insp Mohd Idzahar bin Mohamed (SP3). Sejurus tangkapan dibuat, turut dijumpai bersama OKT segugus kunci beserta dua kad akses. Hasil daripada tangkapan, SP3 ke Amerin Residence di mana dikatakan tempat tinggal OKT. Semasa pemeriksaan di rumah tersebut, SP3 dan pasukannya telah menjumpai bahan disyaki dadah di dalam almari sebuah bilik di rumah tersebut. [5] Barang-barang kes seterusnya dirampas. SP3 kemudiannya membawa balik ke balai untuk siasatan lanjut (Laporan Polis ekshibit P11 dan P12). SP3 turut membuat tandaan pada barang-barang kes seperti berikut: A plastik lutsinar berisi serbuk disyaki dadah syabu dengan ab: 165gram dalam bahagian tengah kanan almari B plastik lutsinar berisi serbuk disyaki dadah ketamine dengan ab: 441 gram di bahagian tengah kanan almari S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 C bekas plastik berisi pil pelbagai bentuk disyaki ecstacy dengan ab: 1035gram dalam bahagian tengah kanan almari D 40 keping aluminium foil berisi pil disyaki eramin 5 dengan ab: 120gram dalam bahagian tengah kanan almari E beg hitam dengan 1 alat penimbang, 1 alat penimbang digital, 3 mangkuk, 1 penyeduk dan 1 penapis dalam bahagian bawah kanan almari F kotak telwin dalamnya 6 peket Nestle Everyday berisi bahan disyaki dadah ketamine dalam bahagian kiri bawah almari G beg roda dalamnya 22 peket Nestle Everyday berisi bahan disyaki dadah ketamine dalam bahagian bawah kiri almari H beg roda spears dalamnya 22 peket Nestle Everyday berisi bahan disyaki dadah jenis ketamine dalam bahagian bawah kiri almari I kunci mangga pada pintu hadapan grill, 1 helai baju jenama Poligan dalam almari bilik no 2, 1 pasang seluar panjang jenama bu yue dalam almari bilik 2, 1 paspot atas nama OKT di atas meja kabinet TV dan 1 ‘tenancy agreement’ atas nama OKT dalam laci kabinet TV [6] SP3 seterusnya menyerahkan OKT serta barang rampasan kepada Pegawai Penyiasat yang bertugas iaitu Insp Shaedan bin Mohd Yusoff (SP4). [7] Siasatan lanjut oleh SP4 mengesahkan bahawa premis tersebut dihuni oleh OKT. SP4 turut mendapati bahawa tempat dadah yang dijumpai adalah dari bilik milik OKT di premis tersebut di mana barang kes telah diambil dari dalam laci almari milik OKT. SP4 juga mendapati tiada orang lain yang tinggal di rumah tersebut selain OKT. [8] Barang-barang kes disyaki dadah tersebut telah dihantar ke S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Jabatan Kimia Malaysia untuk dianalisa dan Ahli Kimia iaitu Encik Khairul Anwar bin Norhan (SP6) telah mengesahkan bahawa barang yang dirampas oleh SP3 adalah dadah-dadah yang disahkan sebagai dadah berbahaya jenis Ketamine, MDMA, Methamphetamine dan Nimetazepam sepertimana pertuduhan dan berat bersih bagi barang- barang salah tersebut seperti di ekshibit P25. BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN Kes prima facie [9] Di akhir kes Pendakwaan, tugas Mahkamah adalah untuk mempertimbangkan dan menilai secara maksimum keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak Pendakwaan bagi menentukan sama ada satu kes prima facie telah dikemukakan terhadap OKT dengan menilai keterangan saksi pihak Pendakwaan yang kredibel yang telah membuktikan segala intipati pertuduhan. Ini adalah seperti yang dinyatakan dalam seksyen 180 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ). Selain itu, Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Balachandran v PP [2005] 2 MLJ 301 telah menghuraikan akan ujian prima facie. [10] Justeru, bagi mengemukakan satu kes prima facie, pihak Pendakwaan perlu membuktikan intipati kesalahan iaitu: S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 (a) Dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti yang tersenarai dalam ADB 1952 dengan berat bersih seperti dalam pertuduhan; (b) Dadah tersebut berada dalam milikan OKT dan OKT mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah yang dirampas; dan (c) OKT telah melakukan perbuatan pengedaran dadah tersebut (berkaitan Pertuduhan Pertama dan Kedua). Pembuktian Initipati (a) Dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti yang tersenarai dalam ADB 1952 dengan berat bersih seperti dalam pertuduhan. [11] Berdasarkan keterangan SP6 iaitu Ahli Kimia yang melakukan analisa, tidak dipertikaikan bahawa barang kes dadah tersebut merupakan dadah berbahaya seperti yang disenarai dalam Jadual Pertama ADB 1952 iaitu jenis Ketamine seberat 37,623.9gram, MDMA seberat 299.15gram, Methamphetamine seberat 15.30gram dan Nimetazepam seberat 1.25gram. Ini disahkan pada ekshibit P25. [12] Mahkamah menerima hasil analisa dan keterangan SP6 selaras S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 prinsip dalam kes Munusamy Vengadasalam v PP [1987] 1 MLJ 492. Intipati pertama telah dibuktikan. Pembuktian Initipati (b) Dadah tersebut berada dalam milikan OKT dan OKT mempunyai pengetahuan terhadap dadah yang dirampas. [13] Untuk pembuktian dadah tersebut berada dalam milikan OKT, rujukan boleh dibuat dalam kes-kes berikut bagi memahami dan menterjemahkan maksud milikan atau “possession”. (antaranya kes-kes Chan Pean Leon v PP [1956] 1 MLJ 237 , Toh Ah Loh & Mak Thim v R [1949] 1 MLJ 54, Leow Nghee Lim v Reg [1956] 1 MLJ 28, PP v Hafiszamri b Ahmad & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 497, Saad Ibrahim v. PP [1968] 1 MLJ 158; Pendakwa Raya v. Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2005] 6 MLJ 393; Public Prosecutor v Abdul Rahman bin Akif [2007] 5 MLJ 1; Choo Yoke Choy v PP [1992] 2 MLJ 632 ; PP v Hong Ho Aik [2008] 7 MLJ 589 dan PP v Kung Yang Song [2010] 9 CLJ 483 dirujuk). [14] Pemilikan harus mempunyai ciri-ciri kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan akan barang yang dimilikinya. Kawalan atau jagaan membawa maksud mempunyai penjagaan dan pengawalan atas barang tersebut. Seterusnya, pengetahuannya akan sifat barang yang berada S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 dalam pengawalan dan penjagaan itu menunjukkan pemilikan ke atas barang tersebut. Dengan itu, pemilikan adalah apabila seseorang dalam keadaan mempunyai kuasa untuk menguruskan barang itu sebagai pemunya dengan mengecualikan orang lain. [15] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Abdul Rahman bin Akif (supra) menggunapakai prinsip dalam kes Tan Ah Tee & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1978] 1 MLRA 273; [1980] 1 MLJ 49 yang memutuskan: “Indeed, even if there were no statutory presumptions available to the prosecution, once the prosecution had proved the fact of physical control or possession of the plastic bag and the circumstances in which this was acquired by and remained with the second appellant, the trial judges would be justified in finding that she had possession of the contents of the plastic bag within the meaning of the Act unless she gave an explanation of the physical fact which the trial judges accepted or which raised a doubt in their minds that she had possession of the contents within the meaning of the Act.”. [16] Seterusnya Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Parlan bin Dadeh v Public Prosecutor [2009] 1 CLJ 717; [2008] 6 MLJ 19 memutuskan bahawa intipati mengenai pengetahuan boleh dilihat dari inferen atau kesimpulan fakta- "Proof of knowledge is very often a matter of inference. The material from which the inference of knowledge can be drawn varies from case to case. It would be sufficient for the prosecution to prove facts S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 from which it could properly be inferred that the accused had the necessary knowledge." [17] Intipati yang diperlukan untuk membuktikan pemilikan ialah kawalan fizikal dan pengetahuan. Untuk memenuhi unsur fizikal, ia mesti ditunjukkan bahawa OKT berada berhampiran dengan dadah dan dia boleh mengendalikannya seolah-olah ia adalah miliknya. Bagi unsur mental atau mens rea pula, perlu dibuktikan bahawa OKT berniat atau berhasrat untuk berurusan dengan dadah tersebut (intended to deal with the drugs) seperti diputuskan dalam kes Abdul Rahman bin Akif (supra). Dalam erti kata lain, keperluan unsur fizikal dan mental tersebut perlu wujud dan dibuktikan sebelum pemilikan dapat dibuktikan. [18] Dengan itu, pihak Pendakwaan harus membuktikan OKT mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan akan dadah yang berada dalam jagaannya itu dengan mengecualikan orang lain mempunyai akses pada tempat di mana dadah itu dikatakan dijumpai. Selain itu, pengetahuan itu boleh ditunjukkan dari fakta hal keadaan sesuatu kes itu. [19] Mahkamah mendapati OKT mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan terhadap barang kes dadah tersebut berdasarkan fakta-fakta berikut- S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (a) SP3 dan pasukan tiba di premis yang dihuni OKT dan barang kes telah dijumpai di satu bilik di mana OKT merupakan penyewa di premis tersebut; (b) SP3 telah memeriksa dan merampas kesemua barang salah tersebut. Turut dirampas dari almari yang sama adalah sehelai baju, sehelai seluar, passport antarabangsa milik OKT dan perjanjian sewaan premis (Tenancy Agreement) atas nama OKT selaku penyewa dengan pemilik premis tersebut iaitu SP1; dan (c) Tiada tanda-tanda yang menunjukkan OKT menghuni premis tersebut dengan mana-mana individu lain semasa SP3 dan pasukannya menyerbu masuk premis tersebut. [20] Nas undang-undang adalah jelas berkaitan dadah yang dijumpai telah disembunyikan di dalam laci almari di dalam bilik OKT di mana dadah tersebut dibungkus di dalam beg peket Nestle Everyday (peket susu tepung). Dadah-dadah tersebut bukan sekadar disembunyikan di dalam almari malah dibungkus dengan peket susu serbuk agar tidak dikesan oleh pihak berkuasa. Mana mungkin untuk mengatakan OKT S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 tidak mengetahui kandungan peket-peket susu serbuk tersebut malahan tidak ada penjelasan mengapa OKT menyimpan ‘susu’ dalam stok yang begitu banyak. [21] Di dalam kes ini, OKT merupakan penghuni dan penyewa kepada premis dan bilik yang mana dadah tersebut itu dijumpai. Merujuk kes PP v Zolzaya Natsagroj [2015] 6 CLJ 579, Mahkamah menyatakan- “(1) The prosecution's evidence showed that the bag containing the drugs was found inside the respondent's bag concealed from view, the respondent was the sole tenant of the room and nobody else had the key to the room. Therefore, at the material time the respondent had actual possession, custody and control of the exh. P67. The respondent had admitted putting the drugs in her bag. The concealment of the bag supported the inference of knowledge of the contents of the bag. Based on the quantity and weight of the drugs, the trial judge had rightly invoked the presumption under s. 37(da) of the Act. Therefore, the trial judge had correctly ordered the respondent to enter her defence. (paras 21)” [22] OKT ditangkap hanya selepas SP3 dan pasukannya telah menyerbu premis tersebut. OKT pada asalnya tidak berada di rumah. Beliau hanya dibawa pulang kemudian oleh SP3 dan pasukannya apabila OKT telah disoalsiat oleh SP3. Hasil daripada soalsiasat tersebut, barang-barang salah tersebut dijumpai di premis OKT. Selain itu, semasa serbuan dilakukan, tiada individu lain yang berada di rumah tersebut. Oleh itu, adalah inferens yang nyata bahawa OKT mempunyai pengetahuan ke atas dadah yang dijumpai. S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [23] Selain itu, pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan OKT mempunyai kawalan atau jagaan dan pengetahuan akan dadah yang berada dalam jagaannya itu dengan mengecualikan orang lain mempunyai akses pada tempat di mana dadah itu dikatakan dijumpai. Berdasarkan ini intipati (b) telah dipenuhi. Pembuktian Initipati (c) OKT telah melakukan perbuatan pengedaran dadah tersebut. [24] Di dalam kes ini, bagi intipati pengedaran, memandangkan intipati pemilikan telah berjaya dibuktikan, maka Mahkamah membuat dapatan bahawa satu kes prima facie dibuktikan menurut seksyen 180(4) KTJ, dengan pemakaian anggapan bawah seksyen 37(da) ADB 1972 untuk pengedaran berdasarkan berat dadah. Oleh itu, anggapan pengedaran di bawah s 37(da) ADB 1952 adalah terpakai. [25] Intipati (c) telah dipenuhi. KEPUTUSAN DI AKHIR KES PENDAKWAAN [26] Setelah Mahkamah meneliti keterangan melalui saksi-saksi S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 Pendakwaan bersama ekshibit yang dikemukakan dalam kes ini, hujahan kedua-dua pihak serta setelah diaplikasikan prinsip penilaian maksima terhadap kesemua keterangan yang dikemukakan, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa pihak Pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan bahawa wujudnya suatu kes prima facie terhadap OKT berdasarkan keterangan yang jelas untuk intipati pertama dan kedua serta dengan bergantung kepada anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) ADB 1952 bagi intipati ketiga. [27] OKT telah dipanggil untuk membela diri dan diberikan tiga (3) pilihan sama ada untuk memberi keterangan secara bersumpah, memberi keterangan bersumpah dalam kandang OKT atau berdiam diri. OKT memilih memberi keterangan secara bersumpah. KES PEMBELAAN [28] Di peringkat Pembelaan, OKT memilih untuk memberi keterangan bersumpah dengan menggunakan Pernyataan Saksi (PS-D1) serta keterangan lisan. OKT telah memilih untuk tidak memanggil lain-lain saksi. Naratif kes Pembelaan [29] Berikut adalah keterangan OKT melalui penyata saksinya, PS-D1. S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Secara ringkasnya, OKT menyatakan dia berasa kasihan dengan rakannya Goh Liang Sin bersama teman serumah Goh Liang Sin iaitu Wong Wai Lin yang mana tempoh penyewaannya hampir tamat dan menawarkan untuk tinggal sementara di rumah OKT. [30] Seterusnya OKT menyatakan pada hari kejadian pada 29 Mei 2019, rakannya ingin memindah barang ke rumahnya tetapi OKT tiada di rumah dan teman wanita OKT bernama Pham Nhunga yang berada di rumah OKT telah membenarkan untuk urusan pemindahan barang ke rumah OKT. [31] OKT seterusnya menyatakan pada perenggan 14 PS-D1- “Pada jam lebih kurang 12 tengah hari teman wanita saya telah memaklumkan saya bahawa Goh Liang Sin dan Wong Wai Lin telah datang ke Condo saya dan meletakkan beg pakaian, kotak-kotak dan barang lain ke dalam bilik kedua di unit kami. Mengikut teman wanita saya selepas meletakkan barang tersebut di situ mereka telah terus beredar.”. [32] OKT seterusnya menyatakan pada sebelah petang jam 4.30, Goh Liang Sin telah memintanya menghantar ke tempat kerja kerana tiada pengangkutan. Oleh itu OKT telah membantunya ke tempat kerja. Setiba di tempat kerja Goh Liang Sin, OKT telah diserbu sekumpulan lelaki yang memperkenalkan diri sebagai polis. Tiada barang salah dijumpai pada OKT. S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [33] OKT kemudian dibawa ke rumahnya sekitar jam 8 malam dan dadah telah dijumpai. OKT menafikan pengetahuan mengenai dadah yang dijumpai dengan menyatakan ianya adalah milik Goh Liang Sin dan/atau Wong Wai Lin dan OKT tidak pernah menunjukkan almari tempat simpanan dadah itu kepada Polis. ANALISA DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH DI AKHIR KES PEMBELAAN [34] Beban pembuktian pihak Pembelaan di akhir kes Pembelaan adalah dengan menimbulkan keraguan munasabah ke atas kes Pendakwaan. Manakala beban ke atas pihak Pendakwaan pula adalah untuk membuktikan kes melampaui keraguan yang munasabah. Ini seperti yang diperuntukkan dalam seksyen 182A KTJ. [35] Berdasarkan seksyen 182A KTJ, jika Pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kesnya melampaui sebarang keraguan yang munasabah, OKT hendaklah didapati bersalah dan disabitkan. Namun jika sebaliknya, Mahkamah hendaklah melepas dan membebaskan tertuduh. (Rujuk kes Balachandran v. PP [2005] 2 MLJ 301; [2005] 1 CLJ 85 dan Mohamad Radhi bin Yaacob v. PP [1991] 3 MLJ 169). Kes Public Prosecutor v S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Mohd Amin bin Mohd Razali & Ors [2002] 5 MLJ 406). Mahkamah Persekutuan juga telah menjelaskan tentang maksud seksyen 182A KTJ. [36] Oleh itu, OKT memikul beban untuk membangkitkan keraguan munasabah ke atas kes Pendakwaan selain menyangkal anggapan pengedaran dadah di bawah seksyen 37(da) ADB 1952 atas imbangan kebarangkalian. [37] Menjadi anggapan bahawa OKT mengedar dadah tersebut sehingga dibuktikan sebaliknya (until the contrary is proved). OKT dengan ini perlu mengemukakan keterangan yang mencukupi untuk mengakas anggapan tersebut atas imbangan kebarangkalian (rujuk kes PP v. Yuvaraj [1969] 2 MLJ 89; [1968] 1 LNS 116, Ng Chai Kern v PP [1994] 2 MLJ 210; [1994] 2 CLJ 593 dan Mohamad Radhi v PP [1991] 3 MLJ 169; [1991] 3 CLJ 2073). [38] Setelah dibuktikan OKT mempunyai milikan mens rea dadah tersebut, keterangan SP6 yang tidak dicabar berkaitan jenis dan dadah yang terlibat telah membolehkan aplikasi anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) ADB 1952. [39] Setelah menilai keterangan OKT dan saksi pihak Pendakwaan, S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Mahkamah mendapati naratif pembelaan OKT adalah sukar untuk dipercayai memandangkan ianya merupakan penafian kosong yang tidak menimbulkan sebarang keraguan munasabah ke atas kes Pendakwaan yang telah berjaya dibuktikan kesnya. Keterangan OKT seolah dibuat semata-mata untuk melepaskan diri dari kesalahan yang telah dilakukan. Tiada keterangan bukti lain yang menyangkal bahawa dadah telah dijumpai di premis yang diduduki OKT. [40] Mahkamah juga mendapati bahawa atas imbangan kebarangkalian, OKT telah gagal mengakas atau mematahkan anggapan pengedaran. Mahkamah mendapati cerita dan pembelaan OKT tidak menimbulkan sebarang keraguan yang munasabah bahawa OKT tidak mempunyai jagaan dan kawalan atas dadah yang dijumpai di premis yang didudukinya dan dadah bukan miliknya. [41] Ini berdasarkan kes Liam Heng Boon v. PP [2014] 5 MLJ 259 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan: "So the appellant had to rebut the operative presumption of trafficking under s. 37(da) of the DDA on the balance of probabilities. That level of rebuttal places a higher evidentiary burden on the appellant." [42] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa keterangan bukti kes Pembelaan S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 bukan sahaja sekadar satu penafian tetapi juga tidak menyakinkan (not convincing). Pembelaan OKT tidak disokong (uncorroborated) dengan keterangan dan pembelaan yang dikemukakan adalah penafian semata- mata yang tidak disertai dengan bukti kukuh. Oleh kerana kes pembelaan hanya sekadar penafian semata-mata, ia tidak dapat membantu OKT. [43] Penafian semata-mata tanpa sebarang keterangan sokongan tidak dapat menimbulkan sebarang keraguan yang munasabah (rujuk kes Ong Hooi Beng v PP [2015] MLJU 22 (CA) dan Ali Tan bin Abdullah v PP [2013] 2 MLJ 676 (CA)). Ia juga seperti diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes D.A. Duncan v PP [1980] 2 MLJ 195- “[4] Now this evidence, if accepted and believed, is clearly sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the appellant. The High Court at Alor Star accepted it and called on the defence. The defence was, in effect, a simple denial of the evidence connecting the appellant with the four boxes. We cannot see any plausible ground for saying that the four boxes were not his. In the circumstances of the prosecution evidence, the High Court came, in or view, to the correct conclusion that his denial did not cast a doubt on the prosecution case against the appellant”. [44] Pada peringkat ini, OKT seharusnya menyangkal anggapan di bawah seksyen 37(da) ADB 1952. Walaubagaimanapun, pembelaan OKT yang bersifat penafian semata-mata tanpa keterangan sokongan menunjukkan Pembelaan gagal menyangkal anggapan tersebut. [45] Seterusnya dalam kes Mohd Hanafi Safii v PP [2012] 1 LNS 814; S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [2013] 5 MLJ 87 Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan: “It is thus not enough for an accused merely to assert absence of knowledge. The facts of the case must be examined as a whole to see whether he had good reason to suspect that he was carrying drugs. In Yeo Choon Huat v. PP [1998] 1 SLR 217, this court held (at pp. 226-227): In short, ignorance is a defence only when there is no reason for suspicion and no right and opportunity of examination; ignorance simpliciter is not enough.” [46] Berdasarkan kepada prinsip-prinsip kes di atas, adalah terbukti keterangan OKT ini hanyalah bersifat penafian semata-mata dan tidakpun menimbulkan sebarang keraguan yang munasabah. Selain itu, Pembelaan juga tidak memanggil mana-mana saksi untuk mengesahkan versi OKT di dalam kes ini walaupun berpeluang berbuat sedemikian. Alasan yang dinyatakan pihak Pembelaan semasa menutup kes ialah “We applied for subpoenas for Wong Wai Ling and Goh Liang Sing we are unable to trace them.” (rujuk Nota keterangan halaman 106). [47] Oleh itu, setelah meneliti keterangan kes Pembelaan terhadap kes Pendakwaan dan menimbangkan keseluruhan keterangan kes ini, Mahkamah mendapati pihak Pembelaan telah gagal membangkitkan keraguan munasabah ke atas elemen pemilikan mens rea dadah berbahaya seperti dalam pertuduhan. S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [48] Seterusnya Mahkamah mendapati pihak Pembelaan juga telah gagal menyangkal anggapan pengedaran dadah di bawah seksyen 37(da) ADB 1952 yang terpakai terhadapnya sepertimana mengikut prinsip yang diputuskan dalam kes Mat v Public Prosecutor [1963] 1 LNS 82; [1963] 1 MLJ 263. [49] Dengan itu setelah Mahkamah ini menimbang kesemua keterangan, didapati bahawa OKT gagal menimbulkan sebarang keraguan munasabah ke atas kes pihak Pendakwaan mengenai dadah yang dimilikinya serta atas imbangan kebarangkalian gagal mematahkan anggapan pengedaran ke atas dadah tersebut. Sebaliknya pihak Pendakwaan telah membuktikan kesnya melampaui keraguan munasabah atas alasan yang telah dijelaskan. Sehubungan itu, Mahkamah mensabitkan OKT dengan kesemua pertuduhan terhadapnya. Isu-isu Lain (a) Saksi yang tidak dipanggil [50] Di dalam hujahan pihak Pembelaan, antara isu yang diutarakan adalah bahawa terdapat saksi-saksi yang tidak ditawarkan kepada pihak Pembelaan antaranya Wong Wai Lin, Goh Liang Sin dan Ahmad Nizam S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 (penama-penama). Pihak Pendakwaan menghujahkan pertuduhan ke atas OKT di dalam kes ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa barang salah ditemui di dalam rumah OKT sendiri dan bukanlah dijumpai di mana- mana tempat lain yang melibatkan penama-penama tersebut. Oleh itu, penama-penama bukanlah saksi material. [51] Persoalan yang timbul adalah adakah pihak Polis telah menjalankan siasatan dengan baik? Berdasarkan keterangan terdapat dua unit telah diserbu pihak Polis di Amerin Residence di mana salah satunya merupakan rumah OKT dan satu lagi rumah Goh Liang Sin. Mereka tidak dipanggil kerana bukan saksi material untuk kes ini. Pihak Pembelaan juga bercadang untuk memanggil mereka sebagai saksi pembelaan tetapi akhirnya tidak dipanggil. Berkenaan ‘teman wanita’ Vietnam, walaupun terdapat usaha mencari tetapi tidak dapat dijumpai. [52] Pihak Pendakwaan seterusnya menghujahkan bahawa siasatan telah dibuat mengikut SOP yang ditetapkan dan tindakan untuk membentuk satu pertuduhan ke atas OKT telah dibuat berdasarkan hasil siasatan dan keterlibatan OKT. Penama-penama yang dibangkitkan Pembelaan tidak langsung berkait dengan barang salah yang ditemui di dalam rumah OKT dan tidak dibuktikan. S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [53] Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kes Ghazalee bin Kassim and Ors v PP [2008] 1 MLRA 381 dan kes Mohd Shamshir bin Mohd Rashid v PP (2008) 6 CLJ 768 adalah berkaitan. [54] Oleh itu, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan Pendakwaan bahawa penama-penama bukan saksi yang material untuk unfolding the prosecution’s case memandangkan peranan penama-penama tersebut tiada kaitan dengan penemuan barang salah di dalam premis OKT. (b) Pernyataan Rakaman Percakapan di bawah Seksyen 112 KTJ [55] Pihak Pembelaan telah berhujah untuk mendapatkan pernyataan rakaman percakapan penama-penama. Prinsip undang-undang berkaitan seksyen 112 KTJ adalah jelas (Husdi v Pendakwa Raya [1980] 2 MLJ 80). Oleh itu isu ini tidak dapat dipertimbangkan. Mitigasi [56] Budibicara menentukan hukuman adalah terletak kepada Mahkamah yang membicarakan. Sebagaimana diperuntukkan di dalam seksyen 183 KTJ, apabila seseorang OKT itu disabitkan dengan kesalahan, Mahkamah hendaklah menjatuhkan hukuman menurut undang-undang. Di dalam kes Jafa bin Daud [1981] 1 MLJ 315 telah S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 diputuskan bahawa: “A sentence according to law" means that the sentence must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section, but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles.” [57] Berpandukan kepada kes Jafa bin Daud (supra), budibicara tersebut hendaklah berpandukan kepada prinsip undang-undang yang telah ditetapkan. Dalam mempertimbangkan hukuman yang sesuai dan munasabah terhadap OKT bagi pertuduhan terhadapnya, Mahkamah ini telah turut mempertimbangkan kesemua faktor-faktor peringanan hukuman yang dihujahkan oleh Peguambela OKT [58] Dalam rayuan mitigasi, Peguambela telah merujuk dan memohon Mahkamah mempertimbangkan hukuman alternatif selain hukuman mati setelah pindaan yang baharu kepada seksyen 39B ADB 1952 agar menjatuhkan hukuman pemenjaraan seumur hidup. Selain itu, ini merupakan kesalahan pertama OKT. [59] Mahkamah mempunyai pilihan untuk menjatuhkan hukuman mati atau penjara seumur hidup dan minimum 12 kali sebatan ke atas OKT di bawah seksyen 39B(2) ADB 1952. S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [60] Semasa OKT dituduh dan mula dibicarakan, hukuman bagi kesalahan pengedaran dadah di bawah seksyen 39B(1)(a) ADB 1952 adalah hukuman mati. Namun menerusi Akta Pemansuhan Hukuman Mati Mandatori 2023 (Akta 846), yang berkuatkuasa pada 4 Julai 2023 melalui warta [PU(B) 229/2023] bagi kesalahan di bawah seksyen 39B ADB 1952 telah dipinda iaitu apabila disabitkan hendaklah dihukum dengan hukuman mati atau penjara seumur hidup dan hendaklah, jika dia tidak dijatuhkan hukuman mati, dihukum sebat tidak kurang daripada 12 sebatan. Ini bermakna, budi bicara diberi sepenuhnya kepada Mahkamah untuk menentukan pilihan hukuman (rujuk kes: Loh Hock Seng v Public Prosecutor [1980] 2 MLJ 13 dan DA Duncan v PP (supra). [61] Manakala seksyen 3 Criminal Justice Act 1953 (Revised 1988) [Akta 345] mentafsirkan hukuman penjara seumur hidup sebagai pemenjaraan untuk tempoh 30 tahun. [62] Mahkamah ini telah mempertimbangkan dan memutuskan bahawa faktor kepentingan awam hendaklah diutamakan dan mengatasi kepentingan-kepentingan peribadi OKT. Ini kerana kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh OKT adalah jenayah dadah yang merupakan suatu kesalahan yang berat dan serius. S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 HUKUMAN PERTUDUHAN PERTAMA DAN KEDUA [63] Setelah mendengar hujahan mitigasi dari kedua-dua pihak, Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman penjara seumur hidup terhadap OKT dari tarikh tangkap dengan 12 kali sebatan sebagaimana diperuntukkan dalam seksyen 39B(2) ADB 1952 bagi pertuduhan pertama dan kedua. PERTUDUHAN KETIGA Kesalahan Di Bawah Seksyen 39A(1) [64] Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa hukuman penjara 4 tahun (bermula dari tarikh tangkap) manakala hukuman sebatan tidak dikenakan menurut seksyen 288 KTJ kerana hukuman sebatan bagi pertuduhan Pertama dan Kedua ialah 24 sebatan kesemuanya. PERTUDUHAN KEEMPAT Kesalahan Di bawah Seksyen 12(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 [65] Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa hukuman empat (4) tahun bagi pertuduhan terhadap OKT dari tarikh tangkap. [66] Kesemua hukuman berjalan secara serentak dan dikira dari tarikh S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 tangkapan. [67] Segala ekshibit dikembalikan kepada polis melalui TPR untuk dilupuskan selepas rayuan. Ekshibit dokumentari disimpan dengan selamat di Mahkamah. (SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI SHAH ALAM (JENAYAH 4) TARIKH: 3 Disember 2023 S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 PIHAK-PIHAK PEGUAMBELA Messrs Grace S. Nathan Advocates and Solicitors Suite 11.01, Level 11 South Wing Menara OBYU 4, Jalan PJU 8/8A Damansara Perdana 47820 Petaling Jaya, Selangor. PENDAKWAAN TPR Mohd. Heikal Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor S/N iLSCRABStEqcrfdA6Kyww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-42S-4-03/2022

PERAYU Ee Yong Nan RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya [TIMBALAN PENDAKWA RAYA ]

Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - s.307 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ) – kegagalan memfailkan petisyen rayuan dalam tempoh empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh penerimaan alasan penghakiman dan nota keterangan – tiada permohonan pelanjutan masa untuk pemfailan petisyen rayuan di luar tempoh masa - hampir dua setengah bulan dari tarikh penerimaan alasan penghakiman dan nota keterangan.

06/12/2023

YA Dr Wendy Ooi Su Ghee

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=9a0c0897-78fc-4654-bf91-bd19cd188c79&Inline=true

06/12/2023 14:36:59 BA-42S-4-03/2022 Kand. 34 S/N lwgMmvx4VEa/kb0ZzRiMeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N lwgMmvx4VEa/kb0ZzRiMeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N lwgMmvx4VEa/kb0ZzRiMeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N lwgMmvx4VEa/kb0ZzRiMeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N lwgMmvx4VEa/kb0ZzRiMeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N lwgMmvx4VEa/kb0ZzRiMeQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal mx—¢2s—a—n3/2022 Kand. 34 Jb/)2/201] ,4 as 52 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA DI sum ALAM uALAM NEGERI ssumoon DARUL ENSAN FERBICAKAAN JENAYAN NO BA-425-4-47:!/M22 a ANTARA EE vane NAN vsmvu (Nombor. K/P: 9ao1ue—uH3na) DAN PENDAKWA RAVA RESFONDEN 51,555 EENQNAKIMAN Pannlnalin [11 ml mm pevrnahonan psvayu mm psnangguhan ks: bag pelamikan paguzm bani memvaukan psnsyen rayuan Lntamelikang K 5 [21 Pads 23 a2 2022, perayu man disahnlkan dangan kesamhan m bawah s 323 Kanun Ksseksaan ('kasa\aI1an s 323 KK“) an 5 37511) Kamm Keseksaan rkasalahan 5.37am KK") aleh Mahkamah Sasyen Kuala Kubu sham, Smangur Keane-aua kssmahan 5323 KK dan kasalahan s 376(1) KK «sum dldengzrsszzam bursama (31 Bag! kesawanan s.a23 KK. perayu cavan amuxum penjam selama lapan (5) bulan dari tankh jaluh hukum 12:: n2 21122) manakaia hag! kesalahan 537511) KK, De41auIe\ahdmukum penjava sa\ama dua ba\as x w Vvrgmnmavzamzoufixmo -ms Sum IHIWDIY M“ be .15.. m van; M nugvuuly mm; mm. VII mum puns! (12) (ahun nan tarikh ianm hukum (25 02 2022; dan Yuma (5) sahalan «man Keane-dua hukuman lwa lelnh fllarahkan barrjalln sscars serenlak [41 Terkrlan dangan ksvulusan-kepulusin hikim Mcara, pelayu |a\aI1 memlIHksn Moms Rayuan~No(Is Rsyuan oenanxn 2: 02.2023 bag! kesalahan s.32s KK (wens Rayuiin s 323 KK‘) nan luau baa! kssalahan 5 370(1) KK(‘Nn(is Rayuan 5.378(1) KK"| malami paguambexam Teluan Solehuddln 5. ozver yang Jusla mempakan Déguambma bagi psrayu di Danngkal mahknmah blcara. (51 nenoqsmunoan Derllksanaan nukuman-huxuman demen Jaminan bemaaar sebenyak RM15,Dau—uD dengan secrang penmmm natas Pannohonan nerayu. mankaman mcara |s|ah mamhanavkan [61 Nov: Rsyuan :. 323 KK wan asasnsman an bawah kas Na BA-41S- 6-U3/2022 maneksla Nous Rayuan s 375(1) KK xewan umnankan an hawah kss Nu. EA—42S—4-03/2022. m Taflkh peflgurusan kes panama (15: cm) bag! kedus-dua ruyuan mu man dvlslapkan pada 07.04 2022 Salanjumya, baberapa usnkh Parwumsan ks: lug: Ie\ah anexapxan. Iiflu 20.05 2022 ('20 cm. 07 07 2022 (“am cm"). 24.00 2022 (an cm’): 24 11.2022 cs“ cm; 22.02 2023 ('6" cm; 20 03 2023 (“7‘'‘ cm), on 06 2023 (-50 cm); 13.01 2023 (‘am cm, 2300 2023 {"100 cm as alas alasan bahawa alasan Denghakvman den nova kalarangan 1'APNK1a|3sbul‘)be1um sadva unmk d\:e(ahkIn kepada nmyu den nmak resnonaen [3] Dari |ankh 07 04 2022 @ 1-‘ cm tehingga 21.09 2022 @ 4'0 cm, pevayu nadir ssndin dan man msmaldumkan kepada mahkamah bag: bullau mun mslanux paauam. Olah nu. pm 24 11 2022 @ Oarikh pengurusan kehma @ 5*“ cm, perayu (elah d\wak\1< o\eh Teluan Rayshan Tan 5. Co 1'peguambe\a perayu'). IN MgMnm4v£:m:0ufixM:u -um smm ...m.mm be 0;... .2 mm .. mmuny mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm [9] Selanjulnya, ma\a\u1 surll Mshkamah Sssyen Kus1a Kuhn Eham, selsngar benalikh u4.u9.2u23, APNK wvsebm lalah mssrankan mam pos berda1tarA R kepada psquambeli perayu dart pihak ruponden [111] Pm 21o1:.2a2a(-11"- cm), paguambela parayu 1e1an mengakm menenma APNK Iersehut can mamakmmkan nmwa muruka dalam omses memfallkan pshsyen rayuan-peflsyen myuan. Olsh 1111, tarikh pengurusan aalanjulnya Ielah amupxan pads ns.112o2a (-12* cm unluk psguambela perayu bemuatdsrmkian. [11] Pads us11 202:1 @ 12- CM, peguamnexa pemyu (e\ah mamakmmkan kepada mahkamah Im bahawa peflsyen myuan1)sI1syan rzyuin maslh mum umkan. Namun. mereka aken mamiaflkan permnhorvarwelmohonan umuk Iamulan mm memandangkan 1emapa1 hebarapa dokuman yang dlpsflukan dun Mahkamah Kuala Kuhn Eharu. Selangor. Mm‘ um psngumsan sslanju|nya man aneaapkan paua 25.11 2023 (-13'" cm [12] Namun. sehari sabalum lankh Dengurusin kes @ 13“ CM‘ peguambeva pemyu 1a1ah msanaaukan sum benankn 27112025 dan memakmmkan bahawa merska man menaflmaarahan umuk manank uni danpada mewaklll parayu di alas a\asan»aIasan bahawa — a) Kegagalan anakguam msmbeflkan kelerangan yang benar (hue ms ems case) b) Kagagalan anakguarn unmk mambekmkan dckumen asal sepem yang man dusnflkan c) Kegagamn unmk membayar fee peguam sapam yang dliannkan wavaupun man yang mencukupi man dlberikan !NVVr§MrmxAVE:lkb0bR1M1ID -um s.n.1...m.m111.. 1;... 1: van; .. nr1g\ruHIy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum wrm rm oven Ilu, pads 23112023 (-13'" cw. parayu man new ax mahkamah um canoe Denuambela dan marnnllnn panangguhan kss unluk me\an(Ik Penuambem baru. unannu-ununna [141 Talacara rayuan janayan ke Mahkamah Tmggi adalah lelkanflung dslam 5.301 KTJ sag: Muan pamnonan inn, 3 sum) dan 5.30719) KTJ mam. dllujuk Bag! ksmudahan vemahaman din Nlukan, yaksyelv sekswn barksnaan adalah d\nya|akan m bawah ml — s cm Pruoudum [or upon! r41 Wm" Ioumen day! liter the copy was amum a/d-asvnn has [nan “ma as pm»/mudm suasodmfl 13;, m. PDIILIHI smmodyu mm In. mm of the Magmm com 51 ma. ms ms! was my 5 Damon M Man»! In mpllmtc 5497215211 1.: the Mgll Conn (5) {er (7) 151 m; n - mm». or Ippsal rs rlol fiodged wvmm me lime pruaeflbsd by mu semen We appeal my a. damned In have been Mmdmwn Ind rm mar Cam! sum mom Rs sunluncc m ondur Nany my 0/txacul/an ha: om Srunl:d,bmno1MVwIm=In cwvtslnzd mu bu dc-mm In hvmtorrI.w!<( L»: paws conlsrrad upon a Mos by mm m nanaun Mahkamah [151 Nasan-alasan wng flxbengknkan o\eh perayu umuk penangguhan kss adalah disebahkan peuuamhala parayu Ielah menank um dan mewakm behau dan peraw mam melsmlk psguambsia ham. Foauamhnla Ptrnyu [vs] Menunfl perayu. psguambewanya musk lag! mewukih behau malalui surat banarikh 21112023. [111 Elarpun demvklan. padl 21092023 lallu mm panguvusan ks: kesebelas (-11' cur), peguambela psmyu menglkm lelah menenmu APNK tamabulyang dmamarsevah kepadu memka melalm surat bznankh on o9.2a23 secara hardnflar AR Peguambslz parayu juga msmaklumkun bahawa mernka dalam pfrnsas mamiallkan psfisyan rayualrpelisyen riyuan (1a) Akan lelapu hukan sahqa psguamhela perayu (shah gaqal memvaukan pehsyan riyusn-pefsysn rzyuan mam (empah amnal mm :14) man man Iankh penerrimaan APNK lerssbul benkman s.3n1m KN, mama, sslwmga ks 25112023 iailu nampxr due selengah {Man dan (ankh penenmnan APNK leuebul. veguamhala perayu masih «max mengamun apaapa langkah unmk mamiaxlkan pennohanan-pavmuhonan pilaruulan mass unmk perrflailan pedsyen rayuarvpeliswn vayuan en mar Iempuh mesa. [191 Semara rumusan, adalah dapavan mahknmah nu bahawa perayu flan/alau peguambexa perayu max mamsnenng serius umang myuan~ rayuan (euebut Pemnnukan-pemnmm menganai lalacara rayuan ianayah kn Mishkamah Tmgm adalah jaflas tsrkandung damn 5 am KTJ Pamnmkan-pemnlukan seharusnya dlpandang mus clam p\hak perayu aanrmau paguamuexa perayu Ismmanin lag! rayuan lersebul berkailan kebebasan psrayu senmn Tldak ada mnkna unluk pe-wnukan— perunlukan ax bavmh 5.3111(4) den 5 307(9) dmya|akan sesnuamya max aua mans-mama plhak yang memmumm IN Vvrgmnwuviamzauwxmu -um smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VIZ mum puns! K-simpul-n my Eardasavkan kepada huraiarvhurman m alas beflkmsn 530719) KTJ. rawan-rayuan nerayu hendaklah avswankan ssbagaw hzlah manx bahk 0\ah nu‘ rawan-rswan persyu adalah a-naan Inn dlbalalkan Banankh Dad: 3 Navembev 2023 (VA. DR. WENDY ISU cuss) Pesumruaya ehakiman Mahkamah Tlnggw s eh Nam (Jenaynh 5) Pmak max Pendakwaan Tuan Mohsmad flrdaoua Mn Mohamed ldris, nmnalan Pendakwz Raya danpada Kamar Panasihal Undang—Undang Nsgen Selangar Peguamhelzr Teman Rayslan Tan 5 ca Klang IN Vvrgmnwuvzamnanwxuuu -um Sum ...m.. WW be used m mm u. nvwhufllli mm; dun-mm VI] muNG pm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

DA-83-528-08/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA PENDAKWA RAYA TERTUDUH MOHD ANWAR BIN HUSAIN

KES TANGKAP: Seksyen 448 Kanun Keseksaan - OKT mengaku bersalah - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Seksyen 172(b) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah - Sama ada bentuk dan kuantum hukuman adalah adil dan berpadanan dengan kesalahan - Prinsip menjatuhkan hukuman - Faktor mitigasi tertuduh - Kepentingan awam melebihi kepentingan tertuduh - Ruang lingkup peruntukan hukuman - Tahap kesengajaan kesalahan - Hukuman yang adil dan munasabah

06/12/2023

Tuan Ahmad Syafiq Aizat bin Nazri

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=9c550c89-890f-41dc-8e49-6ddb52d4b687&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (2) KOTA BHARU, KELANTAN DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM KES TANGKAP NO: DA-83-528-08/2023 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA DAN MOHD ANWAR BIN HUSAIN (NO KP: 881224-03-6057) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] Ini merupakan alasan penghakiman berikutan rayuan yang difailkan oleh Tertuduh pada 8.11.2023 terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhkan ke atas Tertuduh pada 17.08.2023 bagi satu pertuduhan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 448 Kanun Keseksaan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen dan Akta yang sama. PENGENALAN [2] Tertuduh telah dituduh pada 17.08.2022 dan telah mengaku bersalah atas pertuduhan yang dikemukan serta memahami sebab akibat pengakuan salah yang dibuat. Mahkamah kemudian telah menerima pengakuan salah Tertuduh dan mensabitkan Tertuduh atas kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan dan Mahkamah ini telah memerintahkan Tertuduh untuk dikenakan denda sebanyak RM3499.00, sekiranya gagal bayar dikenakan 10 bulan penjara. [3] Terkilan dengan keputusan tersebut, Tertuduh telah tidak berpuashati terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhi dan telah memfailkan rayuan atas hukuman semata. [4] Berikut diperturunkan pertuduhan sebagaimana yang dikenakan ke atas Tertuduh: PERTUDUHAN DAN HUKUMAN PERTUDUHAN Bahawa kamu pada 16/08/2022, pada jam lebih kurang 0630 pagi semasa berada di rumah di alamat PT 648 Taman Desa Rahmat Jalan Guchil Bayam dalam daerah Kota Bharu di dalam negeri Kelantan, telah melakukan pencerobohan jenayah dengan memasuki bangunan tersebut yang digunakan sebagai tempat kediaman. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 448 kanun keseksaan. HUKUMAN SEKSYEN 448 KANUN KESEKSAAN (HUKUMAN BAGI PENCEROBOHAN RUMAH) Barang siapa melakukan pencerobohan rumah hendaklah dihukum dengan pemenjaraan selama tempoh yang boleh sampai tiga tahun, atau dengan denda yang boleh sampai lima ribu ringgit atau kedua-duanya. FAKTA KES [5] Fakta kes yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan dan diakui oleh Tertuduh adalah sepertimana berikut: 1. Pada 16/8/2023 jam lebih kurang 6.30 pagi, semasa pengadu berada di dalam bilik tidur di rumahnya, Tertuduh tiba-tiba telah masuk ke dalam bilik pengadu dalam keadaan bogel. 2. Pengadu dalam ketakutan telah menjerit dan ibu pengadu yang berada di bahagian dapur rumah mendengar jeritan tersebut dan terus menuju ke bilik pengadu. 3. Ibu pengadu bertindak mengunci pintu bilik tersebut dari luar setelah dapati Tertuduh bersembunyi di bilik bersebelahan bilik pengadu. 4. Abang pengadu telah datang setelah dihubungi, lalu menangkap Tertuduh dan Tertuduh kemudian diserahkan kepada pihak polis. HUJAHAN MITIGASI DAN PEMBERATAN [6] Rayuan mitigasi Tertuduh melalui peguam lantikan Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (YBGK) telah menyatakan bahawa Tertuduh berumur 34 dan tidak bekerja, sekaligus tiada pendapatan. Tertuduh merupakan anak bongsu daripada 4 adik-beradik dan hanya berpendidikan setakat tingkatan 5 sahaja. Dihujahkan juga bahawa pengakuan salah Tertuduh telah menjimatkan masa dan kos semua pihak terutamanya Mahkamah. Di akhir penghujahan mitigasi, dinyatakan bahawa Tertuduh memohon hukuman denda yang minima bagi kesalahan yang dilakukan. [7] Pihak pendakwaan pula di dalam kes ini menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh dipohon untuk dikenakan hukuman yang setimpal supaya Tertuduh tidak mengulangi kesalahan sama pada masa akan datang. Selanjutnya, pihak pendakwaan juga menghujahkan bahawa tindakan Tertuduh yang telah melakukan kesalahan pencerobohan jenayah dengan memasuki bangunan iaitu rumah milik pengadu dalam kes ini telah pun mengganggu ketenteraman pengadu. Oleh itu, pihak pendakwaan memohon supaya Mahkamah dapat memberikan hukuman yang menjadi sebagai suatu pengajaran kepada Tertuduh. [8] Mahkamah setelah hujahan pihak-pihak didengar dan sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap Tertuduh juga telah bertanya sekali lagi kepada peguam untuk mendapatkan kepastian mengenai permohonan hukuman denda sahaja dan peguam mengesahkan perkara tersebut. Mahkamah juga telah bertanya kepada Tertuduh sendiri yang berada di kandang tertuduh mengenai hubungan dan perkenalannya dengan pengadu kes ini, namun Tertuduh menyatakan langsung tidak mengenali pengadu. [9] Setelah menerima pengakuan bersalah Tertuduh serta menentusahkan bahawa Tertuduh faham sifat dan akibat pengakuan salah terhadap pertuduhan dan hukuman yang dibacakan serta diterangkan kepadanya, dan setelah menimbangkan serta memperhalusi fakta kes dan ekshibit-ekshibit pembuktian yang dikemukakan berserta hujahan pihak-pihak, maka Mahkamah mendapati Tertuduh bersalah dan disabitkan bagi kesalahan sepertimana pertuduhan dengan dikenakan hukuman denda sebanyak RM3499.00, sekiranya gagal bayar dikenakan 10 bulan penjara. PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG MENGENAI HUKUMAN [10] Menjadi prinsip asas Mahkamah ini, bahawasanya undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa Mahkamah hendaklah menjatuhkan hukuman mengikut undang-undang apabila seseorang tertuduh telah didapati bersalah dan disabitkan bagi pertuduhan tersebut. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada seksyen 173(b) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut:- "If the accused pleads guilty to the charge, whether as originally framed or as amended, the plea shall be recorded and he may be convicted on it and the Court shall pass sentence according to law is convicted, the Court shall pass sentence according to law" [11] Dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Jafa Bin Daud [1981] 1 LNS 28; [1981] 1 MLJ 315, Hakim Mohamed Azmi (pada ketika itu) telah menyatakan: "A 'sentence according to law' means that the sentence must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section, but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles.” [12] Terdapat begitu banyak nas-nas undang-undang yang memberikan panduan mengenai prinsip undang-undang yang perlu dipatuhi dalam menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap seseorang tertuduh. Mahkamah antaranya merujuk kepada penghakiman Hilbery J di dalam kes Rex v. Kenneth John Ball 35 Cr App R 164 yang memutuskan seperti berikut: "In deciding the appropriate sentence a Court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing crime, but also in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence, passed in public, serves the public interest in two ways. It may deter others who might be tempted to try crime as seeming to offer easy money on the supposition, that if the offender is caught and brought to justice, the punishment will be negligible. Such a sentence may also deter the particular criminal from committing a crime again, or induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living. … "It is for these reasons, and with these purposes in view, that before passing sentence the Court hears evidence of the antecedents and character of every convicted person. [13] Hakim Hashim Yeop Sani dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 276 juga telah menyatakan seperti berikut:- "The correct approach is to strike a balance, as far as possible, between the interests of the public and the interests of the accused." [14] Hukuman yang dijatuhkan juga mestilah sepadan ("proportionate") dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh seseorang tertuduh. Prinsip "proportionality" ini telah dijelaskan dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan Mohamad Nasuha Abdul Razak v. PP [2019] 3 CLJ 612; [2020] 3 MLJ 530; di mana Mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:- "[14] Be that as it may, one of the important factors that we must bear in mind is that the sentence must always satisfy the principle of proportionality - that the severity of the penalty should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The principle was articulated by the High Court of Australia in Hoare v. R [1989] 167 CLR 458 at 354 as follows: “a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court should never exceed that which can be justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the light of its objective circumstances.” ANALISIS DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [15] Sekalipun wujud faktor-faktor mitigasi sepertimana yang dihujahkan oleh peguam YBGK yang bertindak mewakili Tertuduh, namun menjadi tanggungjawab Mahkamah ini juga memperhalusi faktor- faktor pemberatan serta fakta kes yang berkaitan dalam mempertimbangkan bentuk dan kuantum hukuman yang bersesuaian dengan kesalahan Tertuduh sepertimana yang dipertuduhkan. Berikut adalah dapatan dan alasan Mahkamah: 1) Kepentingan Awam Melebihi Kepentingan Seseorang Tertuduh [16] Mahkamah sedia maklum mengenai prinsip kepentingan awam sebagai suatu faktor pemberatan yang sering kali ditekankan oleh pihak pendakwaan supaya hukuman yang bakal dijatuhkan dapat memberi pengajaran kepada tertuduh ("deterrent") dan orang awam supaya tidak mengulangi kesalahan yang sama pada masa akan datang. [17] Justeru, Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa dalam apa jua pertimbangan faktor yang harus diambil kira, prinsip pertama dan utama yang perlu dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah dalam menjatuhkan hukuman dalam kes jenayah ialah faktor kepentingan awam. [18] Di dalam kes ini, kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh bukan sekadar melakukan pencerobohan jenayah ke dalam bangunan iaitu tempat kediaman, bahkan ketika kejadian, Tertuduh telah memasuki bilik peribadi penghuni rumah iaitu pengadu yang turut berada di dalamnya dalam keadaan berbogel. Tindakan kesalahan oleh Tertuduh tersebut telah menyebabkan pengadu berasa takut dan menjerit, sekaligus menjadikan ketenteraman pengadu sebagai masyarakat awam terganggu dan tergugat. Fakta inilah yang membawa kepada pengamatan penting Mahkamah bahawa kepentingan awam harus menjadi tunjang utama dalam Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman sedemikian kepada Tertuduh. Justeru, hukuman denda sebagaimana jumlah yang dikenakan adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi memberi cerminan kepada Tertuduh dan orang awam supaya tidak sewenang-wenangnya melakukan kesalahan sedemikian rupa. [19] Selain itu, sungguhpun hujahan mitigasi Tertuduh telah dibuat dan diambil kira oleh Mahkamah, Mahkamah juga berpandu kepada prinsip keseimbangan antara kepentingan awam dan kepentingan seseorang tertuduh. Dalam melakukan proses perimbangan tersebut, Mahkamah juga tidak boleh terlalu bersimpati dengan mitigasi seperti kesusahan keluarga dan kesusahan hidup Tertuduh. Ini adalah sepertimana yang dijelaskan dalam kes PP v Loo Choon Fatt (Supra) oleh Hashim Yeop Sani J: “Presidents and Magistrates are often inclined quite naturally to be over-sympathetic to the accused. This is a normal psychological reaction to the situation in which the lonely accused is seen facing an array of witnesses with authority. The mitigation submitted by a convicted person will also normally bring up problems of family hardship and the other usual problems of living. In such a situation the courts might perhaps find it difficult to decide as to what sentence should be imposed so that the convicted person may not be further burdened with additional hardship. This in my view is a wrong approach. The correct approach is to strike a balance, as far as possible, between the interests of the public and the interests of the accused. Lord Goddard L.C.J. in Rex v Grondkowski [1946] 1 All ER 560 561 offered some good advice when he said:– "The judge must consider the interests of justice as well as the interests of the prisoners. It is too often nowadays thought, or seems to be thought, that the interests of justice means only the interests of the prisoners." [20] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa hukuman berbentuk denda dan sebagaimana jumlah yang dikenakan adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi memberi pencegahan kepada Tertuduh dan orang awam supaya tidak sewenang-wenangnya melakukan kesalahan sedemikian rupa, sekaligus dilihat mampu menjaga kepentingan awam. [21] Bahkan, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa hukuman yang diberikan keatas Tertuduh ini adalah suatu hukuman yang berpatutan dengan graviti kesalahan itu disisi undang-undang iaitu dengan sengaja melakukan penceroboh jenayah dengan memasuki bangunan yang digunakan sebagai bilik peribadi dan tempat kediaman seseorang orang awam iaitu pengadu. [22] Kuantum denda yang dikenakan keatas Tertuduh pula dinilai oleh Mahkamah ini sebagai suatu jumlah yang berpadanan bagi memberikan Tertuduh ruang dan peluang yang mencukupi untuk melakukan muhasabah diri agar Tertuduh sedar bahawa setiap tindakan yang dilakukannya mempunyai sebab dan akibat yang perlu ditanggung. Ini dilihat mampu untuk memberikan pengajaran yang berguna keatas Tertuduh secara khusus dan masyarakat awam secara umumnya agar berfikir panjang sebelum terdetik dalam fikiran untuk melakukan apa jua perbuatan jenayah. 2) Hukuman Masih Dalam Ruang Lingkup Peruntukan Undang- Undang [23] Sebagaimana nas peruntukan hukuman yang dibacakan kepada Tertuduh, kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan ini boleh dikenakan dengan hukuman pemenjaraan yang boleh sampai 3 tahun atau dengan denda boleh sampai RM5,000 atau dengan kedua-duanya. [24] Di dalam kes ini, setelah mengambil kira hujahan dan permohonan peguam YBGK yang mewakili Tertuduh agar Tertuduh hanya dikenakan hukuman denda sahaja serta bersandarkan kepada fakta kes kejadian yang dikemukakan, Mahkamah telah memutuskan untuk mengenakan hukuman berbentuk denda sahaja kepada Tertuduh. Bahkan jumlah denda yang dikenakan adalah jauh lebih rendah daripada jumlah maksimum yang boleh dikenakan ke atas Tertuduh, sekaligus tiada keadaan 'manifestly wrong being done’ oleh Mahkamah kerana hukuman yang diberikan masih dalam lingkungan hukuman yang diperuntukkan ataupun ‘within ambit of law’. [25] Rujukan kes Chan Sit Hoong v. PP (supra) menjadi panduan Mahkamah dalam mengenakan hukuman sedemikian ke atas Tertuduh. “A first offender, be he on a drug charge or some other criminal charge, should be dealt with by the imposition of a fine or by placing him under bond or probation, but he should be kept away from prison unless there are, in the public interest, strong reasons for ordering a term of imprisonment, such as the gravity of the offence itself and the manner in which it is committed, or as a deterrent when the prevalence of a particular type of offence has truly reached a stage that a sentence of imprisonment alone may deter others from committing that type of offence. [26] Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa hukuman denda adalah wajar dan setimpal untuk dikenakan bagi memberi pengajaran kepada Tertuduh dan jumlah denda yang dikenakan ke atas Tertuduh juga adalah tidak berlebihan, apatah lagi melampaui peruntukan undang-undang dan prinsip hukuman yang ada. Nilai denda tersebut adalah suatu jumlah yang berpadanan bagi memberi keinsafan kepada Tertuduh agar tidak ulangi kesalahan sama pada masa akan datang. 3) Tahap Kesengajaan Seseorang Tertuduh Sewaktu Kesalahan Dilakukan [27] Selain itu, dalam menghakimi kes ini, Mahkamah turut mengambil pendekatan untuk mempertimbangkan tahap kesengajaan Tertuduh sewaktu melakukan jenayah sebagai panduan dalam memutuskan hukuman yang bersesuaian ke atasnya, dimana pendekatan ini dapat dilihat aplikasinya dalam penghakiman Willan CJ dalam kes MOHAMED JUSOH ABDULLAH & ANOTHER V. PP [1947] 1 LNS 73; [1947] 1 MLJ 130 yang ada menyatakan: “The court, in fixing the punishment for any particular crime, will take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender, the provocation which he has received, if the crime is one of violence, the antecedents of the prisoner up to the time of sentence, his age and character.” [28] Setelah meneliti fakta kes dan melakukan proses pertimbangan yang jitu, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa tahap kesengajaan yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh dalam perlakuan jenayahnya adalah sepadan dengan amaun denda yang dikenakan, sekaligus menatijahkan hukuman sepertimana yang diputuskan Mahkamah ini ke atas Tertuduh tempoh hari. [29] Berdasarkan fakta kes yang dikemuka serta dibacakan kepada Tertuduh, Tertuduh telah didapati berada di dalam rumah tempat pengadu berada iaitu di dalam bilik peribadi pengadu dan ketika itu, pengadu tersedar bahawa Tertuduh dalam keadaan berbogel lantas menyebabkan pengadu berasa takut dan menjerit. Akibat jeritan tersebut, Tertuduh telah bersembunyi di dalam bilik sebelah sebelum akhirnya berjaya ditangkap. Fakta ini diakui sendiri oleh Tertuduh semasa pengakuan salah serta disokong oleh dokumen–dokumen pembuktian yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan. [30] Fakta ini jika diamati adalah sangat merunsingkan Mahkamah. Apatah lagi, Tertuduh sendiri telah sahkan tidak mempunyai apa-apa hubungan dan langsung tidak mengenali pengadu ketika ditanya sendiri oleh Mahkamah. Walaupun pengesahan dan keterangan tersebut dinyatakan dari kandang tertuduh (statement from the dock), kekhuatiran Mahkamah terhadap jenayah yang lebih besar boleh berlaku berdasarkan fakta kes yang dikemukakan. [31] Faktor tersebutlah yang membawa kepada tahap kesengajaan Tertuduh yang tinggi dalam melakukan kesalahan sebagaimana pertuduhan. Fakta inilah yang menjadi indikator Mahkamah bahawa amaun denda sebanyak RM3499.00 dan sekiranya gagal bayar dikenakan 10 bulan penjara itu adalah amat wajar, adil dan setimpal dengan kesalahan Tertuduh. [32] Memetik penghakiman di dalam kes PP v. Govindnan Chinden Nair [1988] 2 CLJ 370, sebagaimana diputuskan: “An accused person should be given credit or discount for pleading guilty, but the severity of the offence committed may outweigh the mitigating effect of a guilty plea. Thus, there can be no automatic rule that a guilty plea on its own entitles an accused person to a lesser punishment” KESIMPULAN [33] Berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa keputusan Mahkamah ini adalah adil, wajar dan munasabah bagi sabitan dan hukuman sepertimana yang telah diberikan kepada Tertuduh. Disediakan oleh AHMAD SYAFIQ AIZAT BIN NAZRI Majistret Mahkamah Majistret (2) Kota Bharu Kelantan

Tika 2.6.0

DA-83-528-08/2023

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH MOHD ANWAR BIN HUSAIN

KES TANGKAP: Seksyen 448 Kanun Keseksaan - OKT mengaku bersalah - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Seksyen 172(b) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah - Sama ada bentuk dan kuantum hukuman adalah adil dan berpadanan dengan kesalahan - Prinsip menjatuhkan hukuman - Faktor mitigasi tertuduh - Kepentingan awam melebihi kepentingan tertuduh - Ruang lingkup peruntukan hukuman - Tahap kesengajaan kesalahan – Hukuman adalah adil dan munasabah

06/12/2023

Tuan Ahmad Syafiq Aizat bin Nazri

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=b05c3c4e-5ec8-4757-b7b1-e23a1e329cbb&Inline=true

DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET (2) KOTA BHARU, KELANTAN DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM KES TANGKAP NO: DA-83-528-08/2023 ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA DAN MOHD ANWAR BIN HUSAIN (NO KP: 881224-03-6057) ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] Ini merupakan alasan penghakiman berikutan rayuan yang difailkan oleh Tertuduh pada 8.11.2023 terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhkan ke atas Tertuduh pada 17.08.2023 bagi satu pertuduhan kesalahan di bawah seksyen 448 Kanun Keseksaan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen dan Akta yang sama. PENGENALAN [2] Tertuduh telah dituduh pada 17.08.2022 dan telah mengaku bersalah atas pertuduhan yang dikemukan serta memahami sebab akibat pengakuan salah yang dibuat. Mahkamah kemudian telah menerima pengakuan salah Tertuduh dan mensabitkan Tertuduh atas kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan dan Mahkamah ini telah memerintahkan Tertuduh untuk dikenakan denda sebanyak RM3499.00, sekiranya gagal bayar dikenakan 10 bulan penjara. 06/12/2023 15:34:36 DA-83-528-08/2023 Kand. 11 S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [3] Terkilan dengan keputusan tersebut, Tertuduh telah tidak berpuashati terhadap hukuman yang dijatuhi dan telah memfailkan rayuan atas hukuman semata. [4] Berikut diperturunkan pertuduhan sebagaimana yang dikenakan ke atas Tertuduh: PERTUDUHAN DAN HUKUMAN PERTUDUHAN Bahawa kamu pada 16/08/2022, pada jam lebih kurang 0630 pagi semasa berada di rumah di alamat PT 648 Taman Desa Rahmat Jalan Guchil Bayam dalam daerah Kota Bharu di dalam negeri Kelantan, telah melakukan pencerobohan jenayah dengan memasuki bangunan tersebut yang digunakan sebagai tempat kediaman. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 448 kanun keseksaan. HUKUMAN SEKSYEN 448 KANUN KESEKSAAN (HUKUMAN BAGI PENCEROBOHAN RUMAH) Barang siapa melakukan pencerobohan rumah hendaklah dihukum dengan pemenjaraan selama tempoh yang boleh sampai tiga tahun, atau dengan denda yang boleh sampai lima ribu ringgit atau kedua-duanya. S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal FAKTA KES [5] Fakta kes yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan dan diakui oleh Tertuduh adalah sepertimana berikut: 1. Pada 16/8/2023 jam lebih kurang 6.30 pagi, semasa pengadu berada di dalam bilik tidur di rumahnya, Tertuduh tiba-tiba telah masuk ke dalam bilik pengadu dalam keadaan bogel. 2. Pengadu dalam ketakutan telah menjerit dan ibu pengadu yang berada di bahagian dapur rumah mendengar jeritan tersebut dan terus menuju ke bilik pengadu. 3. Ibu pengadu bertindak mengunci pintu bilik tersebut dari luar setelah dapati Tertuduh bersembunyi di bilik bersebelahan bilik pengadu. 4. Abang pengadu telah datang setelah dihubungi, lalu menangkap Tertuduh dan Tertuduh kemudian diserahkan kepada pihak polis. HUJAHAN MITIGASI DAN PEMBERATAN [6] Rayuan mitigasi Tertuduh melalui peguam lantikan Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (YBGK) telah menyatakan bahawa Tertuduh berumur 34 dan tidak bekerja, sekaligus tiada pendapatan. Tertuduh merupakan anak bongsu daripada 4 adik-beradik dan hanya berpendidikan setakat tingkatan 5 sahaja. Dihujahkan juga bahawa pengakuan salah Tertuduh telah menjimatkan masa dan kos semua pihak terutamanya Mahkamah. Di akhir penghujahan mitigasi, dinyatakan bahawa Tertuduh memohon hukuman denda yang minima bagi kesalahan yang dilakukan. S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [7] Pihak pendakwaan pula di dalam kes ini menghujahkan bahawa Tertuduh dipohon untuk dikenakan hukuman yang setimpal supaya Tertuduh tidak mengulangi kesalahan sama pada masa akan datang. Selanjutnya, pihak pendakwaan juga menghujahkan bahawa tindakan Tertuduh yang telah melakukan kesalahan pencerobohan jenayah dengan memasuki bangunan iaitu rumah milik pengadu dalam kes ini telah pun mengganggu ketenteraman pengadu. Oleh itu, pihak pendakwaan memohon supaya Mahkamah dapat memberikan hukuman yang menjadi sebagai suatu pengajaran kepada Tertuduh. [8] Mahkamah setelah hujahan pihak-pihak didengar dan sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap Tertuduh juga telah bertanya sekali lagi kepada peguam untuk mendapatkan kepastian mengenai permohonan hukuman denda sahaja dan peguam mengesahkan perkara tersebut. Mahkamah juga telah bertanya kepada Tertuduh sendiri yang berada di kandang tertuduh mengenai hubungan dan perkenalannya dengan pengadu kes ini, namun Tertuduh menyatakan langsung tidak mengenali pengadu. [9] Setelah menerima pengakuan bersalah Tertuduh serta menentusahkan bahawa Tertuduh faham sifat dan akibat pengakuan salah terhadap pertuduhan dan hukuman yang dibacakan serta diterangkan kepadanya, dan setelah menimbangkan serta memperhalusi fakta kes dan ekshibit-ekshibit pembuktian yang dikemukakan berserta hujahan pihak-pihak, maka Mahkamah mendapati Tertuduh bersalah dan disabitkan bagi kesalahan sepertimana pertuduhan dengan dikenakan hukuman denda sebanyak RM3499.00, sekiranya gagal bayar dikenakan 10 bulan penjara. S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG MENGENAI HUKUMAN [10] Menjadi prinsip asas Mahkamah ini, bahawasanya undang-undang adalah mantap bahawa Mahkamah hendaklah menjatuhkan hukuman mengikut undang-undang apabila seseorang tertuduh telah didapati bersalah dan disabitkan bagi pertuduhan tersebut. Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada seksyen 173(b) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut:- "If the accused pleads guilty to the charge, whether as originally framed or as amended, the plea shall be recorded and he may be convicted on it and the Court shall pass sentence according to law is convicted, the Court shall pass sentence according to law" [11] Dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Jafa Bin Daud [1981] 1 LNS 28; [1981] 1 MLJ 315, Hakim Mohamed Azmi (pada ketika itu) telah menyatakan: "A 'sentence according to law' means that the sentence must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section, but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles.” [12] Terdapat begitu banyak nas-nas undang-undang yang memberikan panduan mengenai prinsip undang-undang yang perlu dipatuhi dalam menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap seseorang tertuduh. Mahkamah antaranya merujuk kepada penghakiman Hilbery J di dalam kes Rex v. Kenneth John Ball 35 Cr App R 164 yang memutuskan seperti berikut: S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal "In deciding the appropriate sentence a Court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing crime, but also in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence, passed in public, serves the public interest in two ways. It may deter others who might be tempted to try crime as seeming to offer easy money on the supposition, that if the offender is caught and brought to justice, the punishment will be negligible. Such a sentence may also deter the particular criminal from committing a crime again, or induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living. … "It is for these reasons, and with these purposes in view, that before passing sentence the Court hears evidence of the antecedents and character of every convicted person. [13] Hakim Hashim Yeop Sani dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Loo Choon Fatt [1976] 1 LNS 102; [1976] 2 MLJ 276 juga telah menyatakan seperti berikut:- "The correct approach is to strike a balance, as far as possible, between the interests of the public and the interests of the accused." [14] Hukuman yang dijatuhkan juga mestilah sepadan ("proportionate") dengan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh seseorang tertuduh. Prinsip "proportionality" ini telah dijelaskan dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Mohamad Nasuha Abdul Razak v. PP [2019] 3 CLJ 612; [2020] 3 MLJ 530; di mana Mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:- "[14] Be that as it may, one of the important factors that we must bear in mind is that the sentence must always satisfy the principle of proportionality - that the severity of the penalty should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The principle was articulated by the High Court of Australia in Hoare v. R [1989] 167 CLR 458 at 354 as follows: “a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court should never exceed that which can be justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the light of its objective circumstances.” ANALISIS DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH [15] Sekalipun wujud faktor-faktor mitigasi sepertimana yang dihujahkan oleh peguam YBGK yang bertindak mewakili Tertuduh, namun menjadi tanggungjawab Mahkamah ini juga memperhalusi faktor- faktor pemberatan serta fakta kes yang berkaitan dalam mempertimbangkan bentuk dan kuantum hukuman yang bersesuaian dengan kesalahan Tertuduh sepertimana yang dipertuduhkan. Berikut adalah dapatan dan alasan Mahkamah: S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1) Kepentingan Awam Melebihi Kepentingan Seseorang Tertuduh [16] Mahkamah sedia maklum mengenai prinsip kepentingan awam sebagai suatu faktor pemberatan yang sering kali ditekankan oleh pihak pendakwaan supaya hukuman yang bakal dijatuhkan dapat memberi pengajaran kepada tertuduh ("deterrent") dan orang awam supaya tidak mengulangi kesalahan yang sama pada masa akan datang. [17] Justeru, Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa dalam apa jua pertimbangan faktor yang harus diambil kira, prinsip pertama dan utama yang perlu dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah dalam menjatuhkan hukuman dalam kes jenayah ialah faktor kepentingan awam. [18] Di dalam kes ini, kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh bukan sekadar melakukan pencerobohan jenayah ke dalam bangunan iaitu tempat kediaman, bahkan ketika kejadian, Tertuduh telah memasuki bilik peribadi penghuni rumah iaitu pengadu yang turut berada di dalamnya dalam keadaan berbogel. Tindakan kesalahan oleh Tertuduh tersebut telah menyebabkan pengadu berasa takut dan menjerit, sekaligus menjadikan ketenteraman pengadu sebagai masyarakat awam terganggu dan tergugat. Fakta inilah yang membawa kepada pengamatan penting Mahkamah bahawa kepentingan awam harus menjadi tunjang utama dalam Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman sedemikian kepada Tertuduh. Justeru, hukuman denda sebagaimana jumlah yang dikenakan adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi memberi cerminan kepada Tertuduh dan orang awam supaya tidak sewenang-wenangnya melakukan kesalahan sedemikian rupa. S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [19] Selain itu, sungguhpun hujahan mitigasi Tertuduh telah dibuat dan diambil kira oleh Mahkamah, Mahkamah juga berpandu kepada prinsip keseimbangan antara kepentingan awam dan kepentingan seseorang tertuduh. Dalam melakukan proses perimbangan tersebut, Mahkamah juga tidak boleh terlalu bersimpati dengan mitigasi seperti kesusahan keluarga dan kesusahan hidup Tertuduh. Ini adalah sepertimana yang dijelaskan dalam kes PP v Loo Choon Fatt (Supra) oleh Hashim Yeop Sani J: “Presidents and Magistrates are often inclined quite naturally to be over-sympathetic to the accused. This is a normal psychological reaction to the situation in which the lonely accused is seen facing an array of witnesses with authority. The mitigation submitted by a convicted person will also normally bring up problems of family hardship and the other usual problems of living. In such a situation the courts might perhaps find it difficult to decide as to what sentence should be imposed so that the convicted person may not be further burdened with additional hardship. This in my view is a wrong approach. The correct approach is to strike a balance, as far as possible, between the interests of the public and the interests of the accused. Lord Goddard L.C.J. in Rex v Grondkowski [1946] 1 All ER 560 561 offered some good advice when he said:– "The judge must consider the interests of justice as well as the interests of the prisoners. It is too often nowadays thought, or seems to be thought, that the interests of justice means only the interests of the prisoners." S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [20] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa hukuman berbentuk denda dan sebagaimana jumlah yang dikenakan adalah wajar dan munasabah bagi memberi pencegahan kepada Tertuduh dan orang awam supaya tidak sewenang-wenangnya melakukan kesalahan sedemikian rupa, sekaligus dilihat mampu menjaga kepentingan awam. [21] Bahkan, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa hukuman yang diberikan keatas Tertuduh ini adalah suatu hukuman yang berpatutan dengan graviti kesalahan itu disisi undang-undang iaitu dengan sengaja melakukan penceroboh jenayah dengan memasuki bangunan yang digunakan sebagai bilik peribadi dan tempat kediaman seseorang orang awam iaitu pengadu. [22] Kuantum denda yang dikenakan keatas Tertuduh pula dinilai oleh Mahkamah ini sebagai suatu jumlah yang berpadanan bagi memberikan Tertuduh ruang dan peluang yang mencukupi untuk melakukan muhasabah diri agar Tertuduh sedar bahawa setiap tindakan yang dilakukannya mempunyai sebab dan akibat yang perlu ditanggung. Ini dilihat mampu untuk memberikan pengajaran yang berguna keatas Tertuduh secara khusus dan masyarakat awam secara umumnya agar berfikir panjang sebelum terdetik dalam fikiran untuk melakukan apa jua perbuatan jenayah. 2) Hukuman Masih Dalam Ruang Lingkup Peruntukan Undang- Undang [23] Sebagaimana nas peruntukan hukuman yang dibacakan kepada Tertuduh, kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan ini boleh dikenakan dengan hukuman pemenjaraan yang boleh sampai 3 tahun atau dengan denda boleh sampai RM5,000 atau dengan kedua-duanya. S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [24] Di dalam kes ini, setelah mengambil kira hujahan dan permohonan peguam YBGK yang mewakili Tertuduh agar Tertuduh hanya dikenakan hukuman denda sahaja serta bersandarkan kepada fakta kes kejadian yang dikemukakan, Mahkamah telah memutuskan untuk mengenakan hukuman berbentuk denda sahaja kepada Tertuduh. Bahkan jumlah denda yang dikenakan adalah jauh lebih rendah daripada jumlah maksimum yang boleh dikenakan ke atas Tertuduh, sekaligus tiada keadaan 'manifestly wrong being done’ oleh Mahkamah kerana hukuman yang diberikan masih dalam lingkungan hukuman yang diperuntukkan ataupun ‘within ambit of law’. [25] Rujukan kes Chan Sit Hoong v. PP (supra) menjadi panduan Mahkamah dalam mengenakan hukuman sedemikian ke atas Tertuduh. “A first offender, be he on a drug charge or some other criminal charge, should be dealt with by the imposition of a fine or by placing him under bond or probation, but he should be kept away from prison unless there are, in the public interest, strong reasons for ordering a term of imprisonment, such as the gravity of the offence itself and the manner in which it is committed, or as a deterrent when the prevalence of a particular type of offence has truly reached a stage that a sentence of imprisonment alone may deter others from committing that type of offence. [26] Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa hukuman denda adalah wajar dan setimpal untuk dikenakan bagi memberi pengajaran kepada Tertuduh dan jumlah denda yang dikenakan ke atas Tertuduh juga adalah tidak berlebihan, apatah lagi melampaui peruntukan undang-undang dan prinsip hukuman yang ada. Nilai denda tersebut adalah suatu jumlah yang S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal berpadanan bagi memberi keinsafan kepada Tertuduh agar tidak ulangi kesalahan sama pada masa akan datang. 3) Tahap Kesengajaan Seseorang Tertuduh Sewaktu Kesalahan Dilakukan [27] Selain itu, dalam menghakimi kes ini, Mahkamah turut mengambil pendekatan untuk mempertimbangkan tahap kesengajaan Tertuduh sewaktu melakukan jenayah sebagai panduan dalam memutuskan hukuman yang bersesuaian ke atasnya, dimana pendekatan ini dapat dilihat aplikasinya dalam penghakiman Willan CJ dalam kes MOHAMED JUSOH ABDULLAH & ANOTHER V. PP [1947] 1 LNS 73; [1947] 1 MLJ 130 yang ada menyatakan: “The court, in fixing the punishment for any particular crime, will take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender, the provocation which he has received, if the crime is one of violence, the antecedents of the prisoner up to the time of sentence, his age and character.” [28] Setelah meneliti fakta kes dan melakukan proses pertimbangan yang jitu, Mahkamah ini mendapati bahawa tahap kesengajaan yang dilakukan oleh Tertuduh dalam perlakuan jenayahnya adalah sepadan dengan amaun denda yang dikenakan, sekaligus menatijahkan hukuman sepertimana yang diputuskan Mahkamah ini ke atas Tertuduh tempoh hari. S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [29] Berdasarkan fakta kes yang dikemuka serta dibacakan kepada Tertuduh, Tertuduh telah didapati berada di dalam rumah tempat pengadu berada iaitu di dalam bilik peribadi pengadu dan ketika itu, pengadu tersedar bahawa Tertuduh dalam keadaan berbogel lantas menyebabkan pengadu berasa takut dan menjerit. Akibat jeritan tersebut, Tertuduh telah bersembunyi di dalam bilik sebelah sebelum akhirnya berjaya ditangkap. Fakta ini diakui sendiri oleh Tertuduh semasa pengakuan salah serta disokong oleh dokumen–dokumen pembuktian yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan. [30] Fakta ini jika diamati adalah sangat merunsingkan Mahkamah. Apatah lagi, Tertuduh sendiri telah sahkan tidak mempunyai apa-apa hubungan dan langsung tidak mengenali pengadu ketika ditanya sendiri oleh Mahkamah. Walaupun pengesahan dan keterangan tersebut dinyatakan dari kandang tertuduh (statement from the dock), kekhuatiran Mahkamah terhadap jenayah yang lebih besar boleh berlaku berdasarkan fakta kes yang dikemukakan. [31] Faktor tersebutlah yang membawa kepada tahap kesengajaan Tertuduh yang tinggi dalam melakukan kesalahan sebagaimana pertuduhan. Fakta inilah yang menjadi indikator Mahkamah bahawa amaun denda sebanyak RM3499.00 dan sekiranya gagal bayar dikenakan 10 bulan penjara itu adalah amat wajar, adil dan setimpal dengan kesalahan Tertuduh. [32] Memetik penghakiman di dalam kes PP v. Govindnan Chinden Nair [1988] 2 CLJ 370, sebagaimana diputuskan: S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal “An accused person should be given credit or discount for pleading guilty, but the severity of the offence committed may outweigh the mitigating effect of a guilty plea. Thus, there can be no automatic rule that a guilty plea on its own entitles an accused person to a lesser punishment” KESIMPULAN [33] Berdasarkan kepada alasan-alasan di atas, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa keputusan Mahkamah ini adalah adil, wajar dan munasabah bagi sabitan dan hukuman sepertimana yang telah diberikan kepada Tertuduh. Disediakan oleh AHMAD SYAFIQ AIZAT BIN NAZRI Majistret Mahkamah Majistret (2) Kota Bharu Kelantan S/N TjxcsMheV0e3seI6HjKcuw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

PA-28PW-46-10/2023

PEMOHON TC Success Jewellery Sdn.Bhd. RESPONDEN Primepoint Engineering Sdn.Bhd.PIHAK KETIGAJabatan Insolvensi Malaysia

1 The Respondent company (RCo) was wound up. RCo then agreed or reached an understanding with the Petitioning creditor for the Petitioning creditor to consent to the termination of the winding up.2 RCo then files this Application for an Order to terminate or to perpetually stay the winding up. Section 493 of the Companies Act 2016 provides for the termination of the winding up. Section 492 provides for the stay of the winding up.3 The evidence shows that at first, RCo had fully settled the debt due to the Petitioning creditor. Then later, the evidence discloses that the debt is not fully settled, but only partially settled, leaving a balance sum due to the Petitioning creditor.4 Can any person other than the liquidator of RCo, or a creditor of RCo, or a contributory of RCo apply to terminate the winding up?5 Should this winding up Court grant the Order to terminate the winding up, or to perpetually stay the winding up?

06/12/2023

YA Tuan Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=65a78e46-7e3d-445b-b1fc-830f08643269&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT PENANG POST-WINDING UP CASE NO. PA-28PW-46-10/2023 (ORIGINAL CASE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO: PA-28NCC-140- 11/2016 In the matter of Companies (Winding-Up) No. PA-28NCC-140-11/2016 And In the matter of Section 492 Companies Act 2016 (Act 777) And In the matter of TC Success Jewellery Sdn. Bhd. As Petitioner And In the matter of Primepoint Engineering Sdn. Bhd. As Respondent in the Companies Winding-Up No. PA-28NCC-140-11/2016 action and subsequently wound up by Order of the Penang High Court dated 03.04.2017 Between TC SUCCESS JEWELLERY SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO. 758051-H) ... PETITIONER AND PRIMEPOINT ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO. 843930-X) … RESPONDENT 06/12/2023 08:03:42 PA-28PW-46-10/2023 Kand. 7 S/N Ro6nZT1W0Sx/IMPCGQyaQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 JUDGMENT (APPLICATION TO TERMINATE OR STAY THE WINDING UP) PRELUSION [1] The Respondent company (RCo) applies to terminate the winding up Order dated 3.4.2017 (Winding Up Order) and to resume “the management and control” of the company. RCo alternatively applies for a perpetual stay of the Winding Up Order. [2] Should the Winding Up Order be terminated, or perpetually stayed? SECTIONS 493 AND 492 OF THE COMPANIES ACT [3] RCo makes this Application as a post-winding up application under sections 493 and 492 of the Companies Act 2016. [4] Section 493 provides that when a liquidator or creditor or contributory of a wound up company makes an application to terminate the winding up of the company, the winding up Court may grant the Order to terminate the winding up, if the Court thinks that it is fit to grant the Order. [5] Section 493 is set out here for reference— Section 493. Power of Court to terminate winding up (1) At any time after an order for winding up has been made, the Court may, on the application of the liquidator or of any creditor or contributory and on proof to the satisfaction of the Court that all proceedings in relation to the winding up of the S/N Ro6nZT1W0Sx/IMPCGQyaQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 company ought to be terminated, make an order terminating the winding up of the company as the Court thinks fit. (2) In making an order under subsection (1), the Court may take into consideration, but not limited to, the following facts: (a) the satisfaction of the debts; (b) any agreement by the liquidators, creditors, contributories and other interested parties; or (c) other facts that the Court considers appropriate. (3) Where the Court makes an order under subsection (1), the company ceases to be in liquidation and the liquidator ceases to hold office and be released from all liability in respect of any act done or default made by the liquidator in the administration of the affairs of the company or otherwise in relation to his conduct as liquidator, with effect from the making of the order or such other date as may be specified in the order. [emphasis mine] [6] Section 492 provides that when an application is made by the liquidator or creditor or contributory of a wound up company for a stay of the Winding Up Order, the winding up Court may grant the Order to stay the winding up, for a specified time (for a specific period of time), on such terms and conditions that the Court thinks fit. [7] Section 492 is set out here for reference— Section 492. Power of Court to stay winding up S/N Ro6nZT1W0Sx/IMPCGQyaQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (1) At any time after an order for winding up has been made, the Court may, on the application of the liquidator or of any creditor or contributory and on proof to the satisfaction of the Court that all proceedings in relation to the winding up of the company ought to be stayed, make an order staying the winding up of the company for a specified time on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks fit. (2) Where the Court makes an order under subsection (1), the liquidator shall cease to conduct any further action on behalf of the company from the date of such order. [emphasis mine] THE GROUNDS FOR THIS APPLICATION [8] The grounds for this Application to terminate the Winding Up Order, or alternatively to perpetually stay the winding up of RCo include— (1) RCo’s debt to the Petitioner (TC Success Jewellery Sdn Bhd) is fully settled. The Petitioner is the sole creditor of RCo. (2) The Petitioner wrote an undated letter to the Jabatan Insolvensi Malaysia (JIM) to inform the JIM that RCo’s debt to the Petitioner was fully settled. As such, they have no objections to the setting aside of the Winding Up Order, or to stay the Winding Up Order. According to RCo’s affidavit evidence, which was affirmed by a director, shareholder and contributory of RCo, that letter was dated 14.9.2023. (3) RCo filed a Supplementary Affidavit, which was affirmed by the same director, shareholder and contributory, averring that on 16.11.2023, RCo paid the JIM RM109K, “as agreed S/N Ro6nZT1W0Sx/IMPCGQyaQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 between the parties” (which I take to mean between RCo and the Petitioner). To support this fact, RCo exhibited the letter dated 20.11.2023 from the Petitioner to the JIM. (4) Inconsistently though, this letter dated 20.11.2023 from the Petitioner to the JIM states that— (i) the Petitioner received RM100K (not RM109K) as settlement; (ii) the balance owing (baki hutang) will be settled after RCo obtains the Court Order to terminate the Winding Up Order under section 493. In other words, the debt to the Petitioner is not fully settled, contrary to RCo’s earlier averment that the debt to the Petitioner was fully settled. SHOULD EITHER OF THE ALTERNATIVE ORDERS BE MADE? [9] Firstly, the main ground for this Application is that the debt, upon which this winding up is premised, is fully settled. RCo avers that it has fully settled the debt with the Petitioner. But the Petitioner states in their letter that RCo has part-paid the debt and that they are expecting the balance due to be settled after RCo obtains the Order that RCo seeks in this Application. There appears to be a condition to this agreement or understanding between the Petitioner and RCo. [10] I am not reasonably satisfied that it is fit to grant the Orders sought (to terminate the winding up or to stay the winding up perpetually). I do not want any party to this proceeding (or any person affected by this proceeding) to come back to Court by filing a subsequent application for subsequent Orders. S/N Ro6nZT1W0Sx/IMPCGQyaQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [11] For instance, if RCo does not settle up the balance due to the Petitioner, and the Winding Up Order is terminated, the Petitioner may file subsequent court proceedings to get consequential reliefs or remedies. Further Court proceedings must be avoided. [12] Secondly, there are three categories of persons who are entitled to make the applications under sections 493 and 492 of the Companies Act 2016—the liquidator of the wound up company, a creditor of the company, or a contributory of the company. RCo, as a legal entity, is not in any of these categories of persons. RCo cannot make this Application to get either an Order to terminate the winding up, or an Order to stay the winding up (stay the liquidation process). [13] Thirdly, as for the alternative prayer for a perpetual stay of the winding up process, section 492 provides that the winding up Court may grant a stay “for a specified time”, which to me means for a finite and specified period. Asking for the Winding Up Order to be “perpetually stayed” is not the equivalent of asking for a stay Order for a finite and specified period. CONCLUSION [14] In summary, for the above reasons, I will neither grant the Order terminating the winding up of RCo, nor the Order to perpetually stay the winding up of RCo. I am not satisfied that all the proceedings in relation to the winding up of RCo either ought to be terminated or ought to be perpetually stayed. I find that it is not fit to grant either of these prayed- for Orders to the applicant: RCo. S/N Ro6nZT1W0Sx/IMPCGQyaQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [15] I make no Order for costs. Dated 6 December 2023 signed KENNETH ST JAMES Judicial Commissioner Penang High Court Counsel/Solicitors For the Petitioner/Applicant: Ranjit Singh Dhillon [Messrs. Ranjit Singh Dhillon & Co., Pulau Pinang] For the Third Party: Emy Juliana binti Jaafar [Malaysian Department of Insolvency, Pulau Pinang] Legislation referred to: 1. Section 493 and Section 492 of the Companies Act 2016. Cases referred to: - S/N Ro6nZT1W0Sx/IMPCGQyaQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

BA-22C-46-10/2020

PLAINTIF K.K. ORIENTAL BUILDER SDN BHD DEFENDAN MERCHANT SYNERGY SDN BHD

1. Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim.2. The Defendant pays the sum of RM1,953,931.99 to the Plaintiff.3. Interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the sum of RM1,953,931.99 to be incurred by the Defendant from 1.7.2020 until the date of full settlement.4. The Defendant pays the Plaintiff costs of RM50,000.00 for the claim and counterclaim subject to allocator’s fees.

06/12/2023

YA Puan Sumathi a/p Murugiah

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1fa8a65c-b82c-4177-a67a-bf3ffc141565&Inline=true

GOJ - KK Oriental v Merchant Synergy (1).pdf DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO. BA-22C-46-10/2020 BETWEEN K. K. ORIENTAL BUILDER SDN. BHD. (Company No:1244727-H) PLAINTIFF DAN MERCHANT SYNERGY SDN. BHD. (Company No: 923062-M) DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT A. Introduction [1] This suit was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant due to the non- payment of the balance contract sums for the construction of bungalow units on bungalow lots by the Plaintiff. The construction of these bungalow units was based on a building contract entered into by the Defendant with the owners of the bungalow lots at Bandar Akademia, Seremban. [2] The Plaintiff was engaged by the Defendant to construct 52 bungalow units as per the specification of the building contract through four (4) letters of awards issued by the Defendant. 07/12/2023 09:24:07 BA-22C-46-10/2020 Kand. 60 S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal B. Background Facts [3] The Defendant had awarded the Plaintiff four (4) Letters of Award for the construction of several units of Single and Double Storey Bungalows whereby the Defendant was appointed as the main contractor by the individual owners to build their houses in a project known as Development at Bandar Akademia, Mukim Lenggeng, Daerah Seremban, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus as listed below:- i. - a contract for construction of 28 units of Single and Double Storey Bungalows (Batch 6,9,11,12,13,14,15,16 TTB5 Mixed 3) for a Lump Sum of RM2,953,657.75; ii. Letter of Awa - of 6 units of Single and Double Storey Bungalows (Batch 10,14,15,16) for a Lump Sum of RM689,744.50; iii. - Units of Single and Double Store said LA- ; and iv. - construction of 10 Units of Single and Double Storey Bungalows -4 Bunga of RM1,029,817.75. S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [4] The contract period of the respective construction is as follows: i. LA-1 from 2.5.2018 till 1.5.2019; ii. LA-2 from 4.9.2018 till 3.9.2019; iii. LA-3 from 13.8.2019 till 12.8.2020; and iv. LA-4 from 13.8.2019 till 12.8.2020. C. [5] Pursuant to Clause 6.0 Mode of Payment of LA-1, LA-2, LA-3 and LA-4, the payment term shall be 30 days from the date of monthly progress claims. [6] The Plaintiff had issued progressive claims to the Defendant in relation to LA-1, LA-2, LA-3 and LA-4 and the Defendant had made part payments towards each of the progressive claims made by the Plaintiff as follows: i. LA-1 Progress Claim No. Date of Progress Claims Claims for Works Done (RM) Retention Sum (RM) Progress Claims (Net) (RM) Payment received from MSSB (RM) Date of Payment received from MSSB (RM) Outstanding sum (RM) 1. 30/6/2018 974,449.85 97,444.98 877,004.86 100,000.00 19/4/2019 -777,004.86 2. 31/8/2018 511,112.07 50,237.91 460,874.16 100,000.00 26/4/2019 -360,874.16 3. 30/9/2018 649,127.23 - 649,127.23 100,000.00 3/5/2019 -549,127.23 4. 31/10/2018 248,336.16 9,800.00 258,136.16 70,000.00 29/5/2019 -188,136.16 5. 30/11/2018 175,689.56 - 175,689.56 50,000.00 7/6/2019 -125,689.56 6. 31/12/2018 182,142.89 - 182,142.89 50,000.00 28/6/2019 -132,142.89 7. (F) 31/3/2019 16,800.00 - 16,800.00 50,000.00 22/7/2019 33,200.00 Total Net Progress Claim 2,619,774.8 6 Total Overdue Payment -2,099,774.86 S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ii. LA-2 Progress Claim No. Date of Progress Claims Claims for Works Done (RM) Retention Sum (RM) Progress Claims (Net)(RM) Payment received from MSSB (RM) Date of Payment received from MSSB (RM) Outstanding sum (RM) 1. 31/10/2018 526,411.25 34,487.23 491,924.02 - - 491,924.02 2. 30/11/2018 113,779.39 - 113,779.39 - - 113,779.39 3. 31/12/2018 20,529.57 - 20,529.57 - - 20,529.57 4. 31/1/2019 1,040.74 - 1,040.74 - - 1,040.74 5. 28/2/2019 712.17 - 712.17 - - 712.17 - 6. (F) 29/3/2019 27,271.40 - 27,271.40 - - 27,271.40 Jumlah Tuntutan Progress 655,257.29 Jumlah Pembayaran Tertunggak - 655,257.29 iii. LA-3 Progress Claim No. Date of Progress Claims Claims for Works Done (RM) Retention Sum (RM) Progress Claims (Net)(RM) Payment received from MSSB (RM) Date of Payment received from MSSB (RM) Outstanding sum (RM) 1. 31/8/2019 46,536.79 4,653.68 41,883.11 41,883.11 3/12/2019 - 2. 30/11/2019 25,241.67 2,524.17 22,717.50 22,717.50 17/1/2020 - 3. 31/12/2019 64,107.42 6,410.74 57,696.68 - 57,696.68 4. 31/1/2020 55,595.42 5,559.54 50,035.88 - 10,035.88 5. 29/2/2020 65,411.87 6,541.19 58,870.68 - 58,870.68 Jumlah Tuntutan Progress 231,203.85 Jumlah Pembayaran Tertunggak 166,603.24 S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal iv. LA-4 Progress Claim No. Date of Progress Claims Claims for Works Done (RM) Wang Pegangan (Retention Sum) (RM) Progress Claims (Net)(RM) Payment received from MSSB (RM) Date of Payment received from MSSB (RM) Outstanding sum (RM) 1. 31/8/2019 56,467.07 5,646.71 50,820.36 50,820.36 3/12/2019 - 2. 30/11/2019 52,010.96 5,201.10 46,809.86 46,809.86 17/1/2020 - 3. 31/12/2019 37,568.88 3,756.89 33,811.99 - 33,811.99 4. 31/1/2020 47,530.91 4,753.09 42,777.82 - 42,777.82 5. 29/2/2020 21,196.83 2,119.68 19,077.15 - 19,077.15 Jumlah Tuntutan Progress 193,297.18 Jumlah Pembayaran Tertunggak 95,666.96 [7] The Plaintiff had sent to the Defendant notices for payment of the outstanding sums:- i. LA-1 - By letters dated 15.7.2020 and 4.8.2020 for the payment of the outstanding sum of RM1,049,774.86; ii. LA-2 - By letters dated 15.7.2020 and 4.8.2020 for payment of the outstanding sum of RM655,257.29; iii. LA-3 - By letters dated 19.6.2020 and 1.7.2020 for payment of the outstanding sum of RM166,603.24; and iv. LA-4 - By letters dated 19.6.2020, 1.7.2020 and 15.7.2020 for payment of the outstanding sum of RM95,666.96. S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [8] In respect of the units within LA-1 and LA-2, the Certificate of Completion and Compliance ("CCC") have been issued and in respect of the units within LA-3 and LA-4, the houses were at various stages of construction but not completed. [9] The construction of units within LA-3 and LA-4 were not able to be completed by the Plaintiff because of the Stop Order from the Local Authority (Majlis Perbandaran Seremban) due to the Movement Control Order (MCO) issued during the COVID-19 pandemic commencing from 18.3.2020 till 31.12.2021. [10] There was delay in issuance of the CCC due to the delay in the completion of the external infrastructure works by Bandar Akademia being the developer of the Project. As such, there was no delay on the part of the Plaintiff so far as to the completion of the works for LA-1 and LA-2 as the last progressive claims made for both these LAs were before the expiry of the completion date stipulated in the said Las i.e. 1.5.2019 and 3.9.2019 respectively : i. LA-1, the last progressive claim was made on 31.3.2019; and ii. LA-2, the last progressive claim was made on 29.3.2019. [11] As for LA-3 and LA-4, due to the Stop Work order during the MCO and the subsequent engagement of the 3rd party sub-contractor by the Defendant, the Plaintiff was not able to continue to complete the works. Hence, the claim made was only till the works done prior to the Stop Order. S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [12] For LA-3, the Plaintiff agree to withdraw items 6 and 7 of its claims made in its progressive claim amounting RM1 claim for LA-3 has been reduced to RM153,232.88. [13] Since the Defendant had failed to pay the Plaintiff the outstanding sums based on the respective Letter of Award and the progressive claims, the Plaintiff filed an action against the Defendant via this writ and prays as follows:- i. The sum of RM1,953,931.99; ii. Interest thereon at 5% per annum from 1.7.2020 till the date of full realization; iii. Costs thereon; and iv. Such further and other reliefs the court deems just. [14] Clause 6.0 in LA-1, LA-2, LA-3 and LA-4 was amended and superseded from the beginning that there will be no interim assessment of the Plaintiff works and that there will be an inspection of the works carried out after the issuance of the CCC. In the meantime, the Plaintiff will be paid a fixed sum of RM50,000.00 per month and subsequently RM100,000.00 per month. [15] Therefore, the mode of payment as stated at Clause 6.0 of each Letter of Award is no longer applicable. S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [16] Consequentially, payments were made to the Plaintiff upon issuance of the progressive claims by the Plaintiff as initial payments in accordance to the Letter of Award as pleaded by the Plaintiff in its Statement of Case. [17] It is not disputed by the Defendant that the Plaintiff issued Progressive Claims: i. Nos. 1 to 7 for sums totalling RM2,619,774.86 in relation to LA-1 claiming to have completed 100% of the works thereunder; and ii. Nos. 1 to 5 for sums totalling RM655,227.29 in relation to LA-2 claiming to have completed 100% of the works thereunder. [18] It is also not disputed that the works under LA-1 and LA-2 have been substantially performed and the quantum of these claims is also not disputed, subject however to any cross claim on damages. [19] The Defendant has a counterclaim for damages arising from defects found in the houses constructed by the Plaintiff under LA-1, LA-2, LA-3 and LA-4. [20] that were not done in the progressive claims no. 1 5 under LA-3 and LA-4 as shown below:- S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal i. LA-3 in progress claim no. 5 : ITEM OF CLAIM (PROGRESS CLAIM NO. 5) AMOUNT (RM) JUSTIFICATION BY SD3 WHY WORK NOT DONE (QA11, WSSD3) Item 7 Roof Trusses in respect of P.T. 3965 3,449,19 The roof truss was not built according to the specifications and as a result the entire work was useless. The Defendant had to reinstall the same. Item 5, 6 and 7 that the first floor slab, 1st floor column and roof beam in respect of P.T. 3045 27,385.18 5,685.18 7,685.18 As regards the house to be erected on P.T. 3045, there is a claim at This is untrue as can be seen from the Plaintiff's own photograph corresponding with Claim No. 5 at [273, B3] (second photograph). In respect of the first floor column and the roof beam, the claim was then withdrawn (we set out below the narrative in the Notes of Proceedings). Item 8 [pg. 256, B3] Roof finishes in respect of P.T. 4,923.79 As can be seen from the Plaintiff's own photograph at [274, B3], the ridges S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3965 were not completed. This caused rain water to enter the roof and cause damage to the underlying sisalation. The sisalation had to be replaced by the Defendant. The Defendant's work was undertaken in July, 2021. Item 8 [pg. 258, B3] Roof finishes in respect of P.T. 2197 4,348,79 Again, the ridges were not installed resulting in damage to the sisalation. The Defendant's rectification work can be seen at [4, B8]. The roof tiles were also not installed properly and some tiles were broken. Items 15 and 16 [pg. 256, B3] Door and window frames in respect of P.T. 3965 1,447.45 2,557.83 This is not true as can be seen at the Plaintiff's own photograph as at claim No. 5 at [274, B3]. I refer again to Photograph No. 3. Again, the Defendant completed this and the photographs of the work done is at. TOTAL: 57,482.59 S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal ii. LA-4 progressive claim no. 5: ITEM OF CLAIM (PROGRESS CLAIM NO. 5) AMOUNT (RM) JUSTIFICATION BY SD3 WHY WORK NOT DONE (QA11, WSSD3) Item 7 [pg. 380, B4] Roof Trusses in respect of P.T. 5750 and P.T. 5705 4,402.16 4,402.16 The roof truss was not built according to the specifications and as a result the entire work was useless. The Defendant had to reinstall the same. The Defendant's again had to engage a third party contractor to complete the works and these works can be seen at [7-8, B4]. Item 5, roof beam in respect of P.T. 7725 [381, B4]. 2,870.28 However, there were two missing beams as can be seen at the third photograph at [9, B8] and there were defects in the brickworks which S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal can be seen from the first two photographs at the same page. The Defendant had to install the beams and for the brickworks, break down and re-lay the entire wall. Proof of the work done is at [10-11, B8]. Refuse Chamber door [pg. 372, B4] in respect of P.T. 7986 - The refuse chamber door was never installed. This is illogical as from the percentages in the top part of the page no work on the house had even been commenced. As of 8.7.2020, the lot remained empty [258, B8] (first photograph). TOTAL: 11,674.46 S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [21] the defects on the houses constructed by the Plaintiff were discovered around January 2020 and that these were serious defaults of LA-1, LA-2, LA- 3 and LA-4. Especially the defects were such defects which were due to the - i. ii. Drawings iii. The Finishes Sample Selections iv. Building Plan v. All directions given by the Defendant [22] o the contract being a Lump Sum Contract, the Plaintiff is not entitled to payments until the defects are rectified but in any case, the Plaintiff cannot rely on the progressive claims to receive its payment but on the basis of quantum meruit. [23] continuously failed, refused and was negligent in making the rectifications mentioned via emails and letters by the Defendant. [24] The Defendant pleaded that the cost to rectify the defects/defaults was RM432,171.32 and that it will increase after a full inspection by the Defendant which the Defendant had not been able to do as the Plaintiff did not cooperate by attending the inspection. S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal D. ounter Claim [25] Due to the defects, the Defendant contents that the Certificate of Practical Completion (CPC) issued to be cancelled and declared not valid. [26] The Defendant claims for damages amounting to RM432,171.32 being the rectification cost for the defects/defaults already identified and claims for damages for any future defects/defaults which may be discovered (latent defects). [27] The Defendant is entitled to claim for Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) amounting RM783,200.00 calculated till 5.11.2020 and will continue till the CPC for all the units are issued or in the alternative any other sum duly assessed. [28] The Defendant prays as follows in its defence and counterclaim:- a.Suatu Perintah bahawa Sijil-Sijil Pelengkapan Praktikal berhormat dengan 16 unit yang merupakan perkara subjek Surat Awad Pertama dan 3 unit yang merupakan perkara subjek Surat Awad Pertama adalah dan dengan ini dibatalkan dan diketepikan; b. Suatu deklarasi diberikan bahawa Sijil-Sijil Pelengkapan Praktikal tersebut adalah batal dan tidak sah dari tarikh ianya dikeluarkan; c. Plaintif hendaklah membayar Defendan sejumlah sebanyak RM432,171.32 berupa kos membaiki Pengingkaran-Pengingkaran seperti yang diplidkan didalam Pernyataan Tuntutan; S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal d. Plaintif hendaklah membayar Defendan sejumlah sebanyak RM783,200.00 dikira setakat 5-11-2020 sebagai gantirugi jumlah tertentu; e. Plaintif hendaklah membayar Defendan sejumlah sebanyak RM40.00 sehari untuk setiap unit (kesemuanya ada 53 unit) dikira dari 6-11-2020 hingga Sijil- Sijil Pelengkapan Praktikal berhormat dengan unit-unit yang dibina oleh Plaintif dikeluarkan; f. Plaintif hendaklah mengindemnifikasikan Defendan terhadap kesemua tuntutan untuk gantirugi jumlah tertentu dan kesemua tuntutan berhormat dengan kegagalan menuruti dengan Surat-Surat Awad yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif oleh pihak-pihak kepada Perjanjian Perjanjian Pembinaan yang diplidkan dalam Tuntutan Balas selain Defendan; g. Suatu Akaun Akhir digubal oleh Penolong Kanan Pendaftar selepas kesemua jumlah yang perlu ditentukan diatas ditentukan secara muktamad; h. Gantirugi am untuk pengingkaran kontrak dan kecuaian; i. Faedah pada kadar 5% atas apa jua jumlah yang diberikan diatas dikira dari tarikh tuntutan balas disini; j. Kos; k. Apa jua atau lain relif diberikan sebagaimana yang Mahkamah yang Mulia ini menganggap wajar dan suai manfaat diberikan. E. Issues [29] Issues which have to be considered by this court arising from both parties are as follows: S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal i. whether Clause 6.0 of the LA-1, LA-2, LA-3 & LA-4 is applicable; ii. whether the Plaintiff had completed the works under LA-1, LA-2, LA-3 & LA-4; iii. whether there were issuance of CPC and CCC; iv. Whether the Plaintiff had failed to rectify the defects; and v. Whether there was LAD to be claimed by the Defendant. F. Findings of the Court I. Whether Clause 6.0 of the LA-1, LA-2, LA-3 & LA-4 is applicable? [30] Clause 6.0 of the Letter of Award reads as follows: The payment term shall be 30 days from t [31] Pursuant to this clause, the Plaintiff had issued progressive claims to the Defendant but the Defendant had not paid the Plaintiff the sum claimed but had instead issued partial payments to the Plaintiff. [32] There is no dispute to the fact that the contract is a Lump Sum contract, as such, there is no dispute as to the contract sum as it is a fixed sum. As to the mode of payment, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the only document where the terms and conditions of engagement between them are those found in the Letter of Award i.e. LA-1, LA-2, LA-3 and LA-4. S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [33] Although the Defendant had in its pleadings stated that there is an amendment to the mode of payment which supersedes the existing Clause 6.0, there was no evidence of the same produced to this court. Based on the purported amendment to the mode of payment, a sum of RM50,000.00 per month and subsequently RM100,000.00 per month will be paid to the Plaintiff pending an inspection to be carried out after the issuance of CCC in order to pay the full contract sum to the Plaintiff. [34] Based on the evidence produced before this court, that was not the case. If there had been such an amendment to the mode of payment as claimed by the Defendant, at the time the progressive claims were made by the Plaintiff, it would only be natural for the Defendant to communicate to the Plaintiff such an amendment and not make partial payments towards the progressive claims instead. There is also no evidence to show that the Defendant had objected to the claims made by the Plaintiff. [35] The effects of the Defendant's failure to reply to the demand made by the Plaintiff has been explained by Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal case of David Wong Hon Leong v. Noorazman bin bin Adnan [1995] 4 CLJ 155, at 159, as follows:- "During argument, we registered our surprise at the learned Judge's reluctance to enter judgment for this sum of RM100,000. After all, the appellant had failed to respond to the letter of 17 December. If there had never been an agreement as alleged, it is reasonable to expect a prompt and vigorous denial. But, as we have pointed out, there was no response whatsoever from the appellant. In this context, we recall to mind the following passage in the judgment of Edgar Joseph Jr. J. in Tan Cheng Hock v. Chan Thean Soo [1986] 1 LNS 42; [1987] 2 MLJ 479-487: S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 'Now there are cases - business and mercantile cases in which the Courts have taken notice that, in the ordinary course of business, if one man of business states in a letter to another that he has agreed to do certain things, the person who receives that letter must answer it if he means to dispute the fact that he did so agree. " [36] The Defendant had submitted on this issue as follows:- the Progress Claims and demands, then the fact that there was no response was merely of probative value as to the claims and demands, not complete proof. It remains the obligation of the Plaintiff to prove its underlying claim and it [37] ad been amended and that the amended version supersedes the one in the letters of award, the burden to produce the amended version is on the Defendant (s.106 of the Evidence Act 1950 i.e when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him). Since no such evidence was produced to this court, the Defendant had failed to discharge its burden so far as this assertion is concern. [38] Therefore, on this issue, it is proven that Clause 6.0 of the Letter of Award remains binding on the parties. II. Whether the Plaintiff had completed the works under LA-1, LA-2, LA-3 & LA-4? S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [39] On the admission of the Defendant through its pleadings that CPC had been issued by the Architect for LA-1 and LA-2, it has been established that the Plaintiff had completed the works under LA-1 & LA-2. As for the works under LA-3 & LA-4, the Plaintiff did not claim that it has completed the works. [40] The Progressive claims made by the Plaintiff for LA-3 & LA-4 are up to when they had to stop construction due to the Stop Work Order issued due to the Movement Control Order (MCO) in relation to COVID-19. It is the -3 & LA-4. [41] The Plaintiff had shown to the court that it had written to the Defendant on 3.7.2020 informing the Defendant of its requirement to stop work due to the MCO and for an extension of time but it did not receive any reply from the Defendant. The Defendant had not denied that there was no reply to the and by that time has been set large by the Defendant. There is also no evidence to show that the Defendant had written to the Plaintiff instructing to resume work failing which the Defendant will have no choice but to engage a 3rd party contractor to complete the works under LA-3 & LA-4. [42] It is an admitted fact that the Defendant had engaged a 3rd party -3 & 4 without giving any notice to the Plaintiff. [43] Therefore, works under LA-3 & LA-4 has not been established by the Defendant. S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [44] Since the contract is a Lump Sum Contract, it was argued by the Defendant that unless the works under LA-3 and LA-4 are completed, the Plaintiff is not entitled for the claims made. However, since it has been established that the Plaintiff did not abandon its works for LA-3 and LA-4 and the only reason it could not continue its work was due to the Stop Work Order, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive for the work done i.e on a quantum meruit basis. [45] Since the Plaintiff had already issued progress claims for the works done to the Defendant, on the basis of quantum meruit, these progressive claims can be measured as sum owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for works done for LA-3 and LA-4. III. Whether there was issuance of CPC and CCC? [46] been issued by the Architect for 16 units under LA-1 and 6 units under LA-2. had prayed among others for the cancellation of the CPC, however, the Defendant had failed to produce the CPC to this court. [47] Failure to produce the CPC had led the Plaintiff to submit that the reason for the failure to produce the CPC is obviously due to fear that this would establish the physical completion of LA-1 and LA-2 and that this would render the accusation of non-completion of units in LA-1 and LA-2 to be untrue. [48] s114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 is invoked whereby it allows a presumption against S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal the Defendant that by the production of the CPC, it will be unfavourable to the [49] As for the CCC, it has been admitted that CCC had been issued for units built under LA-1 and LA-2 by the Defendant. IV. Whether the Plaintiff had failed to rectify the defects? [50] contention that the Plaintiff had failed to rectify the defects on the units under LA-1 and LA-2. The Defendant had produced letters issued by the Architect to the Defendant on issues relating to defects on the units under LA-1 and LA-2 as evidence on the issue of defects in the & . [51] It is the contention of the Defendant that the Plaintiff had failed to rectify the defects and as such the Defendant had to incur costs in rectifying those defects. However, it has been established that CCC had been issued for units under LA-1 and LA-2 and as such, by the issuance of CCC, it is proven that rectification had been done by the Plaintiff. This was the evidence of the Plaintiff subpoena witness, Shaiful Arizal Bin Arbaine (SP2). [52] Ac , who had given evidence as the Penolong Pegawai Seni Bina Bandaraya Seremban (formerly at Majlis Perbandaran Nilai, Negeri Sembilan that before the Local Authority approved the issuance of CCC, consent will be obtained from TNB and Syarikat Air Negeri Sembilan and that all relevant documentation for issuance of CCC had been issued properly by the Architect for all the 34 units under LA-1 and LA-2. This was said during cross examination of SP2: S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal : Okay soalan saya setuju bahawa pihak Majlis tak kira MPN atau MBS tidak terlibat dengan penyeliaan ataupun pemantauan kerja-kerja pembaikan defects, setuju? SP2 : Sebelum tu saya nak tanya defect sebelum CCC atau selepas? JS : Okay baik kita ambik sebelum CCC. SP2 : Jika sebelum CCC macam prosedur saya cakap tadi pihak Jabatan Majlis iaitu Pegawai Jabatan Pembangunan Bersama- sama Arkitek akan buat lawatan ke tapak untuk melihat keadaan rumah tersebut. Jika ada defects pihak Pemaju perlu membaiki terlebih dahulu sebelum pihak Majlis mengeluarkan [53] The evidence given by an independent witness, SP2, confirms that the defects (if any) prior to the issuance of CCC were rectified prior to the issuance of the CCC. [54] efects for all units under LA-1, LA-2, LA-3 and LA-4 were very unclear. This is because, most, if not all of the defects alleged to be found in the units built by the Plaintiff shown to this court were based on images (photos) which were manually marked to correspond with the PT numbers related to the units which were to be built by the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant failed to establish the link between the photos and the units which was said to be built by the Plaintiff. [55] The photos which were submitted as evidence were photos which were not taken jointly during a joint inspection, therefore, there was no verification as to which units that the photos belong to. In fact, it was evidenced that the S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal photos were taken by the 3rd party contractor, Wyner Land Sdn. Bhd., appointed later to complete the construction of the units under LA-3 and LA-4 witness, SD2 being the Project Manager of Wyner Land Sdn. Bhd. The photos that did not carry digitalised dates marked on them as well, so there is no way to know when were they actually taken. I find these photos cannot be admissible pursuant to s.73A(6) of the Evidence Act 1950: to a statement rendered admissible as evidence by this Act, regard shall be had to all the circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement, and, in particular, to the question whether or not the statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the facts stated, and to the question whether or not the maker of the statement had any incentive to [56] The Defendant had failed to give cogent, comprehensive and reliable and its failure to rectify the same. It is undeniable that the Defendant had produced so many documents bearing many different PT numbers which mostly did not correspond to the PT numbers belonging to the units under LA-1, LA-2, LA-3 or LA-4. There were also so many correspondences which were from the Defendant addressed to Cempaka Johan Sdn. Bhd and the Plaintiff with no clear indications as to the units particularly given to the Plaintiff to construct. [57] Therefore, it has been proven that the defects on units under LA-1 & LA-2 (if any) had been rectified prior to the issuance of the CCC by the Plaintiff and the defects (if any) on units under LA-3 & LA-4 were not informed to the Plaintiff as soon as the Stop Work Order was affected and no joint S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal inspection was conducted prior to the engagement of Wyner Land Sdn. Bhd. in order to identify any defects. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that there were defects on units under LA-3 and LA-4 prior to Wyner Land Sdn. Bhd. taking over the construction of the same. [58] The Defendant had attempted to show this court through the photos taken by the Plaintiff which were attached to the progressive claims for LA-3 and LA-4 that there were claims made for works undone. However, these photos were so unclear that it was not possible to view the alleged undone work. Furthermore, there are no evidence whatsoever showing the be done in order to verify the claims made against the work done. V. Whether there was LAD to be claimed by the Defendant? [59] It has been established that for LA-1 & LA-2, the last progressive claims were made before the given completion date. As to the issuance of the CCC, it has also been established that the issuance of CCC was also based on the completion of external infrastructure works by Bandar Akademia being the developer of the Project. [60] However, it was pleaded by the Defendant that the LAD is calculated till 5.11.2020 and will be ongoing till the CPC is issued. In such circumstances, although it was pleaded by the Defendant that CPC had been issued but none was produced in this case. There is also no evidence to show that the Defendant had issued a Certificate of Non-Completion (CNC) against the Plaintiff for any of the LAs. S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [61] As the burden to prove is on the Defendant for its claim for LAD, The Defendant had failed to discharge that burden. Matters not pleaded [62] In this case, I find the Defendant to be inconsistent in its defence, matters that were raised in the pleadings initially were later on changed in the submissions. For instance, the issue pertaining to CPC was only raised in the pleadings but had not been spoken off or any evidence adduced to establish the issuance of CPC even though the Defendant had prayed for the cancellation of the CPC in its counterclaim. [63] The Defendant had also raised a non-pleaded matter in its defence and counterclaim i.e the issue of costs for rectification and completion of uncompleted works for LA-3 and LA-4. In the case of Samuel Naik Siang Ting v. Public Bank Bhd [2015] 8 CLJ 944, the Federal Court had emphasised as follows: [29] It is a cardinal rule in civil litigation that parties are bound by their pleadings and are not allowed to adduce facts and issues which they have not pleaded (see: State Government of Perak v. Muniandy [1985] 1 LNS 117; [1986] 1 MLJ 490; and Anuar Mat Amin v. Abdullah Mohd Zain [1989] 1 LNS 74; [1989] 3 MLJ 313). In Blay v. Pollard & Morris [1930] 1 KB 628, Scrutton LJ ruled that: "Cases must be decided on the issues on the record; and if it is desired to raise other issues there must be pleaded on the record by amendment." [30] The Supreme Court in Lee Ah Chor v. Southern Bank Bhd [1991] 1 CLJ 667; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 239; [1991] 1 MLJ 428, had also emphasised the importance of pleadings and ruled that where a vital issue was not raised in the S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal pleadings it could not be allowed to be argued and to succeed on appeal (see also Ambank (M) Bhd v. Luqman Kamil Mohammed Don [2012] 3 CLJ 551; [2012] MLJU 56 FC). [31] On the same issue, HRH Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as HRH then was) in The Chartered Bank v. Yong Chan [1974] 1 LNS 178; [1974] 1 MLJ 157, had also pointed out that "as the trial judge had decided on an issue which was not raised in the pleadings, the judgment must be set aside and new trial ordered" (see also: Haji Mohamed Dom v. Sakiman [1955] 1 LNS 26; [1956] MLJ 45; and Kiaw Aik Hang Co Ltd v. Tan Tien Choy [1963] 1 LNS 59; [1964] MLJ 99). [64] In this case, I have considered all matters in accordance to the pleadings i.e the defence and counterclaim filed by the Defendant. Conclusion [65] In the upshot, I allowed the plaintiff claims and order as follows: i. The Defendant pays the sum of RM1,953,931.99 to the Plaintiff; ii. Interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the sum of RM1,953,931.99 to be incurred by the Defendant from 1.7.2020 until the date of full settlement; ii. iv. The Defendant pays the Plaintiff costs of RM50,000.00 for the S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N XKaoHyy4d0Gmer8//BQVZQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

AA-A53KJ-303-08/2018

PLAINTIF 1. ) NAZIF BIN RIDHWANUDDIN 2. ) RIDHWANUDDIN BIN ABD KADIR DEFENDAN 1. ) MALATHI A/P MUNISAMY 2. ) VISVABARATHI A/P MUNISAMY 3. ) AIA GENERAL BERHAD

Kes kemalangan jalan raya yang didakwa berlaku diantara motorsikal yang ditunggang oleh Plaintif pertama dan Defendan Kedua. Defendan Ketiga selaku penginsuran kereta Defendan telah dibenarkan untuk mencelah di dalam tindakan ini dan dijadikan Defendan Ketiga atas alasan terdapatnya unsur-unsur frod ("fraud") didalam kemalangan yang didakwa tersebut. Tuntutann Plaintif ditolak dengan kos.Seksyen 121 Akta Pengangkutan Jalanraya 1987 pengeluaran saman terhadap Defendan Kedua di bawah Rule 10 tidak boleh diambil kira dalam kes ini bagi penentuan liabiliti. Hanya selepas pihak Plaintif melepaskan beban pembuktian (‘discharged his burden of proof’) dan membuktikan kesnya atas imbangan kebarangkalian, beban pembuktian untuk membuktikan ‘frod’ beralih kepada syarikat Insurans (Defendan Ketiga).

06/12/2023

Puan Priscilla Hemamalini a/p Nadarajan

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=7f842dc8-0e34-41e2-b3f9-b191eff698da&Inline=true

Page 1 of 46 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI IPOH DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: AA-A53KJ-303-08/2018 ANTARA 1. NAZIF BIN RIDHWANUDDIN (seorang dewasa yang kurang upaya yang membawa tuntutan melalui bapa dan wakil litigasinya Plaintif 2) 2. RIDHWANUDDIN BIN ABD KADIR ……. PLAINTIF - PLAINTIF DAN 1. MALATHI A/P MUNISAMY 2. VISVABARATHU A/L MUNISAMY 3. AIA GENERAL BERHAD …… DEFENDAN – DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN [1] Kes ini melibatkan suatu kemalangan jalan raya yang telah berlaku pada 12/12/2016, jam lebih kurang 12.30 pagi, di Jalan Kamaruddin Isa, Ipoh, melibatkan motorsikal No. WUU 1054 yang ditunggang oleh Plaintif pertama. [2] Defendan Ketiga selaku penginsuran kereta No. BJJ 6664 telah dibenarkan untuk mencelah di dalam tindakan ini dan dijadikan Defendan Ketiga atas alasan terdapatnya unsur-unsur frod ("fraud") didalam kemalangan yang didakwa tersebut. 06/12/2023 16:12:42 AA-A53KJ-303-08/2018 Kand. 114 S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 2 of 46 [3] Kes telah dibicarakan oleh Hakim lain dengan keterangan SP1 sehingga SP12. Setelah saya diarahkan untuk sambung bicara kes ini, saya telah mendengar keterangan SP13 dan seterusnya SD1 sehingga SD5. [4] Pada akhir perbicaraan kes, Mahkamah berpendapat pihak Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan kes terhadap imbangan kebarangkalian terhadap Defendan. Oleh yang demikian tuntutan pihak Plaintif ditolak dengan kos. Pihak Plaintif telah memfailkan notis rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan tersebut dan terhadap kuantum. LIABILITI [5] Versi Plaintif Pada 12.12.2016, jam lebih kurang 12.30 pagi, semasa Plaintif pertama sedang menunggang motorsikal No. WUU 1054, Defendan Kedua memandu kereta No. BJJ 6664 dari Kedai Pelita hendak ke Mengelembu. Semasa sampai di Jalan Kamaruddin Isa, Defendan Kedua telah tiba-tiba melanggar motorsikal Plaintif pertama. [6] Versi Defendan pertama dan kedua Pihak Defendan Pertama dan Kedua menafikan bahawa pada tarikh tersebut:- a) Defendan Kedua terlibat dalam kemalangan pada 12/12/2016; b) Motorkar Defendan Pertama No. BJJ 6664 terlibat dalam kemalangan pada 12/12/2016; dan S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 3 of 46 c) Motorkar No. BJJ 6664 telah dipandu oleh Defendan Kedua pada masa kemalangan tersebut. [7] Versi Defendan ketiga Kemalangan yang didakwa adalah palsu. Lapuran polis yang dibuat oleh abang Plaintif pertama (SP4) dan Defendan Kedua adalah tidak benar/palsu dan Plaintif telah sebenarnya terbabas dan melanggar pembahagi jalan. Tiada apa-apa kemalangan pada 12/12/2016 diantara motosikal No. WUU 1054 dan/atau Plaintif pertama dengan kereta No. BJJ 6664. Pendapat Mahkamah ISU LIABILITI [8] Abang kepada Plaintif pertama iaitu SP4 telah membuat lapuran polis bahawa pada 12.12.2016 jam lebih kurang 12.30 pagi ketika beliau berada di rumah, diberitahu oleh orang awam bahawa adiknya (Plaintif pertama) yang menunggang motorsikal No. WHU 1054 telah terlibat dalam kemalangan jalaraya di Jalan Kamaruddin Isa. SP4 telah diberitahu bahawa motorkar yang melanggar adik beliau bernombor BJJ 6664 dan telah melarikan diri dari tempat kemalangan. SP4 telah memberi keterangan bahawa beliau telah menerima berita mengenai kemalangan tersebut melalui panggilan telefon daripada orang awam. Setelah beliau menerima panggilan telefon tersebut, SP4 dan ayahnya telah pergi ke tempat kemalangan yang dimaklumkan. Orang ramai yang berada di situ maklumkan bahawa adiknya telah dibawa ke hospital. Motorsikal No. WHU S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 4 of 46 1054 yang dimiliki oleh SP4 berada di tempat kejadian. Orang awam yanq berada di tempat kejadian telah memberikan nombor kereta tersebut kepada SP4. Kereta tersebut tidak berada di tempat kejadian apabila SP4 sampai di sana. Pada tahap pemeriksaan balas, SP4 setuju bahawa beliau hanya membuat lapuran polis lima (5) hari selepas kemalangan sebab beliau sibuk. SP4 setuju bahawa beliau dapat tahu berkenaan kemalangan tersebut berdasarkan apa yang diberitahu oleh orang lain. Orang awam telah mengambil telefon bimbit adik beliau (Plaintif pertama) dan telah menelefon SP4. SP4 tidak tahu macam mana orang awam tahu bahawa SP4 adalah abang kepada Plaintif pertama. SP4 jawap bahawa mungkin nombor SP4 disimpan di dalam telefon bimbit adiknya begitu. Pada hari kejadian, SP4 tidak berkomunikasi dengan adiknya. SP4 tidak mengambil gambar motosikal dan juga tidak beri gambar kepada Pegawai Penyiasat (SP1) melalui WhatsApp. SP4 juga setuju bahawa apabila beliau menerima panggilan telefon, dia tidak diberitahu nombor kereta yang terlibat tetapi di dalam lapuran polis beliau, beliau telah menyatakan bahawa nombor kereta diberitahu. SP4 juga setuju bahawa beliau tidak ada penqetahuan sendiri samada kereta No. BJJ 6664 terlibat dalam kemalanqan. SP4 juga tidak ada bukti panggilan orang awam kepada telefon beliau pada malam kejadian. SP4 setuju bahawa gambar motorsikal di m/s 2 Ikatan E diambil di rumah oleh Jurufoto polis. Plaintif pertama telah pulang dari tempat kerja semasa kejadian S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 5 of 46 tetapi SP4 tidak tahu jadual kerja dia dan beliau juga tidak ada bukti kerja dia. Mahkamah meragui keterangan SP4 mengenai isu panggilan telefon yang diterima oleh beliau daripada orang awam ketika beliau berada di rumah. Mengikut SP4, orang awam telah menggunakan telefon bimbit kepunyaan adiknya untuk menelefon beliau. Mahkamah mempersoalkan bagaimana seseorang boleh menggunakan telefon bimbit Plaintif pertama yang ketika itu di dalam keadaan kritikal/parah dan tidak sedarkan diri dan boleh akses telefon Plaintif pertama untuk menghubungi SP4. Mahkamah juga mempersoalkan bagaimana orang awam tersebut mengetahui perhubungan diantara Plaintif pertama dan SP4 untuk memaklumkan mengenai kemalangan tersebut. Call log panggilan telefon SP4 dan/atau Plaintif pertama tidak dikemukakan. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa kes Plaintif hanya bergantung kepada maklumat yang telah diterima oleh SP4 dari orang awam melalui panggilan telefon dan di tempat kejadian. SP4 tidak memperolehi nama dan maklumat peribadi orang awam tersebut dan orang awam tersebut juga tidak dipanggil ke Mahkamah untuk memberi keterangan. Kereta Defendan dan Defendan Kedua juga tidak berada di tempat kejadian sewaktu SP4 sampai di tempat kejadian. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Nguyen Hong Quang v. PR (2017) 5 CLJ 586 di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah menolak keterangan daripada saksi Pendakwa (PW13) yang telah memberi keterangan berdasarkan apa yang telah diberitahu kepada beliau oleh dua (2) anak kapal yang tidak dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan. " In our considered view, there was little doubt S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 6 of 46 whatever was said to PW13 by the two aforesaid witnesses were hearsay and inadmissible". Di dalam kes Sha Kannan & Anor v. Arunachlam Venkatachalam & Anor 2017 1 LNS 2036, Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut:- “ ........ it was not disputed that both the Appellants were present at the trial and only the 1st Appellant took the stand and gave testimony. When crossexamined, the 1st Appellant conceded that he had no personal knowledge of the transactions fashioned out by his late father and it was only his late father who knew what really transpired. By this very concession, the law is quite clear and that is those evidence were at best hearsay evidence which in law has no evidential value. Lord Normand in Teper v. Are [1952] AC 480, 486 explained the value of hearsay evidence in this way: "The rule against the admission of hearsay evidence is fundamental. It is not the best evidence, and it is not delivered on oath. The truthfulness and accuracy of the person whose words are spoken by another witness cannot be tested by cross-examination and the light which his demeanour would throw on his testimony is lost." Mahkamah mendapati bahawa keterangan SP4 mengenai bagaimana kemalangan berlaku adalah “hearsay evidence”. [9] Merujuk kepada keterangan SP1 (Pegawai Penyiasat) dalam kes ini, Mahkamah mendapati seperti berikut: - Terdapat maklumat daripada Jabatan MERS (Malaysia Emergency S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 7 of 46 Response System) bahawa sesalinan Call Card telah dihantar kepada Balai Polis terdekat dalam kes ini iaitu Balai Polis Ipoh. SP1 tidak pergi ke tempat kejadian atau membuat apa-apa siasatan selepas mendapat maklumat tersebut. SP1 hanya memulakan siasatan selepas abang Plaintif (SP4) membuat lapuran polis lima (5) hari selepas kejadian. - SP1 langsung tidak mengambil keterangan Plaintif pertama atas andaian bahawa beliau tidak boleh memberikan keterangan walapun SP1 sendiri mengesahkan dalam keterangannya bahawa beliau tidak mempunyai pengetahuan kediri tentang keadaan Plaintif pertama. - SP1 telah bersetuju bahawa beliau menerima maklumat daripada SP4 tanpa membuat sebarang siasatan lanjut. Sekiranya beliau telah merujuk kepada Call Card dari Jabatan MERS dimana maklumat pemanggil dan bagaimana kemalangan berlaku ternyata, beliau akan mendapat maklumat bahawa Plaintif pertama telah memandu motosikal dengan laju sehingga terbabas dan langgar divider. - SP1 tidak menghubungi pihak-pihak yang memanggil MERS dan mendapat pernyataan daripada mereka. - Surat bertarikh 19/12/2016 dihantar kepada Defendan Pertama [Ekshibit P4] untuk memanggil Defendan Pertama hadir ke balai untuk membantu siasatan. Surat tersebut telah menyatakan no. report Defendan Kedua yang hanya dibuat pada 15/01/2017. Adalah sesuatu yang amat mustahil untuk SP1 menyatakan nombor lapuran polis Defendan Kedua pada surat tersebut memandangkan pada masa surat tersebut dikeluarkan, Defendan Kedua masih belum membuat lapuran polis. Situasi yang sama juga berlaku bagi surat bertarikh 8/1/2017 (Ekshibit P5) yang dihantar S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 8 of 46 kepada Defendan Kedua dimana Defendan Kedua masih belum lagi membuat lapuran polisnya ketika itu. Apabila disoal mengenai isu ini, SP1 menjawap bahawa ia satu kesilapan teknikal - SP1 juga memberi keterangan bahawa surat-surat yang dikeluarkan oleh pihak polis adalah ‘generic’ dimana sekiranya maklumat seperti nombor report ditaip, maklumat-maklumat lain akan keluar secara automatik. Walaubagaimanapun, surat yang dihantar oleh SP1 iaitu surat (Ekshibit P3) dan juga surat keputusan kes (Ekshibit P6) telah menyatakan nombor kertas siasatan yang berbeza dan apabila disoal balas, SP1 menyatakan bahawa kesilapan-kesilapan pertaipan ini adalah satu kesilapan teknikal. - SP1 juga bersetuju bahawa adalah mustahil untuk Defendan Pertama hadir ke balai polis untuk hadir memberi keterangan pada 23/12/2016 apabila surat bertarikh 19/12/2016 tersebut hanya dihantar melalui pos biasa. Walaupun tahu ianya adalah mustahil untuk Defendan Pertama hadir ke balai polis pada 23/12/2016, beliau tetap menghantar surat tersebut kepada Defendan Pertama. Beliau bersetuju bahawa adalah mustahil untuk Defendan-Defendan hadir di balai pada tarikh-tarikh yang dicadangkan dalam surat-surat berkenaan. - Mahkamah merujuk kepada gambar-gambar kenderaan. Jika gambar- gambar di m/s 10 dan 11 di Ikatan B (milik Plaintif) dibandingkan dengan gambar-gambar di m/s 1 hingga 4 di Ikatan E (milik Defendan), adalah jelas bahawa terdapat perbezaan pada gambar-gambar kereta Defendan yang di simpan dan juga dibekalkan kepada pihak-pihak oleh pihak polis. Apabila disoal mengenai isu ini, SP1 menjawap bahawa gambar-gambar yang dibekalkan oleh Defendan Kedua adalah melalui WhatsApp dan S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 9 of 46 hanya dimuatnaik dalam sistem untuk rujukkan beliau sahaja. Walaubagaimanapun, gambar kerosakkan motorsikal Plaintif iaitu Ekshibit P2F (tidak pasti siapa ambil gambar) juga telah di hantar oleh SP1 kepada Jurugambar (SP9) melalui WhatsApp dan ini telah dimuatnaik dalam sistem dan diberi kepada pihak Plaintif. - Tidak ada saman dan notis di bawah Seksyen 52 Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 dikeluarkan kepada Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua kerana tidak membuat laporan polis dalam tempoh 24 jam walaupun tidak cedera. - SP1 tidak siasat mengapa Defendan Kedua membuat lapuran polis tiga puluh (30) hari selepas kemalangan. - Plaintif pertama telah mengalami kecederaan yang serius tetapi Defendan Kedua hanya disaman dibawah Rule 10 dan bukannya dibawah kesalahan yang lebih berat. Pada tahap pemeriksaan balas, SP1 setuju bahawa kes ini sepatutnya disiasat dibawah Seksyen 43 Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 kerana Plaintif pertama telah alami kecederaan serius. - Beliau setuju bahawa tiada kerosakan kepada kereta Defendan Kedua ketika beliau memeriksa motorkar Defendan Kedua secara fizikal. - Kereta Defendan Kedua dan motorsikal Plaintif pertama tidak dihantar kepada Jabatan Kimia dan Puspakom untuk mengesahkan kerosakan kenderaan-kenderaan tersebut. - Kerosakan kereta Defendan Kedua hanyalah berdasarkan laporan polis pihak Defendan Kedua dan gambar yang dikatakan dihantar oleh Defendan Kedua. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 10 of 46 - SP1 juga tidak dapat pastikan kerosakan yang manakah yang dialami oleh motorsikal Plaintif pertama yang disebabkan oleh perlanggaran dengan kereta Defendan Kedua ataupun kerosakan yang disebabkan oleh langgar divider. - SP1 setuju bahawa beliau sebenarnya tidak tahu kerosakan kereta Defendan Kedua. Merujuk kepada surat-surat yang dikeluarkan oleh SP1 kepada Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua (Ekshibit P2 ke P5), adalah jelas bahawa SP1 telah hanya keluarkannya untuk membantu tuntutan Plaintif. Pada tahap pemeriksaan balas, SP1 sendiri telah setuju bahawa terdapat banyak kesilapan teknikal pada siasatan beliau dan seterusnya telah bersetuju bahawa siasatan beliau adalah tidak lengkap kerana terdapat banyak kesilapan teknikal ini. Mahkamah mendapati terdapat banyak kepincangan dan keterangan SP1 tidak dapat dipercayai. Kes Balachander A/L Palaysamy v. Asiatic Development Bhd (1995) 2 CLJ 783 dirujuk, dimana Mahkamah telah menolak keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat kerana bukti yang wujud bercanggah dengan keterangan beliau. Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Lim Jeh Haur v. Nicholas Thomas Philip & Anor [2019] 1 LNS 1351, yang mana Mahkamah telah memutuskan penghakiman berikut: “24. The court should not attach any weight to the evidence of an IO that a particular party has been negligent or not (or words to that effect) because: S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 11 of 46 (1) whether a party is liable for negligence or otherwise is to be decided by the court; (2) an IO has no personal knowledge regarding the accident. The I O's knowledge of the accident is derived so/e/y from the results of the /O's investigation. In other words, the 10's evidence regarding who is negligent or not, constitutes hearsay evidence. I rely on the following judgement of Ong Hock Thye Ag CJ (Malaya) (sitting as a High Courf Judge) in Public Prosecutor v. Siew Sung [1965] 1 LNS 140; [1996] 1 MLJ 145, at 145, as follows 一 "The inspector's evidence that his enquiries led him to believe that the accused was owner of the machine, was rightly struck out as hearsay, upon objection raised by defence counsel. (emphasis added); and (3) an IO’s evidence regarding who is negligent or otherwise, is purely his or her opinion. The court cannot accept opinion evidence unless there is a relevant issue before the court which is beyond the court's competence wherein the court may accept an expert opinion under s. 45(1) EA.” [10] Jurugambar (SP9) telah memberi keterangan bahawa beliau telah mengambil gambar di m/s 10 dan 11 Ikatan A. Gambar P2F telah diberi oleh Pegawai Penyiasat melalui WhatsApp. Gambar di m/s 9 Ikatan A telah diambil oleh Koperal Samsol Bin Salleh. Gambar atas di m/s 1 dan kedua-dua gambar di m/s 4 Ikatan E telah diambil oleh SP9 dan Koperal Samsul. Gambar- gambar lain telah diberi oleh Pegawai Penyiasat kepada beliau melalui WhatsApp dan nombor SP9 tertera di sebelah kanan sebab SP9 yang masukkan gambar dalam sistem. Pada tahap pemeriksaan balas, SP9 mengatakan beliau tidak pasti bila gambar P2C-F diambil. Gambar kereta diambil di tempat parking di hadapan Balai Polis S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 12 of 46 atas arahan Pegawai Penyiasat (SP1). Gambar di Ikatan E telah dimasukkan ke dalam sistem oleh SP9. SP9 tidak pasti siapa yang ambil gambar tersebut tetapi beliau telah terima gambar tersebut daripada Pegawai Penyiasat melalui WhatsApp. SP9 setuju terdapat perbezaan diantara gambar yang beliau ambil dan gambar yang diterima melalui WhatsApp. SP9 juga setuju beliau tidak ada pengetahuan sendiri samada kenderaan-kenderaan terlibat dalam kes ini. Dalam sistem tidak direkodkan bila gambar dimuatnaik. Dalam sistem kesemuanya ada sepuluh (10) keping gambar. Empat (4) diambil di depan balai, empat (4) diterima melalui WhatsApp dari Pegawai Penyiasat dan dua (2) diambil di tempat kejadian. Gambar P2 F m/s 10 Ikatan A dan gambar C di m/s 2 Ikatan E adalah sama. Gambar ini dan juga gambar-gambar C-F di m/s 2 & 3 Ikatan E diterima daripada Pegawai Penyiasat melalui WhatsApp. Mahkamah mendapati terdapat perbezaan diantara gambar kereta Defendan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak Plaintif iaitu gambar P2C dan D di m/s 10 apabila dibandingkan dengan gambar D dan F di m/s 2 & 3 Ikatan E. Lampu kenderaan adalah berbeza dan juga bonet kereta di m/s 10 juga ada petak hitam manakala petak hitam tidak ada dalam gambar di Ikatan E. Rim tayar juga berbeza diantara kedua-dua kenderaan. Wujud persoalan samada gambar-gambar di m/s 2 & 3 Ikatan E telah dibekalkan oleh Defendan Pertama sebab beliau bersubahat dengan Plaintif untuk membuat satu tuntutan palsu. Jawapan-jawapan yang diberikan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat juga mengungkitkan persoalan samada beliau juga bersubahat dalam konspirasi yang sama dengan pihak-pihak yang terlibat. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 13 of 46 Jawapan Pegawai Penyiasat bahawa gambar-gambar yang diberi oleh Defendan Kedua melalui WhatsApp tidak diberi kepada Plaintif bila permohonan mereka diterima adalah tidak konsisten kerana gambar P2F juga telah diberi kepada jurugambar melalui WhatsApp juga tetapi diberi kepada pihak Plaintif. Alasan Pegawai Penyiasat bahawa gambar yang diterima melalui WhatsApp hanya telah dimuatnaik untuk rujukkan beliau sendiri tidak logik kerana ianya adalah sebahagian daripada siasatan dan sepatutnya dibekalkan kepada pihak-pihak. [11] Pada tarikh 15/12/2021, Peguam Plaintif telah memakumkan kepada Mahkamah bahawa beliau berhak untuk bercakap dan menemubual Defendan kerana pihak Insurans mempertikaikan liabiliti. Pihak mereka tidak dapat memanggil Defendan untuk hadir ke Mahkamah pada tarikh tersebut. Sekiranya pihak Defendan dapat dihubungi dan versi beliau dapat diperolehi, pihak Plaintif akan memanggil Defendan sebagai saksi beliau. Sekiranya tidak, pihak Plaintif akan menutup kes. Pada tarikh sambung bicara seterusnya pada 9/2/2022, peguam Plaintif memaklumkan pihak mereka tiada saksi lain dan telah menutup kes. Peguam Defendan pertama dan kedua pula telah memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah bahawa Defendan tidak dapat dihubungi. [12] Lapuran polis yang dibuat oleh Defendan Kedua (m/s 7 - Bundle A) menyatakan bahawa beliau telah melanggar sebah motosikal jenis Yamaha 125, nombor tidak pasti apabila beliau sampai di selekoh Jalan Kamarudin Isa. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 14 of 46 Pihak Plaintif telah berhujah bahawa keterangan SP1 bahawa beliau telah pergi ke tempat kejadian sebanyak dua (2) kali bersama SP4 dan Defendan Kedua serta keterangan Defendan Kedua yang dirakam oleh SP1 serta saman polis yang telah dijelaskan oleh Defendan Kedua jelas menunjukkan bahawa suatu kemalangan telah sebenarnya berlaku. Mahkamah tidak dapat menerima hujah di atas kerana wujud terlalu banyak percanggahan di dalam keterangan SP1 seperti yang dibincangkan di dalam perenggan 8. Keterangan dan kredibiliti SP1 dan juga SP4 diragui. Oleh itu, Mahkamah tidak dapat mempertimbankgan hujah Plaintif seperti di atas. Gambar-gambar kenderaan Defendan [Ekshibit D14 (d) dan (f)] di m/s 2 dan 3 Ikatan E tidak diambil oleh Jurugambar (SP9). Jika gambar kereta tersebut diteliiti, dapat dilihat bahawa bumper depan kereta Defendan kedua tertanggal. Menurut SP4, Defendan kedua telah lari/beredar dari tempat kemalangan. Persoalan timbul bagaimana Defendan kedua dapat memandu keretanya apabila bumper tertanggal. Selain daripada itu, Defendan Kedua telah melapurkan bahawa beliau telah melanggar bahagian belakang motosikal Plaintif pertama. Namun, jika diteliti gambar-gambar yang sama, tidak ada sebarang kerosakkan yang ketara di bahagian depan kereta Defendan. [13] Pihak Plaintif telah memplid dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan mereka bahawa kemalangan telah berlaku pada 12.30/00.30 pagi pada 12/12/2016. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 15 of 46 Walaubagaimanapun, laporan perubatan atas Plaintif bertarikh 20/7/2017 dari Klinik Neurosurgeri, Hospital Raja Permaisuri Banun Ipoh (di m/s 17-19, Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif) telah menyatakan bahawa tarikh dan waktu kemalangan adalah pada 12/12/2016 pada 5.30 pm/petang. [14] Dalam laporan perubatan Plaintif bertarikh 14/8/2017 (Ekshibit P7- di m/s 23 - 25 Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif), dari Jabatan Perubatan Rehabilititasi, Hospital Raja Permaisuri Banun, Ipoh Dr Thaneswari (SP2) telah nyatakan (dibawah tajuk SEJARAH (History) seperti berikut "Patient was involved in a motorvehicle accident. According to the first clercking at the scene it is written as motorbike skidded and hit divider but mechanism of injury is unknown...". [15] SD4 adalah Pn Subasne iaitu pengurus di Pusat Panggilan 999 Telekom. Beliau telah memberi keterangan bahawa apabila anggota Jabatan menerima panggilan 999, maklumat seperti nama pemanggil, nombor telefon serta di mana kemalangan dan bagaimana kemalangan berlaku akan diperolehi. Anggota yang sama juga akan mengisi maklumat ini dalam Call Card sebelum menyambung pemanggil kepada pusat panggilan kecemasan di hospital yang terdekat sekali. Call Card tersebut akan dihantar kepada Jabatan Kecemasan hospital yang sama dan sesalinan Call Card juga akan dihantar kepada Balai Polis yang terdekat yang mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk menyiasat kemalangan berkenaan dan dalam kes ini ialah Balai polis Ipoh. Setelah panggilan telah disambung kepada anggota di Pusat Kecemasan di hospital tersebut, anggota Jabatan akan menamatkan panggilan. Call card akan dihantar ke hospital dan balai polis melalui MERS sistem iaitu Malaysia S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 16 of 46 Emergency Response System. Pada 12.12.2016, jam lebih kurang 12.15 malam, Pusat Panggilan 999 Telekom telah menerima empat (4) panggilan mengenai satu kemalangan di Hotel Fair Park, Jalan Kamaruddin Isa, Ipoh. Satu kronologi mengenai panggilan-panggilan tersebut telah disediakan (Ekshibit D33) dan maklumat yang tertera adalah daripada rakaman percakapan diantara anggota Pusat Panggilan 999 Telekom dan pemanggil. Berikut adalah dari Call card yang disediakan oleh anggota anggota Pusat Panggilan 999 Telekom (Ekshibit D36 A dan B) bagi tiga (3) panggilan yang pertama. Panggilan pertama Pemanggil pertama adalah En Mohd Amirul yang bercakap dengan Prefessional Emergency Officer (PEO) Nurul Aida Razali. Ringkasan rakaman adalah seperti berikut: Rakaman pertama dari CD (D34) yang dimainkan di Mahkamah Jabatan Kecemasan boleh saya membantu: Saya nak laporkan kemalangan Dimanakah alamat penuh: Di hadapan Hotel Fair Park Nama Jalan: Jalan Kamaruddin Isa Negeri mana: Ipoh Perak No talipon pemanggil 017-5446067 Nama Pemanggil: Mohd Amirul Apa sebenarnya berlaku: Dia bawa terlalu laju tergelincir langgar divider Berapa orang mangsa: 1 mangsa cedera tak boleh bergerak. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 17 of 46 Panggilan kedua Panggilan adalah diantara PEO Sheikh Fahmi dan En Mohd Nur Syazwan. Ringkasan rakaman adalah seperti berikut: Jabatan Kecemasan boleh saya membantu: saya nak lapurkan kemalangan di Fair Park Ipoh Lokasi kejadian: di hadapan Hotel Fair Park Jalan apa: Jalan hala ke stadium hoki (hockey) Ada apa-apa landmark/bangunan: Fair Park Hotel Nama Jalan: tak pasti, mangsa teruk tolong hantar ambulan No talipon pemanggil: 011-33726762 Nama pemanggil: Mohd Nur Syazwan Apa sebenarnya berlaku: Motorsikal dia terbabas keadaan mangsa macam mana: mangsa cedera parah Panggilan ketiga Panggilan adalah diantara PEO Khairul Anwar dan Pn Zarina. Ringkasan rakaman adalah seperti berikut: Jabatan Kecemasan boleh saya membantu: Ada kemalangan Dimana lokasi: depan Hotel Fair Park, ada orang buat panggilan dan lama tunggu ambulan Kes kemalangan motor terbabas ke: Ya betul. Dah lama ambulan belum sampai Nama Pemanggil: Zarina S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 18 of 46 Apabila anggota kecemasan menerima panggilan, mereka akan gunakan Call card yang sama dan menyediakan nombor baru dimana maklumat anggota akan dinyatakan di Call card mereka. Maklumat dalam rakaman disimpan dalam sistem arkib dan tidak dapat diubah suai atau edit. Walaupun ada beberapa anggota beliau mengambil panggilan, polisi TM tidak membenarkan mereka untuk beri keterangan. Hanya SD3 sahaja yang dibenarkan untuk memberi keterangan. Maklumat yang ada tidak boleh di ‘edit’ atau diubah tetapi boleh disalin dalam bentuk CD. la hanya disediakan apabila terima arahan daripada Kementerian Komunikasi dan Digital. Maklumat boleh dibawa keluar dalam bentuk CD atau ‘thumb-drive’ tetapi hanya dengan kebenaran Kementerian. PEO hanya akan tanya bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Butir-butir lanjut seperti pukul berapa dia nampak semua tidak ditanya sebab pihak mereka perlu respon cepat. Mereka akan ambil nama, nombor talipon, jenis dan lokasi kejadian. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa keterangan jelas menunjukkan bahawa orang- orang awam yang menelefon Pusat Panggilan 999 Telekom telah menyatakan bahawa Plaintif pertama telah membawa motosikal dengan laju dan telah terbabas dan langgar ‘divider’. Panggilan telefon ini telah dibuat oleh orang awam yang telah berada di tempat kejadian sewaktu kemalangan telah berlaku. Tiada sesiapa pun yang telah melapurkan mengenai kewujudan kereta Defendan Kedua dan bahawa kereta tersebut yang telah melanggar motosikal Plaintf pertama. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 19 of 46 [16] SD5 adalah pegawai yang bertugas di Jabatan Kecemasan Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun (MECC) ketika panggilan kecemasan telah disambung dari Pusat Panggilan 999 Telekom. Selain daripada panggilan tersebut, ada juga satu Call card diterima dari Jabatan tersebut. Kesemuanya ada dua Call card diterima berkenaan kemalangan yang sama iaitu seperti di m/s 7 & 8 Ikatan E. Call card ini diterima melalui MERS dan ianya akan terpapar di skrin komputer di hadapan mereka. Panggilan yang sama dan Call card akan terpapar pada skin semua komputer yang diguna dan pada hari kejadian ia terpapar di enam (6) buah komputer kesemuanya. Selain daripada SD5, Puan Salimah Alias juga berkerja pada masa itu tetapi SD5 yang telah menerima panggilan daripada Mohd Amirul. Semasa SD5 bercakap dengan pemanggil, Puan Salimah telah menguruskan dispatch ambulan ke lokasi di mana dia beritahu PPP Faseha iaitu pasukan Response ambulance untuk pergi ke tempat kejadian. Maklumat yang diberitahu kepada PPP Faseha adalah tempat kemalangan, berapa mangsa dan bagaimana kemalangan berlaku. Maklumat yang SD5 terima daripada RC adalah mangsa langgar divider dan perkara ini juga diberitahu oleh Pn Salimah kepada Faseeha. Responder pula akan beritahu melalui walkie-talkie kepada pihak mereka status ambulan iaitu masa perjalanan, bila sampai, kendalikan mangsa dan bila pulang ke hospital dengan mangsa. Ini kelihatan dalam catitan di m/s 6 Ikatan F (Ekshibit D36). SD5 tidak bercakap dengan pemanggil kedua tetapi beliau dapat lihat semua maklumat dalam Call card dia juga sebab ini juga dihantar kepada pihak mereka pada masa Call card yang pertama dihantar. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 20 of 46 [17] Pemandu ambulans (SD2) telah memberi keterangan bahawa beliau menerima maklumat kemalangan daripada PPP Faseha yang datang ke bilik pemandu dan beritahu ada kemalanggan dimana penunggang motorsikal ‘skidded’. Apabila sampai di tempat kejadian, beliau berhentikan kenderaan dan nampak seorang remaja Melayu dalam keadaan terbaring atas jalan dalam keadaan pengsan dan tidak boleh bercakap. PPP Faseha beri bantuan kecemasan kepada dia. SD2 hanya nampak sebuah motorsikal sahaja di sana di hadapan mangsa. Ada beberapa motorsikal lain di sana dan tiada apa-apa kereta di sana. Semua orang disana berbangsa Melayu sahaja. Tiada orang berbangsa lain di sana. SD2 telah bertanya orang di sana bagaimana kemalangan berlaku dan diberitahu mangsa terbabas ketika menunggang dan langgar divider dan jatuh sendiri. Di sini, Mahkamah ingin menyatakan bahawa keterangan SD2 mengenai apa yang beliau dengar daripada orang awam berkenaan bagaimana kemalangan berlaku adalah ‘hearsay evidence’ dan tidak dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah dalam penentuan liabiliti. [18] Defendan kedua telah disaman di bawah kesalahan Rule 10 Road Traffic Rules 1959 LN 166/59 iaitu ‘Memandu Kenderaan Tidur semasa Memandu atau lalai mengawal pergerakkan kenderaan dengan baik.’ Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Krishnamoorthy Potharajoo v. Ahmad Syamil Zamri & satu lagi [2020] 5 LNS 200 yang memperuntukkan seperti berikut: “[16] Beliau turut memaklumkan bahawa hasil siasatannya mendapati Defendan telah gagal mengawal kenderaannnya dan menyebabkan kemalangan tersebut. Defendan telah disaman di bawah Rule 10 dan telah S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 21 of 46 membayar saman tersebut pada 29.01.2018. Walaubagaimanapun ini bukanlah suatu bukti yang konklusif mengenai kecuaian Defendan dalam kemalangan tersebut. [17] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada keputusan dalam kes Tan Leh Kiat & Anor v. Aznul Bin Ab Rahman & Ors [2016] 1 LNS 676, sebagai panduan. Dalam kes tersebut, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi menyatakan bahawa: " Admittedly the issuance of a Summons under Rule 10 and the payment of a fine in settlement thereof is not conclusive proof of the 1st Defendant's guilt or culpability in negligence. Nevertheless, it is evidence that the court can have proper regard to when considering the overall probabilities of the case in establishing negligence. The High Court in Che Wil Che Ali v. Mahmood Ismail [1982] CLJ 484; [1982] CLJ (Rep) 420, where the deceased who had contravened r. 35 of the Road Traffic Rules 1959 by peddling a trishaw at night without lights was collided into by a motorist travelling in the same direction, had held that: ... breach of the rules is not in itself evidence of negligence on the part of the person concerned. The question that has to be decided is who is negligent." [18] Oleh yang demikian, tugas Mahkamah ini adalah untuk mempertimbangkan dan mengambilkira keterangan yang ada dalam membuat dapatan kemungkinan kecuaian oleh mana-mana pihak yang terlibat dan menyebabkan kemalangan tersebut. Berdasarkan Seksyen 121 Akta Pengangkutan Jalanraya 1987 pengeluaran saman terhadap Defendan Kedua di bawah Rule 10 tidak boleh diambil kira dalam kes ini bagi penentuan liabiliti. Di dalam kes Wong Thin Yit v. Mohamad Ali [1971] 2 MLJ 175, di mana Y.A Ong CJ memutuskan bahawa:- "In a negligence action the onus of proof rests wholly on the plaintiff S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 22 of 46 whether or not the defendant gives evidence. The plaintiff cannot succeed without proof of defendant's negligence." [19] Daripada pliding, Plaintif harus membuktikan bahawa kereta Defendan yang datang dari belakang tanpa memberikan sebarang amaran dan/atau isyarat telah terus berlanggar motorsikal Plaintif daripada belakang dan menyebabkan kemalangan ini. Adalah prinsip undang-undang mantap bahawa pihak-pihak terikat dengan pliding masing-masing seperti yang diputuskan dalam kes Iftikar Ahmed Khan v. Perwira Affin Bank Bhd [2018] 1 CLJ 415, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan bahawa - “It is settled law that parties are bound by their pleadings and are not allowed to adduce facts and issues which they have not pleaded...A decision based on an issue which was not raised by the parties in their pleading is liable to be set aside.” [20] Di bawah Seksyen 101 Akta Keterangan 1956, beban pembuktian (burden of proof) terletak atas Plaintif untuk membuktikan kecuaian Defendan di atas imbangan kebarangkalian (balance of probability). Di dalam kes Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2016] 1 MLRA 647, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah putuskan seperti berikut: - “The standard of proof in civil cases is the legal standard to which a party is required to prove its case, namely on a balance of probabilities. In civil litigation, the question of the probability or improbability of an action occurring is an important consideration to be taken into account in S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 23 of 46 deciding whether that particular event had actually taken place or not. In the case of Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, Lord Denning said the following about the standard of proof in civil cases: "The ... [standard of proof] ... is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability ... if the evidence is such that the tribunal can say: 'We think it more probable than not' the burden is discharged, but, if the probabilities are equal, it is not." [21] Pihak Plaintif telah berhujah bahawa Peguam Defendan pertama dan kedua sepatutnya berhenti bertindak di dalam kes ini kerana mereka telah dilantik oleh Syarikat Insurans (Defendan Ketiga) dan Syarikat Insurans turut diwakili oleh peguamnya sendiri. Pihak Peguam Defendan pertama dan kedua juga telah memfailkan satu pembelaan yang bercanggah dengan laporan polis pihak Defendan Kedua. Peguam Defendan Pertama dan Kedua menafikan bahawa terdapat konflik kerana sepanjang perbicaraan ini dijalankan, mereka tidak pernah pada bila– bila masa melakukan apa–apa tindakan yang menjejaskan kepentingan Defendan pertama dan Defendan Kedua. Kes Govina Raju a/l Nagarajan v- Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd [2014] 8 MLJ 839 dirujuk dimana Mahkamah telah menyatakan bahawa:- “[57] Another point that I had to consider is the point made by counsel for P & O who said they should be allowed to intervene and added as co- defendant as the solicitor acting for the defendant, regardless of whether they were appointed by P & O or not, cannot cross–examine or put to their own client that there was fraud and collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant. Here, the position of Messrs K Suganthi & Company is invidious to say the least. It is not in dispute that they were appointed by S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 24 of 46 P & O to have conduct of the defence. But that's only in so far as the policy of insurance between P & O and the defendant is concerned, which allows P & O to take over conduct of the defence and to do all things necessary with respect to the running down action. So the defendant is only a nominal party. In almost every respect P & O will call the shots, so to speak. [58] However, there is an important distinction that must be made and the line clearly drawn when it comes to the conduct of the running down action. Messrs K Suganthi & Company who are on record for the defendant are, in so far as the proceedings are concerned, solicitors for the defendant. In the running down action, the defendant has certain rights, recognized by law, with respect to the conduct of the case. In most cases, this is a non– issue, as the defendant will be nonchalant and indifferent to the outcome of the running down action in the civil court. [59] Of course, it may or will be different if the insured is charged for an offence under the Road Transport Act 1987 or any subsidiary legislation thereunder, in which case the insured will have every reason to worry as he may lose his driving licence and/or pay a hefty fine or in the extreme of case, face a jail sentence. But apart from that, the insured will mostly be relieved that the solicitors appointed by the insurer are handling the defence and that all that the defendant has to do is to co-operate with the solicitors, meaning he has to attend at their office for pre-trial discussions and attend court for hearing etc. In most cases, it does not amount to anything more than that. On the contrary, if the defendant/insured refuses to co-operate, then that would be a breach of the terms of the policy of insurance and the insurers may repudiate liability. But such repudiation of liability is only valid and effective, vis-a-vis the insured and insurer and does not affect or absolve the insurer of liability under Section 96(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987. That statutory liability remains intact and extant regardless of any repudiatory conduct by the insured and consequent repudiation of liability by the insurer. [60] Now, coming back to the present set of facts, where P & O's position is that fraud and collusion has to be raised and presented during the trial S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 25 of 46 process. The question is how is that to be done in the running down action? Most certainly, Messrs K Suganthi & Company cannot say or do anything to jeopardize the defendant's position by impugning their own client's conduct. As solicitors for the defendant, they have to protect their client's interest and argue the case on the basis [of the pleaded case] that this was a genuine motor vehicular accident and cannot act against his interest and promote the fraud and collusion theory of P & O. If Messrs K Suganthi & Company raise fraud and collusion either by an amendment to the pleadings or during trial, then that may be grounds for the defendant to allege misconduct against them under the Legal Profession Act 1976 and the Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978. ” Mengenai pembelaan yang bercanggah dengan lapuran polis Defendan Kedua, pihak peguam menyatakan bahawa kandungan laporan polis yang dibuat oleh Defendan Kedua bukanlah satu bentuk keterangan yang konklusif. Pihak Plaintif tidak boleh bergantung kepada laporan polis Defendan Kedua sahaja dalam membuktikan kes beliau lebih - lebih lagi laporan tersebut tidak ditandakan sebagai ekshibit. Selain daripada itu, peguam Defendan pertama dan kedua juga telah memplidkan pembelaan alternatif. Di dalam kes Siti Zaleha AB Hamid & Anor v. Mohamad Nazir Ismail & Ors [2022] 1 LNS 817, keadaan yang sama telah timbul seperti kes Govina Raju (supra) dan juga kes ini. Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “Court's Analysis and Findings Conflict of Interest [28] The third defendant had retained the law firm of M/s Kenneth William & Associates to act for the first and second defendants because its insurance policy on WDB 8532 was at risk. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 26 of 46 [29] However, when it intervened in the action and was named as the third defendant, it counterclaimed against not only the plaintiffs on grounds of fraud but also on the ground that the plaintiffs have colluded with the first defendant to cheat the third defendant (Enclosure 17 AR Vol 3H, p 229 para 15 iii). [30] Thus, learned counsel for the plaintiffs took the point (Enclosure 36 para 12, pp 237 to 251) that there was an obvious conflict of interest as the paymaster, to wit, the third defendant, is effectively running its fraud action against, inter alia, a party whom it is defending, namely, the first defendant. [31] At first blush, I found this to be a meritorious point as justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done with counsel to maintain an independent and objective position at all times in the administration of justice. [32] More so, after taking into account the evidence in totality including the evidence that were not led, for example, the second defendant and the first adjuster not being produced as witnesses, the non-production of the reports of the first and second adjusters, some of the recorded statements under section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code but I wish to make it clear that I make no findings whether these adjusters' reports are protected from disclosure by reason of legal professional privilege. In this regard, on the authority of Govinaraju Nagarajan v. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd [2014] 1 CLJ 1076; [2014] 8 MLJ 839 (HC) relied upon by the first and second defendants, S. Nantha Balan JC (now JCA) did point out at paragraph [75] that the solicitors for the defendant would find themselves in an awkward position as they could not possibly be advancing a case which would promote the fraud and collusion theory against their own client, the defendant. [37] Wherefore, much as I find the conflict of interest point well taken, it would be better to be represented by another solicitor rather than not at all and I would decline to order a re-trial which this Court is empowered to do pursuant to section 29 read together with section 60(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 as it is highly likely that the parties will most probably find the litigation funded by the third defendant, yet again. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 27 of 46 [38] On this note, this Court takes comfort that advocates and solicitors are members of an honourable profession and the benefit of doubt ought to be given to them that they will honorably manage what S. Nantha Balan JC (now JCA) had described in Govinaraju Nagarajan v. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd (supra) as an 'awkward situation' with their primary duty being to the Court'; see also Nivesh Nair Mohan v. Dato' Abdul Razak Musa, Pengerusi Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors [2021] 8 CLJ 163; [2021] 5 MLJ 320 (FC) at paragraph [36] where the Tun Tengku Maimun CJ said: "[36] We pause for a moment here to note that our case law is replete with reminders to advocates – whether from the Bar or public service – of the onerous duties of those in the legal profession. The highest duty of counsel – a duty that supersedes his or her duty to his client – is his duty to the Court, which remains paramount in the administration of justice. Counsel are expected to make out their client's case to the best of their abilities but they cannot adopt the mindset that they must 'win at all costs' if that results in misleading the Court or approbating and reprobating before different panels of the Court." (Emphasis added) [39] Before leaving this point, I would urge the Bar Council, the legal practitioners in personal injury cases as well as other stakeholders such as the motor insurance companies to undertake a study on how such similar awkward situations can be better managed, at least, perception wise, in the administration of justice.” Mahkamah mendapati peguam Defendan pertama dan kedua tidak menjejaskan kepentingan Defendan pertama dan Defendan Kedua dan telah menjalankan kes sebagai tanggungjawapnya terhadap Mahkamah dalam pendtadbiran keadilan. [22] Pihak Insurans yang melindungi kereta No. BJJ 6664 telah mencelah dan dijadikan Defendan ketiga di dalam kes ini. Versi pihak Defendan ketiga S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 28 of 46 adalah bahawa terdapatnya unsur-unsur penipuan/frod di dalam kes ini dan/atau pakatan di antara Plaintif, abang Plaintif dan Defendan Kedua untuk membantu Plaintif mendapatkan pampasan insuran daripada Defendan Ketiga. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Tang Loon Pau & Ors v. Mohd Salihin Kotni & Anor [2023] 8 CLJ 105; [2023] 1 LNS 1435, dimana Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: “[19] The High Court's findings (per the CLJ report) are summarised as follows: (1) The fact that a defendant submitted that it had no case to answer and called no witnesses and led no evidence did not absolve the plaintiff from discharging its burden of proof in law. The burden remained with the plaintiff to prove its case before a court could grant judgment on its claim. The fact that the defendant did not call any witnesses did not automatically equate to the plaintiff satisfying the burden of proof. Notwithstanding the defendant's submission of no case to answer, it still remained that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff must be sufficient to prove the plaintiffs' case. Additionally, the SCJ's drawing of adverse inference against the defendants for having elected not to call any witnesses was also wrong at law since the plaintiffs had not proven its case against the defendants on a balance of probabilities. The plaintiff in an accident case must discharge his burden of proof and prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident was caused by the defendant and that the injuries and damages he suffered were a result of and/or caused by the accident, as required under s. 101 of the Evidence Act 1950. It was only after the plaintiff had discharged his burden of proof and proved his case on a balance of probabilities would the burden of proof shift onto the insurance company to prove its allegation of fraud. For all these reasons, the SCJ did not have a sufficient appreciation of the applicable law and was plainly wrong at law. (paras 33 & 36-38) S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 29 of 46 [39] The insurer's right to intervene and protect their legal and commercial interest was recently discussed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Jiwaneswary Raman v. Etiqa General Takaful Bhd [2023] 1 LNS 93; [2023] 2 MLJ 437 (CA). The Court of Appeal emphasised that an insurer does not have to take the s. 96(3) of the RTA route and that they could intervene in the running down action especially where they intend to show that the insured motor-vehicle was not involved in the accident and that there was collusion between the insured and the third party claimant. Menurut kes Tang Loon Pau (supra), hanya selepas pihak Plaintif melepaskan beban pembuktian (‘discharged his burden of proof’) dan membuktikan kesnya atas imbangan kebarangkalian, beban pembuktian untuk membuktikan ‘frod’ beralih kepada syarikat Insurans (Defendan Ketiga). Di dalam kes ini, Mahkamah mendapati pihak Plaintif gagal membuktikan kes atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Oleh itu beban pembuktian tidak beralih kepada pihak Defendan Ketiga. Walaupun demikian, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Defendan Ketiga telah membuktikan frod atau penipuan atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Di dalam kes Khalek Awang & Anor v. Koperasi Perumahan Kluang Bhd & Another Appeal [2021] 10 CLJ 238, Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut: "[16] In our view, there was nothing wrong in the standard of proof applied by the learned trial judge. The above-mentioned case was decided in 2007. Since the decision in the landmark Federal Court case of Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Damai Setia Sdn Bhd [2015] 7 CLJ 584; [2015] 5 MLJ 1, the law in this country is that there are only two standards of proof, ie, S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 30 of 46 beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases and balance of probabilities for all civil cases even if criminality is alleged. The previous position in the law that a plea of civil fraud requires a higher standard of proof than balance of probabilities was reversed and restated. The following passage of the judgment of the Federal Court quite clearly expounds the present state of the law: [49] With respect, we are inclined to agree with learned counsel for the plaintiff that the correct principle to apply is as explained in In Re B (Children). It is this: that at law there are only two standards of proof, namely, beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases while it is on the balance of probabilities for civil cases. As such even if fraud is the subject in a civil claim the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. There is no third standard. And '(N)either the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. (emphasis added) [17] During oral argument, counsel for the defendants argued that even if the standard of proof is now on a balance of probabilities, it is "higher" for fraud. We respectfully disagree. As stated in the Sinnaiyah case (supra), there are only two standards of proof, ie, beyond reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities. There is no intermediate standard of proof between the two. Thus, although the allegation against the second and third defendants is fraud or conspiracy or fraudulent misrepresentation, the question that the trial judge had to ask and answer was whether the plaintiff had proved it on a balance of probabilities on the evidence presented. [18] The learned trial judge held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to find that the second and third defendants had conspired with the first defendant to cheat the plaintiff into entering into the joint venture agreement. His Lordship also found that Tetuan Khalek Awang & Associates fraudulently misrepresented that the plaintiff could develop the land in question when confronted with the letter of Tetuan Cheang & Ariff that denied knowledge of said joint venture agreement on the part of Pravest. In making this finding, the trial judge considered the suspicious S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 31 of 46 inconsistencies and discrepancies surrounding the transaction. These facts led the learned trial judge to disbelieve the defendants' assertion that they did not know that DSN was not authorised by Pravest. Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Sinnaiyah (supra) telah memutuskan bahawa beban pembuktian frod bagi kes sivil adalah atas imbangan kebarangkalian dan bukan lagi standard melampaui keraguan munasabah. Oleh yang demikian, berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan saksi perbicaraan serta penilaian terhadap bukti-bukti yang ada di hadapan Mahkamah ini, Mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa Plaintif telah gagal membuktikan kes di atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Maka dengan itu tuntutan Plaintif telah ditolak dengan kos. ISU KUANTUM (atas dasar 100%) [23] Sekiranya tuntutan pihak Plaintif dibenarkan, Kuantum atas dasar 100% liabiliti terhadap Defendan diputuskan seperti di bawah. Dokumen yang berkenaan dengan kecederaan Plaintif Pertama adalah seperti berikut: a) Laporan Perubatan Awal bertarikh 12.06.2017 dari Jabatan Kecemasan dan Trauma, Hospital Raja Pemaisuri Bainun Ipoh; b) Laporan Perubatan Awal bertarikh 27.11.2017 dari Jabatan Ortopedik, Hospital Raja Pemaisuri Bainun, Ipoh; c) Laporan Perubatan Awal bertarikh 20.07.2017 dari Jabatan S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 32 of 46 Neurosurgery, Hospital Raja Pemaisuri Bainun, Ipoh; d) Laporan Perubatan Awal bertarikh 09.08.2017 dari Jabatan Otorinolarigoloy (ENT), Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun, Ipoh e) Laporan Perubatan Awal bertarikh 14.08.2017 daro Jabatan Rehabilitasi Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun, Ipoh (Laporan Pakar Plaintif); f) Discharge Summary dari University Malaya Medical Centre bagi tempoh Plantif di UMMC dari 21.10.2018 hingga 24.10.2018, 24.09.2019 hingga 28.02.2019- ditandakan sebagai P28 Ikatan E g) Laporan Perubatan Pakar Ortopedik bertarikh 08.02.2018 dari Perak Community Specialist Hospital, Ipoh (Laporan Pakar Plaintif); h) Laporan Perubatan Pakar Neurosurgery bertarikh 27.01.2018 dari Fadzli Cheah Neurosurgery Clinic, Ipoh Specialist Hospital (Laporan Pakar Plaintif); i) Laporan Perubatan Pakar Ortopedik bertarikh 17.12.2018 dari University Malaya Specialist Centre (Laporan Pakar D1 dan D2); dan j) Laporan Perubatan Pakar Neurosurgery bertarikh 17.12.2018 dari Sunway Medical Centre (Laporan Pakar DI dan D2). [24] GANTIRUGI AM PLAINTIF PERTAMA a) Severe head injury with right frontotemporal subdural hemorrhage tentorial SDH cerebral edema with loss of consciousness /Brain injuy S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 33 of 46 Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah sebanyak RM400,000/- dibenarkan berdasarkan kes:- i. R Zakaria R Abdul Hamid v. Ruthven Theodore Bowman & Anor [2018] PILRU 15; dan ii. Erma Rahayu Abd Razak & lain-lain v. Muhamad Danish Hariri Azuan & 1 lagi [2021] MLRHU 1184. Peguam Defendan telah berhujah sebanyak RM120,000/- berdasarkan kes:- i. Norhelmy bin Ahmad v. Dildar Khan & Anor [2015] 2 PIR [62]; dan ii. Mohd Farhan Azizan b Adnan v. Teo Bee Leng [2020] 2 PIR [9]. Mahkamah setuju dengan hujah yang dikemukakan oleh peguam defendan berkenaan keadaan kesihatan Plaintif pertama pada masa kini. Oleh itu Mahkamah telah awadkan sejumlah RM120,000/- berdasarkan nas undang- undang yang dirujuk oleh peguam Defendan dan juga kes Siti Rohayu Jaafar v. Annaporni Vasiappan & Other Cases [2023] 1 LNS 1409. b) Bilateral lung contusion with bilateral pneumothorax Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah sebanyak RM20,000/- dibenarkan berdasarkan 2018 Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai Compendium) dimana bagi Haemopneumothorax ialah diantara RM6,000/- ke RM7,500/-. Peguam Plaintif juga merujuk kepada kes R Zakaria R Abdul Hamid v. Ruthven Theodore Bowman & Anor [2018] PILRU 15. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 34 of 46 Peguam Defendan juga telah berhujah sebanyak RM20,000/- berdasarkan kes:- i. Mustafa bin Soid & 2 Ors v. Foo Kok Pal & Anor [2018] 1 PIR [26]; dan ii. Nur Alia Mohamad Radzhi (seorang budak dan pendakwaan dibuat melalui bapa angkatnya dan wakil litigasi, Mohamad Radzhi bin Hassan) & 2 Ors v. Fazilah bt Abdul Aziz [2023] 1 PIR [41]. Mahkamah telah awadkan sejumlah RM20,000/- berdasarkan nas undang- undang yang telah dirujuk oleh kedua-dua pihak. c) Right hip dislocation Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah sebanyak RM40,000/- berdasarkan Compendium dimana awad bagi ‘with disabilities’ adalah diantara RM15,000/- ke RM40,000/-. d) Right acetabulum fracture Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah sebanyak RM35,500/- berdasarkan Compendium dimana jumlah awad adalah diantara RM24,000/- ke RM35,500/- Bagi kedua-dua kecederaan di atas, Right hip dislocation dan Right acetabulum fracture, peguam Defendan telah berhujah jumlah global sebanyak RM45,000/- berdasarkan kes Zainuddin b Ibrahim & Anor v. Muhammad Arman bin Mohd Radzif & Anor [2019] 2 PIR [21]. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 35 of 46 Mahkamah telah awadkan satu jumlah global bagi kedua-dua kecederaan di atas sebanyak RM60,000/- berdasarkan nas undang-undang yang dikemukakan oleh kedua-dua pihak dan juga telah merujuk kepada kes Vijayan Subramaniam v. Muhammad Faizal Khalili [2021] 1 LNS 2519. e) Left iliac bone fracture, right superior and inferior pubic rami fracture Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah sebanyak RM36,000/- berdasarkan Compendium dimana awad adalah bagi Iliac adalah diantara RM9,500/- ke RM14,500/- dan pubic rami diantara RM14,500/- ke RM21,500/-. Peguam Defendan telah berhujah sebanyak RM30,000/- berdasarkan Compendium dan juga kes Abdullah Sani bin Che Mat & Anor v. Ahmad Kamal bin Ramli & Anor [2019] 1 PIR [46]. Mahkamah telah awadkan sejumlah RM36,000/- berdasarkan hujah dan nas undang-undang yang telah dirujuk oleh Peguam Plaintif. f) Closed fracture distal end left radius – Salter Harris type 2 Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah sebanyak RM30,000/- berdasarkan Compendium dimana awad adalah diantara RM12,000/- ke RM30,000/- . Peguam Defendan telah berhujah sebanyak RM15,000/- berdasarkan kes Phang Ming Ching & 3 Ors v. Md Ariff bin Mohd Noor & 2 Ors [2019] 2 PIR [28]. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 36 of 46 Mahkamah telah awadkan sejumlah RM30,000/- berdasarkan hujah Peguam Plaintif. g) Left clavicle fracture Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah sebanyak RM28,000/- berdasarkan Compendium dimana awad awad adalah diantara RM13,000/- ke RM28,000/- dan juga merujuk kepada kes R Zakariya (supra) dimana jumlah sebanyak RM20,000/- diawadkan pada tahun 2018. Peguam Defendan telah berhujah sebanyak RM15,000/- berdasarkan kes Chan Kwa v. Tevarrajan a/l Segaran & Anor [2022] 1 PIR [1]. Mahkamah telah awadkan sejumlah RM15,000/- berdasarkan hujah Peguam Defendan dan juga telah merujuk kepada kes Gerald Lim Vin Zhe v. Mohd Fauzi Abdul Aziz [2022] 1 LNS 610 dimana jumlah yang sama telah diawadkan. h) Scars Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah sebanyak RM10,000/- berdasarkan Compendium dimana awad awad adalah diantara RM2,750/- ke RM12,000/- . Peguam Defendan telah berhujah sebanyak RM3,000/- berdasarkan kes Mohd Roslan bin Abdul Razak (seorang budak dibawah umur mendakwa melalui wakil litigasi dan ibunya Rokiah Bebee bt Pitchay, Plaintif kedua) & Anor v. Jagathisan a/l Arumugam [2017] 2 PIR [9]. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 37 of 46 Mahkamah telah awadkan sejumlah RM10,000/- berdasarkan hujah Peguam Plaintif. GANTIRUGI KHAS BAGI PLAINTIF PERTAMA [25] Pada masa kemalangan berlaku, Plaintif Pertama berumur 16 tahun dan beliau seorang pelajar Tingkatan 4 di SMK Desa. Abang Plaintif pertama (SP4) telah memberi keterangan bahawa beliau kerja sambilan di sebuah hotel dan semasa kemalangan, Plaintif pertama sedang dalam perjalanan balik dari tempat kerja ke rumah. Sepanjang perbicaraan, pihak Plaintif tidak mengemukakan apa-apa bukti keterangan dari majikan atau apa-apa dokumen bagi menyokong versi pihak Plaintif bahawa Plaintif pertama bekerja secara sambilan. [26] Untuk gantirugi Khas, awad Mahkamah bagi item-item yang telah dituntut di dalam pernyataan tuntutan adalah seperti berikut:- BUTIR-BUTIR Awad Mahkamah a. Bayaran untuk lapuran polis, rajah kasar dan kunci, gambar-gambar serta dokumen lain Dibenarkan dibawah kos tindakan b. Kos lapuran JPJ Dibenarkan dibawah kos tindakan c. Bayaran bagi lapuran perubatan HRPB Report RM100.00 Dibenarkan dibawah kos tindakan d. Bayaran bagi lapuran perubatan pakar - Dr John Anantham Report RM 470.00 - Dr Fadzly Cheah’s report including MRI Scan RM3,196.00 Dibenarkan dibawah kos tindakan S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 38 of 46 e. Kos perubatan - Ultra tracky RM 215.00 f. Kos makanan/minimun khas - Pharmacy expenses RM2,244.31 g. Kos pembedahan masa hadapan Tidak dibenarkan h. Kos membaiki motosikal Tidak dibenarkan i. Kehilangan pendapatan Tidak dibenarkan j. Kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan Tidak dibenarkan k. Kos penjagaaan di Hospital Columbia Asia Tidak dibenarkan l. Kos menggaji 2 pembantu bagi penjagaan atau “nursing care” Plaintif di rumah Tidak dibenarkan m. Kos penjagaan ahli keluarga untuk menjaga Plaintif 1 [RM600 x 12 bulan] x 58 tahun = RM417,600.00 RM417,600.00 n. Kos perbelanjaan lanjutan (barang keperluan ) sebulan Tidak dibenarkan JUMLAH RM420,059.31 • Item (g) sehingga (l) dan (n), tuntutan telah ditarik balik oleh pihak Plaintif. • Item (m) - Kos penjagaan ahli keluarga untuk menjaga Plaintif 1- - Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah seperti berikut: Umur 16 tahun, jangka hayat lelaki dewasa adalah 74 tahun [RM600 x 12 bulan] x 58 tahun = RM417,600/- - Hujah peguam Defendan adalah sepeti berikut: [RM350 x 12 bulan] x 10 tahun = RM42,000/- ATAU [RM350 x 12 bulan] x 38 tahun = RM159,600/- [73 tahun tolak 1/3 contigency iaitu 73 tahun tolak 16 tahun (1/3) = 38 tahun] - Mahkamah setuju dengan hujah yang dikemukakan oleh peguam Plaintif dan telah beri awad seperti berikut: [RM600 x 12 bulan] x 58 tahun = RM417,600.00 S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 39 of 46 ITEM-ITEM LAIN YANG DITUNTUT [27] BUTIR-BUTIR AWAD MAHKAMAH Kehilangan keupayaan pendapatan (Loss of earning capacity) Tidak dibenarkan Kos kehadiran saksi ke Mahkamah a) Sjn Tajuddin SP1 RM300.00 b) Dr Theneswari SP2 (2 kali) RM1,000.00 c) Dr Lai Si Qi SP3 RM500.00 d) Dr Zahril Akmar SP5 RM500.00 e) Dr Izani SP6 RM1,000.00 f) Dr Janardhan SP7 RM500.00 g) Dr Kumareysh SP10 RM500.00 h) Dr John Anantham SP8 – RM700.00 i) Dr Fadzly Cheah SP11 RM2,500.00 JUMLAH RM13,200//- Dibenarkan dibawah kos tindakan Kos perjalanan ahli keluarga dari rumah ke Hospital semasa Plaintif dimasukkan di Hospital Raja Pemaisuri Bainun Ipoh selama 66 hari RM200 x 66 = 13,200/- Tidak dibenarkan Kos untuk ‘follow up treatment’ di Hospital Raja Pemaisuri Bainun Ipoh - 16 tarikh RM200 x 16 = 3,200/- Tidak dibenarkan • Kehilangan keupayaan pendapatan (Loss of earning capacity) - Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah bahawa di Malaysia, seseorang boleh bekerja secara sah pada umur 18 tahun and umur persaraan adalah 60 tahun. Merujuk kepada kes Yang Salbiah & Anor v. Jamil Harun [1981] 1 LNS 106, Pihak Plaintif memohon sebanyak RM756,000/- dibenarkan mengikut perkiraan seperti berikut:- [60 tahun (umur pencen) -18 tahun (42 tahun)] x [RM1,500 x 12 bulan] = RM756,000/- . S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 40 of 46 - Peguam Defendan Pertama dan Kedua telah berhujah agar tuntutan ini tidak dibenarkan kerana ia tidak dituntut di dalam pernyataan tuntutan (not pleaded). Pihak Plaintif juga tidak menunjukkan apa- apa bukti bahawa Plaintif pertama tidak mampu atau langsung tidak berpeluang mempunyai pekerjaan pada masa hadapan. Selain daripada itu Peguam Defendan Pertama dan Kedua juga telah berhujah bahawa kes Yang Salbiah (supra) yang dirujuk oleh peguam Plaintif adalah bagi kehilangan pendapatan masa hadapan (loss of future earnings) dan kes tersebut juga merupakan kes sebelum pemindaan Seksyen 28A Akta Undang-undang Sivil 1956. Selain daripada itu, Peguam Defendan Pertama dan Kedua juga menyatakan perkiraan ‘multiplier’ adalah 16 tahun dan bukannya dari umur pencen 60 tahun seperti yang dihujah oleh peguam Plaintif. Walaubagaimanapun, Peguam Defendan telah merujuk kepada kes Tan Kim Chuan & Anor v Chandu Nair [1991] 2 MLJ 42 dimana Seksyen 28A(2)(c)(i) dan (ii) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 telah dibincang. “The marginal note to s 28A which reads 'Damages in respect of personal injuries' suggests that the provisions are exhaustive and mandatory. The word 'shall' in the opening sentence in para (c) and the words 'shall not be awarded' in sub-para (i) of para (c) and the words 'shall not take into account' in sub-para (ii) of para (c) in sub-s (2) of s 28A clearly indicate that it is an essential prerequisite that in awarding damages for loss of future earnings or loss of earning capacity there must be S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 41 of 46 proof that the claimant was receiving earnings by his own labour or other gainful activity before he was injured. Even in a case where the plaintiff was receiving earnings before he was injured, the provisions make it clear that a court shall not take into account any prospect of such earnings being increased at some time in the future. The other argument presented before us for the respondent in this appeal is that the Act did not intend to deprive the claimant of the loss of earning capacity. We feel that such an interpretation is not supported at all by the language of s 28A itself. We reiterate that s 28A(2) (c) (ii) which states that 'only the amount relating to his earnings as aforesaid at the time when he was injured and the court shall not take into account any prospect of earnings aforesaid being increased at some time in the future', makes the intention of the legislature abundantly clear and indeed the legislature had the prospect of future earnings (whatever be the label attached to it) in mind when the law was enacted. We need not rely on English authorities to decide this case. In our view much significance must be attached to the fact that our amending Act is not in par materia with English legislation. More importantly our legislature has clearly exercised its own sovereign and independent mind in effecting the amendments to suit economy and special conditions unique to us. It is abundantly clear that the legislature, in its own wisdom, decided that an injured person ought not to get any damages in a claim either for loss of future earnings or loss of earning capacity unless before the accident (at the date of accident) he was in fact receiving earnings. To hold otherwise would mean that the court is creating law S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 42 of 46 to provide for something which clearly the legislature has no intention to do. We feel that our legislature has enacted exhaustively and exclusively. The continued validity of the common law concept governing the future earnings of injured people in contrast to amended provisions in accident cases such as the present are inconsistent with each other and cannot co-exist.” Mahkamah Agung telah membatalkan awad bagi kehilangan keupayaan pendapatan bagi Plaintif yang pada masa kemalangan baru berumur 12 tahun dan tidak mempunyai pekerjaan selaras dengan peruntukkan undang-undang Seksyen 28A(2)(c)(i) dan (ii) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956. - Sekiranya tuntutan bagi kehilangan keupayaan pendapatan diplidkan di dalam pernyataan tuntutan, Mahkamah masih tidak akan membenarkan tuntutan tersebut berdasarkan Seksyen 28A(2)(c)(i) dan (ii) Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 dan kes Tan Kim Chuan (supra). Tiada apa-apa keterangan atau bukti yang menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif pertama sememangnya mempunyai pendapatan semasa kemalangan. • Kos perjalanan ahli keluarga dari rumah ke Hospital semasa Plaintif dimasukkan di Hospital selama 66 hari - Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah sebanyak RM200/- dibenarkan selama 66 hari; RM200 x 66 = 13,200/- - Peguam Defendan telah berhujah agar tuntutan ini tidak dibenarkan kerana ia tidak dituntut di dalam pernyataan tuntutan (not pleaded). S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 43 of 46 - Mahkamah setuju dengan hujah yang dikemukakan oleh peguam Defendan. Pihak Plaintif hanya boleh memohon kepada Mahkamah kepada item-item yang diplidkan sahaja. Oleh yang demikian, tuntutan ini tidak dibenarkan. Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes RHB Bank Bhd v. Kwan Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 CLJ 665, Mahkamah Persekutuan, yang diputuskan seperti berikut: “[33] Second, the proposition of the Court of Appeal was not even pleaded by the respondent. The respondent's cause of action against the appellant was for breach of contract. Nowhere in the respondent's pleading, expressly or by implication, can we detect a claim for breach of a joint venture agreement arising out of a fiduciary duty placed upon the appellant in the capacity as principal of an agent. It is a cardinal rule in civil litigation that the parties must abide by their pleadings. This is trite as can be seen from the decision of this court in Menah Sulong v. Lim Soo & Anor [1983] CLJ (Rep) 263; [1983] 1 CLJ 26 where Ong Hock Thye CJ said: I think it is necessary in this case to emphasise once again that the Courts should give their decision in strict compliance with the pleadings. As Lord Radcliffe said in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v. Southport Corporation [1956] 2 WLR 81, 91. If an Appellate Court is to treat reliance as pedantry or mere formalism I do not see what part they play in our trial system. [34] In fact, the Court of Appeal itself has reiterated this in Amanah Butler (M) Sdn Bhd v. Yike Chee Wah [1997] 2 CLJ 79 where Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) said: It is trite law that a party is bound by its pleadings. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 44 of 46 [35] On this, we would like to add that it is not the duty of the court to invent or create a cause of action or a defence under the guise of doing justice for the parties lest it be accused of being biased towards one against the other. The parties should know best as to what they want and it is not for the court to pursue a cavalier approach to solving their dispute by inventing or creating cause or causes of action which were not pleaded in the first place. Such activism by the court must be discouraged otherwise the court would be accused of making laws rather than applying them to a given set of facts.” • Kos untuk ‘follow up treatment’ di HRPB- 16 tarikh - Peguam Plaintif telah berhujah sebanyak RM200/- dibenarkan selama 16 hari; RM200 x 16 = 3,200/- - Peguam Defendan telah berhujah agar tuntutan ini tidak dibenarkan kerana ia tidak dituntut di dalam pernyataan tuntutan (not pleaded). - Mahkamah setuju dengan hujah yang dikemukakan oleh peguam Defendan. Pihak Plaintif tidak menuntut bagi item ini di dalam pernyataan tuntutan. Oleh yang demikian, tuntutan ini tidak dibenarkan. S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 45 of 46 Kesimpulan [28] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Lee Nyan Hon & Bros Sdn Bhd v. Metro Charm Sdn Bhd [2009] 6 MLJ 1, di mana Mahkamah Rayuan telah memutuskan seperti berikut:- “[67] In evaluating the available evidence, the plaintiff as the tenant was in clear breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement. The plaintiff had breached the express covenants of the tenancy agreement with impunity and this court will not lend its assistance to the plaintiff. It is quite apparent that the plaintiff is relying on its illegal acts in not procuring the building plan and the licence to operate the entertainment outlet in the building to advance its claim against the defendant. I have no hesitation in striking out the plaintiff's claim based on the ex turpi causa non oritur actio principle. It is a principle that is applicable to all causes of action including claims in tort. Beldam LJ delivering the judgment of the court in Clunis v. Camden and Islington Health Authority [1998] QB 978, CA, at p. 987 had this to say about the ex turpi causa non oritur actio principle: But whether a claim brought is founded in contract or in tort, public policy only requires the court to deny its assistance to a plaintiff seeking to enforce a cause of action if he was implicated in the illegality and in putting forward his case he seeks to rely upon the illegal acts. [68] And Lord Mansfield in Holman ET AL' v. Johnson, alias Newland [1775] 98 English Reports, 1 Cowp. 342, 343 explained the ex turpi causa non oritur actio principle in broad terms in this way: No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.’ S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 46 of 46 Mahkamah bersimpati dengan kemalangan dan kecederaan parah yang dialami oleh Plaintif pertama. Namun, Mahkamah tidak boleh memberi pampasan gantirugi kepada seseorang berdasarkan suatu tuntutan palsu yang dikemukakan ke Mahkamah. Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang diberikan di atas, Mahkamah berpendapat penghakiman yang diberikan adalah wajar dan munasabah. Bertarikh pada 6 Disember, 2023 .................................…...………… ( Priscilla Hemamalini Nadarajan) Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Sivil 2 Ipoh, Perak ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peguamcara: Bagi pihak Plaintif : Thiru Mangai Krishnan dan Ilavarasi dari Tetuan Surendran & Thiru Bagi pihak Defendan Pertama dan Kedua : Nurhayati bt Zainudin dari Tetuan Murali B. Pillai and Associates Bagi pihak Defendan Ketiga : Anantharajah Shanmugam dari Tetuan Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong S/N yC2EfzQO4kGzbGR7/aY2g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-25-146-03/2022

PEMOHON GOPAL A/L MUNIANDY RESPONDEN 1. ) PENDAFTAR KELAHIRAN DAN KEMATIAN 2. ) PENDAFTAR BESAR KELAHIRAN DAN KEMATIAN JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA 4. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Constitutional Law: citizenship – by operation of law – whether child found exposed or abandoned – section 19B of Part II of the Federal Constitution – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(a) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – burden of proof Constitutional Law: citizenship – by operation of law – Article 14(1)(b) read with section 1(e) and subsection 2(3) of Part II of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution – ‘not born a citizen of any country’ – burden of proof

06/12/2023

YA Dato' Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=2056d0eb-940d-4d29-aa3f-f611f66782c3&Inline=true

06/12/2023 15:14:48 WA-25-146-03/2022 Kand. 27 S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N 69BWIA2UKU2qP/YR9meCww **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w.\—25—us—o3/2n22 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAVA D1 KUALA LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH FERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN KUASA-KUASA KHASJ SEMAKAN KEHAMMAN No WA-25-146-03/2022 sm wswIMu><u2~1PIvR9m-cww Dabm Psrkara-Perkala 5‘ E, 14 dan Jadual Kenna‘ Penembagaan Persekutuan Dan uawam perkara Seksyen 2512) dan/alau Jadual, Akla Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 Dan Dalam Derkara Axuran 53, Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkaman 2012 dun/alau bvdlng kuau sadia ada Mahkamah Dan Dalam parkara surat beflankh 10.12.2021 danpada peguamcam Pemohon kenada Nesponuem Raspenuan Amara 1 «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Kand. 27 25/12/2023 15:1a-as Gupal all Munlandy (No KFS’ 73c11a—o2~s533) Psmohen Dan Pendauar Ke\am’ran Dan Kemauan Pendaflar Besar Kelahxran Dan Kemalian Kama Fengarzh vendanaran Negara . Menlen Da\am Negeri . Kera;aan Malaysia Responden- Responazn mum»; JUDGMENY mmonucnon [1] The appncam, sepal all Muniandy, holds a temporary menmy card 1MyKASj mm me scams 01 lempumry resxdence He Is 50 years old. On 14'" March 2022‘ be mad ems mun-..a> review apphcanon, In me mam, seeking a declaration that he \s a cmzen or Mamysxa by operalmn 11! law pwsuanl Io Amde 1A(1)(b) read wilh semen 1(a). Pan ll olme Semnd Smedule andlor secuon us). Pm ll of ma Second Schedme 0! ma m wswIMuKu2~1PIvR9m-cww «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! DECISION or THE COURT ['5] weaken 0! law an M0 anemam grounds (1) Amcle 14|1)(b) read mgemerwflh Sedion 11a) olPan H, Secund Schedme and sechon 193 Part In, Second Schedule (‘the 1-’ ground“). or (In) Amcle 14(1)1b) read logalherwflh Secuon 1(e) olParI ll, Second Schedule (“the 2" ground‘), ‘rm 1" ground [16] CCH case which held that a new Dam chfld found abandoned 3| mm \s armed to citizenship under Seclmn 1(3) of Part I: read wnh Sechon 193 of Fan III. Saclmn I95 Is a presumpuon pmvxsxon which provides for the smuauon wnere a new bum cm/.1 is round ‘exposed’ In any place In the mowmg warns: )1 sm wswIMu><u2~1PIvR9m-cww «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... w my me mmuny mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! II was submitted that the apphmnt Is a cmzen by In respect ov this ground. (he appucam relied on ma For me purposes of Pan \ or u of mu; Schudulo any new hum cmld found exposed In any anaoe shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to have been born Mars ole mother permanently msmen: mare; and .1 he ls named by virlue av this sscnon as sa bun, Ihe date 0! ma finding shaH be taken to be the da|E 0! me birth [17] Thus‘ w me presummmn Is Invoked me mother Is deemed a permanenl ves4den| and the raqmramarfls nf secnon 1(a) al Pm II or me Second Schedme would be sausnea nu] The Federal com m (ha OCH case. In Maw of lhe prmsnple mat citizenship >5 a lundamenIa\ ngm, gave a hberal wnlefnrelanon to the nhmse ‘new born child is found 'expoaeu' in HIV D/869' la mcmde 3 new born child ‘abandoned’ at 015 place of mm: by the man mother whose menmy ws unknown The remvam Damgmnhs ov me judgment by Tengku Malmun CJ bear mpmucman and read as rouaws: [521 secuon 1(a| 01 Pan u very dearly adorns the cmoems anus son (citizenship used an mm: place) :2 sm mawuuum2wvas....cm. “Nana saw lunhnrwm a. met! a may a. nrW\n|U|y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum am and [us sangufnfs (cmzensmn based on blood relanons. sectton 195 tn [um conlams Iwo presumphcns — one of WW0?! retaces to [us sangulms [53] ‘me anerzmve words tn a. 195 are ‘any new born cnmt toond exposed in any place’ The Purpose at (ms secnent when reed tn context, must be to cover new ham onudmn whu are left and dvsoavered In a mace wttnont any Iran» of thew bIu|ag\ca\ parents we we wdtcial name o1 tna harsh reamtes at me Inis tndudes new born cnndnan ten abandoned near dumflstlfit baby natpnes. llubhc or school tenets. Dlucss cf wonm-o and so on. A nterau meaning ov "exposef suggests a new born cnno who was “dvst'.avered" axposed at any of these locations [54] As sucn the nmadest posstbte mlerprefalmn al the ward “Inund exposed‘ rs to accord rt a meaning to Include a cum: abandoned at me place or am by me bmn mother whose tdenttty IS tlnknawn. The operetwe won1 "expossd' In s. 195 must tnereroye n sm wawuuum2wvne....cm. «wn. Sam ...n.mn .. tn... a may he ann.u-y -mm: dnuamnl VI .nuna v-mat encompass the Night of aoanooneo new bom ch//dram olherwlse lne ovelarchlng rnlenl cl preventmg slalelessness would be oelealecl or rendered illusory. [19] The applloanl in ms wrlllen submlssluns conlenrleo that smoe me loenmy onus vamnls were unknown and meal he was abandoned by nls psrenls al olrm ln In: plarllallun rn Kedah Sscllon lsla ol lne Part lll applled The burden, aocnrdlng Section 19E ol Pan lll, 15 on ma responuanls lo aslanlrsn the manlny at nls mother slnoe Ihey are cumendlrlg that me clnld was not abandoned al blflh. The submlsslon ls ln line with me declslarl In one CCH case OCH held lnal me phrase -unnl me contrary ls snawn' ln Search 195 ol Pan Ill nresnl lnal lne burden Is on me narly who olarms ma: ma -clnld was no: found sxyosad‘ at shawlng an ma ldanllly onna n-roman and ln) that ma rnolnar is nol pemlane/ltly resldent at lhe place 0! the finding. [20] II is no! dlspuled (Hal were is ii basic reL1uIremen| In seclion 195 ol Pan lll lor the appllcanl lo satlsly before lna burden slum. to me vesnondenls. me reaurrarnenl ls lnal lne u an wswlMuKu2qPIvR9m-cww “None s.n.l Iuvlhnrwm .. UIQG a may r... oflnlnnllly mm. mm. VI .nuna Wm! apphcarvl was abandoned at Me News cl am by (he mrrh rnolher wnese rdsnllly rs unknown. [21] In me Instant case me evidence snews \hat me wdenlily at the birlh lllulhar 15 unknown. The» were at Veasl IIND persons who Knew me applumnfs parents but bum are deeeased Thus‘ I neud that me cmena Le that the idermw d1 lhe binh mulher was unknown was sansred. The ulher drum: unlena In be sansfied ws wnenner the apphcsnl was aaandoned allhehmeofbmh. [22] Hound that me endenee based an mnmmporanecus documents we me slalmory dedaralwon and adveflisamenl by Alamaloo (relened |c above) show that the appncam was not abandoned at ms nlaoe oi birlh by ms bualogudax mother The documents show max me wogicau mmhev Iefl lhe appueanc mm Namalno when ne was two years and ms avudence re1u\es the 55?!-servmg avermenl of me applicant that Rukumanv (old mm the! ne wu ahandonad smce bmh Furlher. Rukuma '5 statutory declaramon merely slates max she knew me earenvs enne apphcam by name umy and nmmng else. The emer sall-serving avermem made by me app:-dam was man xs am wswIMuKu2qPIvR9m-cww “Nana s.nn nanhnrwm a. d... a may a. annnnn mm: dnuamnl VI mum am Alamaloo affirmed the statutory aectatatton an tne Edvtrfi of an officev (rem tne Nattonat Regtslralion Dsparlmsnl Eolh me set!» servtng statements are hearsay Fttttner, tne evidence ts sew uontraaictory as the iDD|I|>anl had rattad on Atantatws adverltsement tn Th: Tamll Nesan ta eslabltsh tne (act |haI rte had men to mate nts parents The appttcant was btowtng not and ootd and made ms assemon tmplaustttte. [23] In tttts nagant, I had kept tn mind me estabttsnett pnnctptes tnat tn a hearing which pmcesds on alfldavils, tt an assenton auact ts aeatbty d|Spu|ed, tn: Cfiufl must proceed to hear me case wttnout taktng inlo accwnl tne dispuled facts my Eek Choon v. uh-nnn [1987] t MLJ 433). Tne cattn IS enltlled Io reject an assemon t1 the state: assemon (a) ts tnconststent wtttt tns tteponenrs own avsrmsnls, which ts to say. mat the asserltun ts sat!-uortlradlclury 0V is vague or ts Squtvncal, tn) ts tncunststent wtttt urldtspulzd contemporaneous documentary svtdent-,a; or to) to tt ts tnnsrentty Implaustble tn and at ttsatr (Eng Mu Vang v. v Llllulmlllln [1979] 2 MLJ 212;, Farmer under 0 41 r wt of tne was at com 2012. subtect Io eertatn axoemtons (none of wntcn appty tn tne present case). an affidavtl may anly camatn sttcn facts tnat me 16 SN WBWIMuKU2qPIVR9nuuCww “Nair s.n.t mmhnrwm be t... a may t... tnttn.tt-t MW: dnuuvtml Vfl .ntttta vtmxt deponenl us we of ms own knawledge to wave (Wong Hung Toy v. PP [1 gas] 2 MLJ 553). [24] Applying (he above prmcvplss, I rspcled ma sel!» servwng and hearsay statements of the applicant wmch were am agamst the oomemporaneous documentary evmenoe ie lhe sIatu|orv deciarauan and adverlisemant by Alamaloo. Thus‘ lhe aucm cmena of abanaenmem sl me place 0! mm: Sechan 193 0! Pan In of me Second Schedule was not ostabhshad and foHowing «ms «mum on requlremanls 0! Secnon 1(a) of Pan ll 0! the Second Schedule was as a resun rm| mlfiued The 1“ ground merevore Vans (in) Amde mm )1»; read (agemer mm Sscnon 1(e|o1ParIII, Second sonaame (“the 2* ground’) The 2'» ground [25] The apphcanl oonlended lhal he I: a cullzan under Seclmn I(eD 07 Fan u of me Second Schedule. He avermd that he is to he was born In Ma\aysxa am‘1(i\) \s not mm a dhzen at any omer country. Further‘ was emphasised |haI Saclmn 1(9) :7 sm mwmum2wm....cm. «mm. saw ...m.mm .. U... a may he mm-y -mm: dnuamnl VI mum Wm! is to be read with section 213)of Pan H at trie second soneduie. section ztai is reproduced below. For the purposes at paragvaph (e) 0! Seclion 1 a person 15 to be treated as havlng at birth any citizenship which he acquires within ene year afterwards by virtue oi any prowsion oerrespondinp to paragraph (c) or that section or otrieiwise and “parigraph (c) at that section‘ (which is Ssclion t or part it) nnavtde as iaitows eyery person born outside trio Federilien whose iatner is at trie lime ei me mnri a citizen and wriose oinri is, witnin one year on its oucurrerioe or witnin such longer period as trie Federai covernnient may in any particular cede allow, registered at a oarisiiiate oi tne Federation or, it it occurs in Brunei or in e |amIary prescriosd tor this purpose by nrdev ul tne Vang D\»PemAan Agong, registered the Federal Government II SIN wawIMuKu2qPIvR9rmcww “Nair s.n.i luvihnrwm be UIQG e may i... nflfliruflly MIMI dnuaviml VI nF\uNfl Wm! [26] It was argued that a person mm In Malaysia and who did nm attempt to ootatn the ctltzenshtp at any mher wumry ts nol a cmzen of any mhev curun|ry. tn this regavd, tt was lunhev argued mat paragraph ta) does not conutn ma wards -parents‘ ‘nus would nrean mat Ins raqutremenl ol hneage or [us ssngutnis ts trrelevant [21] 1 Iowa mat the appucant am not meet the requirements of SSCIAOVI 1(e)olPan II or the Second Schedule to quaitfy as a cmzen by operauon o1 tow (or the tottow-nu reasons. [23] In order |D determtna whemer one quahfiea as a ctuzert can only be dtscemed IV the cmevla embedded tn paragraph (e) are saltsfisd. To qualfly under paragraph (a) the loflowmg Mo crilena has In be me‘! (I) ma person is born tn Malaysta on or atter Malaysta Day (the /‘us son omens): and (ii) the person ts nul born a cflixun 05 any ocunky (the [us sangutnfs cncena). I§ am wswluuxuzqfilvmmucww “Nana amt luvthnrwm .. t... a may r... nflmnaflly -mm: dnunvtml y. .rruno v-mat (29) The (loan at Appeal m Llm Jun man a. Anor v mu. Pnngnmh Jahalun Pumanmn Nugnvn a Or: [2017] 5 cu A12, Yhan Sinw Bang a. Ann! v. Km. Fcnglnh Jmun mnaanmn Mount: 5 Dis mm 5 MLJ 552 and nu Son vn. V. Rnglslrar-General :7! sum: and nouns, Malaysia (dated 22'‘ Novemher 2022, unreported, cm: Appeal W-UNA)-545710/2020) held that the ooncept 01 [us sangumls IS embedded in paragraph Is) of secllon 1 o1Pan KI and that I719 burden of proof hes on me aopncam to fulfil bath requuremenls [:01 in mm Jan Hsxan the cam ol Appeal Sad [27] Amde 14m(m at me Federal Cunsmulmn encapsmales me requiremem ol cmzensnlp by /us 50/] we, by me mace of am, whvle s 1(e)o1 Pan n at me Second Schedme ov me Federa\ Cons|i\u||on ('no| mm a cmizen of any countvy“) encapsulates lhe requirement M cmzensh-p by /us sangumis 13, by blood or hneage. an m nwawuuuxuzqfilvknmcww «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! Federa\ consmunon. The other orders sought were mnsequermal m me even! the dedaralxan song?“ is grameu [21 on 23” June 2023, I ms sad me app:-canon Mm no order as no cases ms Judgmenl wnvmns lhe reasons for my decxswcn [:1 Fov ma sake or brevity, umess otherwise stalnd, an references In this Judgment m “Amcles" and ‘Second Scnedme“ are |o that of Rh: Federal Cansumlion. Similarly, and unless otherwise stated, any rerarenoes to Part L: or Pan Ill ave to man at Ihe Second Schedule of ma Federa\ Ccunslvlutinn ms APPLICANTS NARRATIVE [41 The apnncam averred me fenawnng «ans m ms amavus. Ha sad that he was born on 13'" October 1973 .n a plaru.-mun reswdenoe in a mace known as Ladang Perbadanan up Sunga\ Pexani, Kedah. He claimed max ms params sbandonad him aflev ms bmn by leaving mm wim a newghbnur, Rukumani alp Penasarny (Rukumam). Rukumani mougm mm up He claimed (ha! ms paren|s never I-alumna for rum and 15 s sm wswIMu><u2~1PIvR9m-cww «mm. s.nn nmhnrwm .. .n... w my n. nrW\ruU|Y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! [311 [251 Thus, u would appear lhal me second apnenant would need to sausly hath me requvemenls or [us solr and /‘us ssngumrs m order lo mm the rsqmremen|s oven 14(1)(b)anu s 1le|o1ParI II, Second Schedwe cf the Federal cansmuuorr. The critena of [us sangurrrrs m vamgrauh tel 01 Seclwon 1 at Pan H us me ermca\ Issue and I am gmded by anolher decision of the Court 01 Appear, name\y‘ Than srew sang where rl was hard as fnllaws [27] The cumernrous rssue rs VI respect of me requvement 0! ins sangulrv/s -n s 1(a)a1 Part II 0! me Second Schedme at me Federal Cunsmumn as expressed by the phrase‘ ‘who Is nol ham 5 cmzen of any country’ For the purpases or m requirement, ms malsnal rims Io dalermina the status 0/ ms second apps:/anrs /rnsage is ar lhe rrrrre of ms birth. [35] A main readmg M s. us) ‘was nor Dom a cftrxen of any country‘ refers to me rslarrormrrp of me 2; sm mwmum2wm....cm. «mm. smm lunhnrwm .. U... m may r... nmuuly -mm: dnuamnl VI mum v-max [31] second anpellanvlo ms bro/oglcal and lewmlpananls at me Irma of ms hlnh. The only avallabla cloeumenlery evldenee — me second appellanrs blnh cerlmcale (exh. Tsaal conliirled rm lnlonnauon penelnlng to me blologlcal parenfi and me relevanl penlculers were endorsed wlcn "Maklunlal Tldak Diperulenr [36] slnee me ldenllly of me chlld s lewlul and blclaglcal uaranls are unknown, ll ls nol possible to delermlne me llneage of me second appellanl mat would enable me second appellant lo be conferred clllzenship by Ilnaage I 81 [us Sanyumls. [37] TNJSII1 our vlew, lne semnd appellant has nol fulfilled lne vsquirement to be a ullzen by operation o1|aw wilhln me meanlrlg ol 5. 1(e)v1 Part II ol me second Schedule ol me Federal Canslllullcn The COM?! 0! Appeal Tan Soc vln reafllmled me legal posiliorl enunclaled ln Llm Jen Hslan and men slew Bang and sale. 22 em wewmum2wm....cm. “Nair s.n.l luvlhnrwlll .. UIQG e may he nflmnnllly -mm: dnuavlml VI .nunn Wm! [18] Thus, III: (ac! Ihe Appsflalll was born wllhm the Federauon anly sahsfies me requIIemen| of yus solr and in the absence or ans Idanmy oi the Aapeuanrs hmlogrcal parens, /us sangmms Vs nut sausage and one cannol determme whether she is s\aIe\ess for lhe purpose ov paragrapn 1(3) 01 Pan n, Second scheme 0! the Federal consmuuan. [19] For oompmanessy we would a1so snnca lha\ we agree wrm SF: in ma: paragraph 2(3) Pan H Second Schedme of the Feaerar corrsmmon only operates to lraal any cmzenshlp wnrcn a person acquwes wrmrn I year amer ms burn: as a uuxensrup that he aequves at the lime 07 hls bmh In other words. lhe Sam provxsvon aperaras as a prasumpaon as Io ume av aaqursnron nl crrzansnrp, to treat any cmzensnip acquved wrmin 1 year aner mm as cmzensmp acqmred at me «me av bmh [:3] ms men brings ms to the burden of proof. The cam 57 Appsar rn Lrm Jen Hsranr Than Siaw sang and ran 2; sm wawluuxuzqwlvmrru-cww “Nana s.n.r nmhnrwm .. U... a may r... nflmnnflly mm: dnuamnl VI mum war Soc Vm hehi mat the burden hes on the persons assemng mat ma qu aluon or cmzansrnp by operanan er Vaw Is sausneu It sumnes In reproduce me reneyarn paragrapn in Tan Son Yin on we mm- [25] In our view, rne burden at pmvmg rnar me Appellant was not parn a cluzen of any country“ Vies on the Appeflam The AppeHan| must prove lhfll BI cne Ivme at ner pinn, based on her nneage. she does not aequm cnrzenehrp of any country. [34] In mrs regard, rr Is no! sumcient to recer In sunmuon 2(3) pr Pan u to merely say lhal \he child has no crnzensnrp al any eaunrry one year «mm the date at me bmh at me emu Thai is not me purpose :7! me subsecuon. AH lhat Subse 13) does rs Ia «near a pennn nae havmg any cmzensrnp ar me Ume oi Imn whxch eirrzensnrp was subsequently acquired wi\hin one year from the date at birlh ermerrnrougrr, (r) any pnwreran porreapanurng mn seamen 11a) 0! Pan II or (n) same erner means In ran Soo Vm me Conn ol Apnea! held that supsecupn 2(3) 0! Section I opemves as a praanrnpnan as to ma urns 01 acqunsmon or cmzemmp and lo 2. srn wswluuxuzqwlvmrmcww “Nana a.n.r mmhnrwm a. med a my r... anmnamy am. dnuumnl y. mum war treat any crlizenship acquired wiinin one year emu blrlh is enizensnip acquired in me urne of bmn. Based on ims reasoning, me Subsection ma) oi seaion 1, Fan H has no apphcafion in me insiant ease [:55] In order lo eseenein whether the applimnl has discharged me burden mai me child was ‘run born a cmzen 0! any couniry, il behaves en me lo examine the lads and evidence as disclosed in the alfidavils filed. The alfidavits and evidence reveal iriai me appiicaru has no knowladge at me biological parerus. No evidence of lineage or his perenis was produced. Thus. we apphcant had iaiiea In pmve mat at me iime at his win. based on ms iinenge, he does noi acquire emzensmp of any country In the urcumslances, me requirement onus sariguirris is not sausned The dam! under paragraph (a) section 1 av Part H at me seeone scneauie «ails ier irirs reason. as em wawIMuKu2qPIvR9m-cww «we. s.n.i luvihnrwm e. H... e may i... min.u-y em. dnuaviml y. nFiuNfl Wm! Cnncllulon [as] m the premise of the lmegoing. \he qualification for |:i(\Zervsh\D DY ODEFIIIDVI of ‘aw has not been me| and according!‘/. the application I5 dxsmnssed with no order as to A0515 «/1. Amaneet Smgh e<jnSmgh Juage Huh Com Kua\a Lumpur Da(ed' 22"‘ Novambar 2023 couns-I of tho Iicam Surendra Ananm Messrs Surendva Anamh Comm: of mu gugnggm Farah Shuhada Ramh,Serua1 Federal Counsel Allomey Genera! s Chamber 1:; m nwawuuuxuzqfilvknmcww «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 1) CTEB L Aclor v. Kelua Fengarah Pendzharan Negara. Malaysia 5 07$ [mail 4 MLJ 233 2) CCH A Arlur v. Pnnnm-r Bunr Eng! Kllnhlrnn Dan KonuI1|n,Mzllaysia[2D22] 1 cu 1) 3; Danzllafla um sen Bhd v. K-mung Sdn am: (Enr Council Malaysla, lnlm-nu) [2004] 2 MLJ 257 4) Khairuddirl Ahu Hassan v. Daluk Sari Hj Ahmad Namxah 5 on And Ammm App-al [2019] 9 cu 315 said‘ 5; Tny sou Choan V. uliansan 11957} 1 ML! 433 6) Eng Mae Vang v. v Lethunlanan [1979] 2 Mu 212 1) Wang Hang ray v. FF [1 9391 2 MLJ 55: 5; Llm Jun Nslan 5 Anal v Kama Pollglrah Jnhaun Pendaltaran mgau 5 on [2m 71 5 cu M2 9; Thin Siow Sing .5 Ana! v. Kuu. Panglruh Jlbulun Pcrldllunn Nogara a. Ovs[201715 MLJ 552 10)Tavl Sou Vin v. Registrar-General at Births and neallls, M-layuin 27 sw nnBwIMuKLl2~1FIVRDvmCww DIE s.n.l ...m.mll be flied M mm .. mm-y MIN: dun-mm VII .mm WM! unaware 01 their whereabouts Io dale \n 2016, he left Rukumanfs house ana sought wark In Kuala Lwnaur [5] sarnerirne belween me years 2000 and 2001, me apphcanl averred re have made me luflowmg awempls |L> lcca|e his parens. He sougm am Rukumam and nblamsd a slammry dedavalxun dated 23'“ Apnl 200010 Ihe enau that me apphcanl was bum in Ladang Perbadanan sungar Pevarn m we year 1973 and max ms father‘: name was Mumandy wnne ms mother's name was Manoranumam. Armed mm "vs rnvonnauonr an aavemsemenr was placed m a Tannx newspaper re Term Nesan on 1* July 2001‘ mmugh one Alamama a/p Ayakanco (‘Alama\ou"| calling lnr nrs bwologwcal parents Io ocnlacl rwn He saw Iha| mere was no response [61 on 10'' Denemher 2021, me aaaucanr aenr a Iemerco me respondenrs, (hmugh ms snhculors. demandmg mar ne be recognised as a Malaysian amen by aperaliun 01 law under Amc\e 1-1(1)(b) read wrrn sachon 1(s’\ Fan n of Iha Second scneaune and/or Seclmn 11:)‘ Pan u 0! me Second Smedule There was no reply Henoe, me mstanl appficaliun 4 am a«rawuuu»<u2aarvas....cww “Nana saw mmhnrwm .. 0.... a may r... aflmnaflly -mm: dnuumnl vn aF\uNa war THE RESPONSE TO THE APPLICAYION m The ad respondent, me Director senersr or the National Rsgrsarauan Devanmenh amrmaa In aifidavil on behalf or me respondenu. Ne averted man hrs respons ' amongst umers to regrsrer nrrms and me rssuanee oi brnrr oenincaaas Ind Idsnmy was The records m ms deparlmanl reveal mar an apprmuon tor Iale reglshalion regarding ma applicants nirm and «or the issuance or a birth cenificale was made by Rukumanl on am April 2003 urraer semen <2 0! ma arms and Dealhs Reglsvauon Am 1957. The appllcahon was made when me applieam was so years om. Pursuanl to ma mformauen wen by Rukumani. a arm. can: sale was rssuaa wmcn showed me vamcmars at me applucanls pararrrs was staked as “no rnvormanarr and me status of dlizienship as ‘‘non— cmzen“. [91 Following me were vegis1mlIon of birlh, an applicafion was made by the apphcam tor a temporary resrdanoa raarrmy card (MYKASL The applrcanen was granted and a MyKAS issued lo we applrcant an 15'" Septembev 2003 The \a1es\ MyKAS was approved arr am February 2022 which Is vahd urml 5 sm wswuuu><u2~1PIvR9rmcww “Nana s.n.r mmhnrwm .. U... w my r... mmruuly mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum war rm February 2026. The com respondent Produced evidence wmch stmed max no appncauen (or cmzenunp was made by me apphcanl as at 7*” June 2022 [9] The versmn of abandonment dunng mnn was rs,-tuned by me evidence revaalmg mu A\ami\oo had made a sL=.uulor‘/ declarauon lat me purpose av oblammg an Idenmy we «or me applicant. The slammry declaralson was amnnea on 23w Apm 2000 slam as vauows 1 Saya ada\ah iby angkat flan Peruaga kepada GOPAL AIL MUNVANDY sememak behau seorang bayi dua tahun 2 Ibu bava GOPAL Iawlu MUNVANDV man MANORANJITHAM man nnggax dengan saya dan lelah perm ke Iadang gevah lam unluk mencan pekenaan. Mereka mask kembali unluk menunm anak le\ak\ mereka Sememak telah memaga GOPAL sebagax anak |e\aki says, 3. says udak menaamr GOPAL a. mama-mana sekolah kelana GOPAL ndak mempunyav Swat 5 sm wswuuu><u2~1PIvR9m-cww «mm. smm ...n.mn .. U... w my me mm-y mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! Kelahirarv Says searing ma hum! dan mak tahu memohon sum! Iamrnya 4 Say: membual Surat Akuan um umuk msndapalkan Kad Pengena\an unluk anak angkatsaya no] The am respondent mane: cnauangea me advevllsemenl that was made in the Tamil Nesan as wt was not Irarvs\a\ed The appl-cam mud in addmonal affidavfl anacmng Ihe uanslauon, wmnn Vs or smcm umponsnoe, wmnn svaxes as (allows: PASANGAN ENCIK MUN|YANDl — MANORANJITHAM WAAAU DI MANA KAMU EERADA SILA HUBUNGI Pada vanun I975 pasangan Enuk Munlyandl — Manorarmlham man menyerahksn anak lelald mereka (GOPAL) paaa masa nu bems\a dalam 2 (amm) kepada saya (Puan Alamelu) pada kelika um saya hnggal ax ladang yang sama. suaak nu «max ada sun lam maka had pengenalsn max dapal an arm. Dleh nu, m mnma menghubungw saya dengan kadar segeva m mama! sepeni an bawah 7 sm wawuuuKu2qPIvR9m-cww «mm. smm ...m.mm .. U... m may he mmuny -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! PUAN AUKMELU c/0 ENCIK S PADMANABAN 7A-LAWAN KUDA LAMA, JALAN SIMFANG 34000, TAlPlNG, TEL. 0164533097 [11] The 3N lespondenl evened lhI| emzenshlp under Sectlun l(e) al Part II cl me Second Schedule VS dependent on me llneage dr jus sarlguinis Hvwever. W the Instant case no lnfomlallen IS available an ma Dlrenls of me apnlicanl. ll was slated that me corldlhcns requlred lor clllzenshlp by operahon o1 law under Sectlon 1(e) 01 Part II of me Ssound Sdledule were nel lumlled. RELEVANT PRINCIPLES [12] I begln wlth the relevanl pnnclples odneennng clllxanship Cillzanshlp by dparallon of law has been declared by me Federal Cuun as a lundamenlal rlgrll and all lemed bodles are bound by lo mmply mm IE dlcbales leavlng nd mum lo: dlma n The pmvlsmns an rzlllzerlship, both subslanllvely and praoeduvally, Including lrllerprelallon ol me cillzerlsmp provlslons are excluswely housed m the Federal consmuuon 5 sm wswlMu><u2~1l=IvR9nu-cww «we. ml ...n.mm .. d... m my me nflmnnflly mm: dnuuvlml Vfl nFluNa Wm! Being a lurvdamen|a| nghl, .« has been he\d mm cmizsnship prov ns must be construed as bmawy as possmxe wuhnut changing or msmmng the ‘base’ meanmg wrme prowsluns wmcn Imm those rigms must be construed as narrowly as possmle (see cm: A Anor v. Kama Plngarah Pmdaflamn Nlgori. Illnlaylia & On [2021] 4 MLJ 235 and con a. Mo: v. Ptndaflar an-r B-gi Kulnr-inn Dun Kumlliln, Mnllyuil [2022] 1 CLJ1) [I3] To esvabhsh cmxensmp by apemucn av law under Arllde 14(1)(b) me rsqmremems specufisd m the muons smpulaled Far! I: of the Second Schedule must be sausfied If me ruqulramenls snpulauaa are not me! than Ihal person cannm quahfy as a citizen by uperauan 0! law One my mums or dues nol fulfil the requiremenx. In me inslanl case the apphcanc must samy me reqmremenls av secuon 113) 01 Part In at the Second Schedule pmvmes as loflows Every person barn wllhm the Federauan of whose parents one at leas| us ax me |ime at me him. elmer a dnxen or permanenI\‘/ resident in the Federalion m wswIMu><u2~1PIvR9m-cww «mm. smm nmhnrwm n. med w my n. nflmnnflly mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! or seamen 1(a) o! Part II of ma sscorm Schedms whvch memes as vouows Every person bum wmr-in ms Fsaerauon whn \s not pom a citizen or any country omerwuse lhan Dy vmue of [ms paragraph I14} on consmunonav -nlerprevauan, :1 Is wen esvanusned mat me Consmulvan must he mnsmersu as a whme, so as in gws effacl, as far as pussmxs, (0 aH us pramsmns Nu une provision 0! me Cons|iIu|mn is m be separated [ram an ma others‘ and considered alone, but that aH the provisions bearing upon a parmxar sumscu are to be brought me mew and to be so m|erpreled as lo efleduale me greal purpose 0! me mslrumenl Eflecl Is to be gwen |a svsry pan and every word 01 a consmuuoru and mat unlass mars ws some deav rsasor. up the oamrary, rm pamon annemnaamernax waw shank! beireated as superfluous (see Daruhma Urul Sdn Ehd v. Koksmug Sdn Bhd (an Council M ayau, lntnrvlnnr) [mm] 2 MLJ 257 and Khalruddin Ahu Hassan v. Daluk Seri HI Ahmad Hannah L 015 And Ar-onm Aupul [20:91 9 cu 315 sand: r~ nwswuuuxuzqfilvknrmcww «mm. ssrm nmhnrwm s. LAIQ4 w my r... mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum WM

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

BA-21NCvC-13-01/2022

PLAINTIF 1. ) LOW TWAN KIN 2. ) LAU KOK LOON @ LAU SAY SIOK 3. ) LOW TOON THYE DEFENDAN 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak 2. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SELANGOR 3. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 4. ) Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (PKNS) 5. ) Low Tuan Sek 6. ) Low Tuan Lay

TAKSIRAN GANTI RUGI: Taksiran nilai pasaran Hartanah hendaklah ditaksirkan dan ditetapkan oleh Mahkamah berdasarkan tahun nilaian 2022 di bawah Aturan 37 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Pihak-Pihak bersetuju untuk membentangkan keterangan masing-masing melalui keterangan afidavit di mana laporan penilai difailkan dan pihak-pihak berhujah secara bertulis − Rumusan Penilai Swasta v. Rumusan Penilai Kerajaan via Pegawai JPPH – Sama ada penentuan nilaian pada kadar RM257.00 setiap kaki persegi oleh Penilai Kerajaan adalah penilaian yang lebih tepat dan munasabah berbanding dengan kadar RM320.00 semeter persegi oleh Penilai Swasta?

06/12/2023

YA Puan Rozi Binti Bainon

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=e9eb1066-47b5-4bb2-b8c2-4d7707be26bd&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: BA-21NCvC-13-01/2022 ANTARA 1. LOW TWAN KIN (No. K/P: 530801-10-5899) 2. LAU KOK LOON @ LAU SAY SIOK (No. K/P: 430804-10-5423) 3. LOW TOON THYE (No. K/P: 560620-10-6347) – PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN 1. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH GOMBAK, NEGERI SELANGOR 2. PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SELANGOR 3. PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN NEGERI SELANGOR 4. PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR 5. LOW TUAN SEK (No. K/P: 500302-10-5897) (Wasi bagi harta pusaka mendiang Low Kok Tee @ Thep Jim, si mati) 6. LOW TUAN LAY (No. K/P: 570716-10-5903) (Wasi bagi harta pusaka mendiang Low Kok Tee @ Thep Jim, si mati) − DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 06/12/2023 21:56:02 BA-21NCvC-13-01/2022 Kand. 109 S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Writ Saman Terpinda dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda sebagaimana pada Lampiran 43 bertarikh 17-6-2022 ialah tuntutan oleh 3 orang Plaintif seperti yang berikut: Plaintif Pertama (Plf 1), Plaintif Kedua (Plf 2) dan • wakil yang sah untuk mendiang Thep Jim @ Low Kok Tee (selepas ini disebut “Thep Jim”). Rujuk Surat Kuasa Wakil bertarikh 16-6-2011. • Tanah: Hakmilik No. GRN 52085 Lot No. 10231, Mukim Batu, Daerah Gombak, Selangor (selepas ini disebut “Tanah”). • Plf 1 ialah anak lelaki kedua Thep Jim. • Plf 2 ialah adik lelaki Thep Jim. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 • Plf 1, Plf 2 dan Plf 3 ialah pemilik benefisial sebanyak 47.845% daripada 61.735% kepentingan dalam Tanah yang dipegang atas amanah oleh suatu Surat Ikatan Amanah bertarikh 16-6- 2011 (selepas ini disebut “Surat Ikatan Amanah”). • Plf 1 dan Plf menuntut dalam kapasitinya sebagai wakil Thep Jim dan 2 orang pemilik benefisial Tanah tersebut. • Plf 3 menuntut dalam kapasitinya sebagai salah seorang pemilik benefisial Tanah tersebut. [2] Thep Jim meninggal dunia pada 29-9-2013 dan berdasarkan suatu wasiat, Defendan Kelima dan Defendan Keenam dilantik sebagai wasi estet Thep Jim. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Tanah: [3] Pemilik-pemilik Tanah ialah Thep Jim, Low Tin Fong @ Low Thian Hong dan Low Swee Tit @ Low Tit, kesemuanya telah meninggal dunia. [4] Melalui Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam (MTSA), Saman Pemula No.: 24-2400-09/2011, bahagian yang tidak terbahagi dipegang oleh setiap seorang Pemilik-Pemilik mengikut peratus syer seperti yang berikut: Thep Jim → 61.735% Low Tin Fong @ Low Thian Hong → 30.612% Low Swee Tit @ Low Tit → 7.653% Pengambilan Tanah: [5] Pihak Berkuasa Negeri memutuskan untuk mengambil Tanah tersebut menurut peruntukan di bawah seksyen 3 Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. [6] Isu bantahan dan semakan kehakiman telah menjalani proses undang-undang di MTSA dan MTSA memerintahkan, antara lainnya, Defendan Pertama (Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor) membuat siasatan baharu untuk pengambilan Tanah selaras dengan peruntukan di bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, sekiranya Defendan Pertama masih berminat untuk meneruskan dengan pengambilan Tanah tersebut. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Tuntutan terhadap Defendan-Defendan [7] Plaintif menuntut terhadap – Defendan Relief yang Dipohon • Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak (Deft 1) • Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor (Deft 2) • Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Selangor (Deft 3) • Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (Deft 4) Deklarasi: i. pembatalan dokumen hakmilik kepada Tanah. ii. pengeluaran dan/atau pendaftaran dokumen hakmilik kepada tanah yang dipegang di bawah HSD 89727 PT 11960, Bandar Selayang, Daerah Gombak yang memihak kepada Deft 4 adalah terbatal dan tidak sah. iii. hakmilik atau kepentingan Deft 4 dalam tanah yang dipegang di bawah HSD 89727 PT 11960, Bandar Selayang, Daerah Gombak boleh disangkal. iv. hakmilik atau kepentingan Deft 4 dalam tanah yang dipegang di bawah HSD 89727 PT 11960, Bandar Selayang, Daerah Gombak adalah diketepikan. v. pengeluaran dan/atau pendaftaran dokumen hakmilik kepada tanah yang dipegang di bawah PN 118286 Lot 89399, Bandar Selayang, Daerah Gombak yang memihak kepada Deft 4 adalah terbatal dan tidak sah. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Defendan Relief yang Dipohon vi.hakmilik atau kepentingan Deft 4 dalam tanah yang dipegang di bawah PN 118286 Lot 89399, Bandar Selayang, Daerah Gombak boleh disangkal. vii.hakmilik atau kepentingan Deft 4 dalam tanah yang dipegang di bawah PN 118286 Lot 89399, Bandar Selayang, Daerah Gombak adalah diketepikan. viii.perintah bahawa Deft 4 hendaklah dalam 7 hari dari tarikh penghakiman menyerahkan dokumen hakmilik asal kepada tanah yang dipegang di bawah PN 118286 Lot 89399, Bandar Selayang, Daerah Gombak kepada Deft 1 atau Deft 2 untuk dibatalkan. ix.dokumen hakmilik asal kepada Tanah adalah sah atau secara alternatifnya, perintah bahawa Deft 1 atau Deft 2 hendaklah dalam 7 hari dari tarikh Penghakiman mengeluarkan dan memberikan Plaintif- Plaintif suatu dokumen hakmilik baharu kepada Tanah tersebut atas nama dan syer Pemilik-Pemilik Tanah. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Defendan Relief yang Dipohon x.secara alternatif, sebagai ganti kepada relief iv, vii dan ix di atas, Deft 1 hingga Deft 4 hendaklah secara bersesama dan berasingan membayar Plaintif-Plaintif wang berjumlah RM37,555,547.63 atau jumlah lain sebagaimana yang difikirkan patut dan adil oleh Mahkamah ini. xi.ganti rugi am untuk ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah ini. xii.ganti rugi teladan dan punitif. xiii.faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas jumlah penghakiman seperti yang dinyatakan dalam x, xi dan xii di atas dari tarikh Penghakiman sehingga tarikh penyelesaian sepenuhnya. • Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak (Deft 1) • Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor (Deft 2) • Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Negeri Selangor (Deft 3) • Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (Deft 4) • Low Tuan Sek (Deft 5) • Low Tuan Lay (Deft 6) • kos guaman ini dan bersampingan dengannya atas dasar indemniti yang penuh dengan faedah ke atasnya pada kadar 5% setahun dari tarikh Penghakiman sehingga tarikh pembayaran sepenuhnya. • relief lain dan/atau lanjutan yang dianggap sesuai oleh Mahkamah ini. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Pembelaan [8] Defendan Keempat (PKNS) memfailkan pembelaan terpindanya pada 6-7-2022. [9] Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor memfailkan pembelaan terpinda untuk Deft 1, 2 dan 3 pada 7-7-2022. [10] Defendan Kelima (Low Tuan Sek) dan Defendan Keenam (Low Tuan Lay memfailkan pembelaan terpindanya pada 8-7-2022. [11] Plaintif-Plaintif memfailkan Jawapan kepada Pembelaan Deft 4, Deft 1 hingga 3 dan Deft 5 & 6. Penghakiman Persetujuan [12] Pada 4-9-2023, terma persetujuan yang direkodkan antara Plaintif- Plaintif dan Defendan 1, 2, 3 dan 4 ialah − “… MAKA ADALAH PADA HARI INI DIHAKIMI SECARA PERSETUJUAN seperti yang berikut: 1. Defendan Pertama, Defendan Ke-2 dan Defendan Ke-3 hendaklah membayar secara bersama dan berasingan ganti rugi berjumlah: S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (a) 61.735% daripada nilai pasaran tanah yang dipegang di bawah GRN 52085, Lot 10231, Mukim Batu, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor (“Hartanah tersebut”) ke dalam Akaun Bersama Stakeholder (dalam nama kedua-dua firma peguam cara-peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan Ke-5 dan Defendan Ke-6) bagi pihak Plaintif-Plaintif, Defendan Ke-5 dan Defendan Ke-6; (b) 30.612% daripada nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut kepada waris Low Swee Tit @ Low Tit dengan mendepositkan bayaran ganti rugi tersebut ke dalam Mahkamah sehingga ianya dituntut oleh dan dibayar kepada waris Low Swee Tit @ Low Tit; (c) 7.653% daripada nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut kepada waris Low Ting Fong @ Low Thian Hong dengan mendepositkan bayaran ganti rugi tersebut ke dalam Mahkamah sehingga ianya dituntut oleh dan dibayar kepada waris Low Ting Fong @ Low Thian Hong; 2. Nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut hendaklah ditaksirkan dan ditetapkan oleh Mahkamah berdasarkan tahun nilaian 2022 di bawah Aturan 37 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012; 3. Sebarang tuntutan dan pertikaian di antara Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan Ke-5 dan Defendan Ke-6 berkenaan dengan Surat Ikatan Amanah yang dilaksanakan oleh Thep Jim @ Low Kok Tee dan juga Senarai Aset Dan Liabiliti Bagi Harta Pusaka Thep Jim @ Low Kok Tee (Terpinda) di bawah Geran Probet S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 bertarikh 21 April 2014 hendaklah diselesaikan secara berasingan dan dimuktamadkan di antara mereka; 4. Wang pampasan pengambilan Hartanah tersebut yang telah didepositkan ke Mahkamah melalui Saman Pemula No. 24- 576-05/2012, Saman Pemula No. 24-526-05/2012 dan Saman Pemula No. 24-528-05/2012 hendaklah dikembalikan kepada Defendan Pertama selepas ganti rugi yang dinyatakan di perenggan 1 di atas dibayar sepenuhnya mengikut peruntukan- peruntukan di sana; 5. Tindakan guaman di sini ditarik balik dan dibatalkan terhadap Defendan Ke-4 tanpa kebebasan memfailkan semula dan tanpa perintah terhadap kos; 6. Defendan Ke-5 dan Defendan Ke-6 hendaklah menarik balik tindakan Writ Saman No.: BA-21NCVC-43-04/2022 terhadap Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ke-4 tanpa kebebasan memfailkan semula dan tanpa perintah terhadap kos; 7. Selepas bayaran sepenuhnya ganti rugi yang dinyatakan di perenggan 1 di atas, Plaintif-Plaintif, Defendan Ke-5 dan Defendan Ke-6 tidak lagi mempunyai sebarang tuntutan terhadap: S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 (a) Defendan-Defendan Pertama sehingga Ke-3 berkenaan dengan Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam bertarikh 14 Ogos 2012 yang telah diberikan di bawah Semakan Kehakiman No. 25-145-09/2011; dan (b) Defendan-Defendan Pertama sehingga Ke-3 berkenaan dengan sebarang pampasan dan/atau ganti rugi lain berhubung dengan hal perkara yang sama di dalam tindakan ini; dan 8. Tiada sebarang perintah mengenai kos.”. [13] Oleh yang demikian, tugas Mahkamah ini ialah untuk memutuskan mengenai terma persetujuan yang berikut sahaja: “2. Nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut hendaklah ditaksirkan dan ditetapkan oleh Mahkamah berdasarkan tahun nilaian 2022 di bawah Aturan 37 KaedahKaedah Mahkamah 2012;”. Keputusan Mahkamah pada 26-9-2023 [14] Pada 26-9-2023, pada platform eReview, Mahkamah ini memutuskan – “KEPUTUSAN MAHKAMAH MENGENAI TAKSIRAN GANTI RUGI MENGIKUT NILAI PASARAN HARTANAH S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [1] Pada 4-9-2023, pihak-pihak telah mencapai persetujuan untuk menamatkan tuntutan yang dibawa oleh Plaintif-Plaintif berkenaan dengan suatu hartanah yang dipegang di bawah Hakmilik No. GRN 52085 Lot No. 10231, Mukim Batu, Daerah Gombak, Negeri Selangor. [2] Plaintif-Plaintif-Plaintif dan semua Defendan telah menandatangani penghakiman persetujuan. Mahkamah ini merekodkan penghakiman persetujuan berdasarkan terma persetujuan tersebut. [3] Bagi perenggan (2) terma persetujuan yang menyatakan – “2. Nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut hendaklah ditaksirkan dan ditetapkan oleh Mahkamah berdasarkan tahun nilaian 2022 di bawah Aturan 37 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012.”. [4] Aturan 37 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 memperuntukkan − Assessment of damages by Registrar (O. 37, r. 1) 1. (1) Where judgment is given for damages to be assessed and no provision is made by the judgment as to how they are to be assessed, the damages shall, subject to the provisions of this Order, be assessed by the Registrar, and the party entitled to the benefit of the judgment shall, within one month from the date of the S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 judgment, apply to the Registrar for directions and the provisions of Order 34 shall, with the necessary modifications, apply. (2) On the hearing of the application for directions, the Registrar may, in addition to making such orders as are necessary and appropriate under Order 34, give directions as to the time by which a notice of appointment for assessment of damages shall be filed and such notice upon being filed shall, notwithstanding anything in Order 62, rule 10, be served not later than seven days thereafter on the party against whom the judgment is given. Notice of appointment for assessment of damages shall be in Form 62a. (3) If the party entitled to the benefit of the judgment fails to comply with paragraph (1), the Court may, on the application of the party against whom the judgment is given, proceed to assess damages or make such other order as it thinks just. (4) The attendance of witnesses and the production of documents before the Registrar in proceedings under this Order may be compelled by subpoena, and the provisions of Order 35 shall, with the necessary adaptations, apply in relation to those proceedings as they apply in relation to proceedings at the trial. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 (5) Subject to any direction given by the Registrar pursuant to this rule, the party entitled to the benefit of the judgment shall file a notice of appointment for assessment of damages within six months of the date of judgment. (6) A party shall not file a notice of appointment for assessment of damages by the Registrar pursuant to this rule unless directions for filing and exchange of affidavit evidence pursuant to Order 34 have been given or complied with, as the case may be. (7) If that party does not file the notice of appointment for assessment of damages within the prescribed period, any other party may apply for directions. Certificate of amount of damages (O. 37, r. 2) 2. Where in pursuance of this Order or otherwise damages are assessed by the Registrar, he shall certify the amount of the damages. Default judgment against some but not all defendants (O. 37, r. 3) 3. Where any such judgment as is mentioned in rule 1 is given in default of appearance or in default of defence, and the action proceeds against other S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 defendants, the damages under the judgment shall be assessed at the trial unless the Court otherwise orders. Power to order assessment by Registrar or at trial (O. 37, r. 4) 4. The Court may, in the case of any such judgment as is mentioned in rule 1, order either— (a) that the assessment of the damages shall be made by the Registrar; or (b) that the action shall proceed to trial before a Judge in respect of the damages, and where the Court orders that the action shall proceed to trial, Order 34 shall apply with the necessary modifications. Assessment of value (O. 37, r. 5) 5. Rules 1 to 4 shall apply in relation to a judgment for the value of goods to be assessed, with or without damages to be assessed, as they apply to a judgment for damages to be assessed, and references in those provisions to the assessment of damages shall be construed accordingly. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 Assessment of damages to time of assessment (O. 37, r. 6) 6. Where damages are to be assessed (whether under this Order or otherwise) in respect of any continuing cause of action, they shall be assessed down to the time of the assessment. [5] Bagi tujuan taksiran nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut berdasarkan tahun nilaian 2022, Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga bersetuju untuk membentangkan keterangan masing-masing melalui keterangan afidavit di mana laporan penilai difailkan dan pihak-pihak berhujah secara bertulis. Kesemua kertas kausa adalah teratur. [6] Keterangan yang diterima oleh Mahkamah adalah seperti yang berikut: Plaintif-Plaintif Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga Afidavit Zaharin bin Ahmad Zamani, Penilai Hartanah Berdaftar di Zaharin Nexcap Property Consultants Sdn Bhd yang a) Afidavit Mohd Shahril bin Yaakob, Penolong Pegawai Daerah/Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak; dan S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Plaintif-Plaintif Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga merujuk kepada – (a) Laporan Penilaian Zaharin Nexcap Property Consultants Sdn Bhd bertarikh 28-7-2021 (Encl. No. 74); dan (b) Laporan Balasan Zaharin Nexcap Property Consultants Sdn Bhd bertarikh 9-5-2023. Kaedah yang digunakan bagi penilaian: • dokumen Hartanah (Carian Persendirian) bertarikh 28-5- 2021. • Lawat periksa pada 24-5- 2021. • Kaedah Perbandingan (Comparison Method) dengan hartanah lain yang hampir sama atau serupa. b) Afidavit Norhasimah binti Hashim, Pegawai Penilaian di Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH) Gombak. Afidavit Mohd Shahril bin Yaakob menyatakan bahawa – (i) Hartanah tersebut tidak mempunyai sebarang kategori kegunaan tanah, syarat nyata dan sekatan kepentingan didaftarkan ke atasnya [perenggan 5 (f)]. (ii) berdasarkan rekod pemilikan Hartanah tersebut dan mengambil kira seksyen 53(2) Kanun Tanah Negara S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 Plaintif-Plaintif Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga serta Pekeliling Ketua Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Persekutuan Bil. 1/2002, Hartanah tersebut merupakan tanah pertanian yang juga tertakluk kepada syarat tersirat iaitu digunakan bagi maksud pertanian sahaja [perenggan 6]. (iii) Mahkamah dipohon untuk menimbangkan latar belakang dan rekod pemilikan Hartanah tersebut bagi maksud penentuan nilai pasaran Hartanah pada tahun 2022. Afidavit Norhasimah binti Hashim menyatakan bahawa – (i) Hartanah tersebut tidak mempunyai sebarang kategori kegunaan tanah, syarat nyata dan sekatan kepentingan S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 Plaintif-Plaintif Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga Rumusan Penilai Swasta: Perenggan 24 Afidavit (Encl. 97 bertarikh 22-9-2023) menyatakan Penilai percaya didaftarkan ke atasnya [perenggan 13 (d)]. (ii) Semakan dengan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan (Majlis Perbandaran Selayang), Hartanah tersebut telah dizonkan sebagai perumahan. (iii) Lawat periksa pada 7-4- 2022. (iv) menggunakan Kaedah Perbandingan(Comparison Method) dengan hartanah lain yang hampir sama atau serupa. Rumusan Penilai Kerajaan via Pegawai JPPH/Norhasimah binti Hashim: Perenggan 21 Afidavit bertarikh 12-9-2023) menyatakan Penilai S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 Plaintif-Plaintif Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga dan mengatakan bahawa kadar RM257.00 setiap kaki persegi adalah penilaian yang lebih tepat dan munasabah bagi tujuan penentuan nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut pada tahun 2022. berpendapat bahawa nilai pasaran yang berpatutan dan munasabah bagi Hartanah tersebut pada tarikh nilaian 7- 4-2022 ialah RM320.00 semeter persegi. Hujahan bertulis utama difailkan. Hujahan bertulis difailkan. Hujahan bertulis balasan difailkan. Hujahan bertulis balasan difailkan. [7] Selepas meneliti keterangan afidavit Penilai yang dilantik dan yang mengikrarkan afidavit bagi pihak Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga yang dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini dalam taksiran ganti rugi bagi taksiran nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut, Mahkamah ini memutuskan – • hakikat dan apa yang tersurat ialah Hartanah tersebut tidak mempunyai sebarang kategori kegunaan tanah, syarat nyata dan sekatan kepentingan didaftarkan ke atasnya. Maksud tersirat bahawa Hartanah tersebut dalam kategori pertanian tidak menepati realiti sebenar Hartanah tersebut. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 • Kaedah Perbandingan (Comparison Method) dengan hartanah lain yang hampir sama atau serupa yang digunapakai oleh Penilai Plaintif-Plaintif dan Penilai Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga adalah sama dari segi skop perbandingan. Namun, untuk menentukan pemilihan hartanah lain yang hampir sama atau serupa yang mana lebih mirip kepada Hartanah tersebut, penjelasan Penilai Plaintif-Plaintif adalah lebih meyakinkan. • Perbezaan yang meningkatkan harga sekaki persegi yang dinyatakan oleh Penilai Plaintif-Plaintif bagi tujuan nilaian tahun 2022 secara relatifnya adalah minimal. • Mahkamah ini menerima penentuan nilaian pada kadar RM257.00 setiap kaki persegi adalah penilaian yang lebih tepat dan munasabah bagi tujuan penentuan nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut pada tahun 2022 berbanding dengan RM320.00 semeter persegi. [8] Mahkamah ini memutuskan perintah taksiran sebagaimana yang dipohon oleh Plaintif-Plaintif adalah dibenarkan. Tiada perintah atas kos.”. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [15] Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor memfailkan rayuan terhadap Keputusan Mahkamah bagi Defendan-Defendan 1, 2 dan 3. Analisis dan Dapatan Mahkamah [16] Berdasarkan hujahan balas Penolong Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor terpelajar (“PPUU terpelajar”) yang menghujahkan dan untuk meyakinkan Mahkamah ini, PPUU terpelajar menghujahkan bahawa mengambil kira afidavit Plaintif-Plaintif dan autoriti yang dikemukakannya, Defendan-Defendan 1, 2 dan menghujahkan bahawa Plaintif-Plaintif telah gagal mengemukakan sebarang afidavit keterangan yang membuktikan fakta dan jumlah ganti rugi yang dituntut mengikut prinsip-prinsp taksiran ganti rugi, dan juga keterangan pakar menurut kehendak Aturan 40A Kaedah 3 KKM sebelum atau pada 12.9.2023 sebagaimana arahan Mahkamah. [17] PPUU terpelajar memohon kepada Mahkamah ini supaya menolak apa-apa afidavit atau keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif-Plaintif selepas 12-9-2023 kerana ia bersifat afterthought dan suatu cubaan untuk menambahbaik kesnya. [18] Menurut PPUU terpelajar, berdasarkan fakta, keterangan dan autoriti-autoriti yang dikemukakan, Laporan Penilaian Kerajaan bagi maksud penentuan nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut pada tahun 2022, dan menaksirkan ganti rugi sebagaimana pecahan hendaklah diterima. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [19] Alasan yang dikemukakan oleh PPUU terpelajar ialah − • Laporan Penilaian Kerajaan adalah lebih munasabah dan tepat bagi tujuan taksiran ganti rugi kerana (a) autoriti-autoriti yang dirujuk oleh Plaintif-Plaintif hendaklah dibezakan faktanya dengan kes ini yang melibatkan tanah desa; dan (b) autoriti-autoriti mengenai rujukan tanah di bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 adalah tidak relevan bagi tujuan taksiran ganti rugi yang tertakluk kepada prinsip-prinsip berbeza. • Autoriti-autoriti yang dirujuk oleh Plaintif-Plaintif hendaklah dibezakan faktanya dengan kes ini yang melibatkan tanah desa. • Plaintif-Plaintif telah bergantung kepada kes Garden City Development Berhad v. Collector of Land Revenue, Federal Territory [1982] 2 MLJ 98 untuk menyokong hujahannya bahawa Hartanah yang menjadi hal perkara dalam kes ini adalah termasuk dalam kategori tanah yang diperihalkan dalam seksyen 53(3) Kanun Tanah Negara (Disemak - 2020) (“KTN”), iaitu tertakluk kepada syarat tersirat bahawa ia tidak boleh digunakan untuk tujuan pertanian. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 • fakta kes Garden City Development Berhad hendaklah dibezakan dengan fakta kes ini, iaitu — (a) Privy Council dalam kes tersebut telah membuat dapatan berdasarkan pemerhatian bahawa perkataan “Lease for Agricultural Land” telah dicetak di atas dokumen hakmilik dan tidak dapat dipastikan sama ada ia telah dicetak sebelum atau selepas pajakan telah dilaksanakan, sedangkan dokumen hakmilik CT 26507 dalam kes ini, dalam tulisan tangan yang sama, telah pun dikenakan syarat “Lease for Agricultural Land No. 815 in perpetuity” sewaktu ia mula diberimilik kepada Seafield Amalgamated Rubber Company Limited pada 6.6.1965; (b) dapatan Privy Council bahawa tanah dalam kes tersebut adalah tanah bandar dan dengan itu tertakluk kepada seksyen 53(3) KTN adalah berdasarkan dapatan fakta Mahkamah Persekutuan sebelumnya dalam kes Collector of Land Revenue, Federal Territory v. Garden City Development Berhad [1979] 1 MLJ 223, yang mana Mahkamah Persekutuan membuat dapatan bahawa tanah dalam kes tersebut adalah tanah bandar memandangkan dokumen hakmiliknya jelas menyatakan kedudukan tanah di dalam Bandar Kuala Lumpur … S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 (c) namun begitu, Hartanah dalam kes ini hendaklah dibezakan kerana perkataan “Bandar” tidak pernah dinyatakan dalam mana-mana bahagian dalam CT 26507 dan seterusnya GRN 52085, sebaliknya ia menyatakan bahawa Hartanah tersebut berada dalam Mukim Batu dan bukannya Bandar; dan (d) memandangkan tiada sebarang keterangan yang menunjukkan bahawa Hartanah tersebut merupakan tanah bandar mahupun tanah pekan, maka berdasarkan klasifikasi tanah menurut seksyen 51(2)(1) KTN, Hartanah tersebut hendaklah dikelaskan sebagai tanah desa. • Plaintif-Plaintif juga tidak mengemukakan sebarang keterangan lain seperti pemberitahuan warta yang telah mengelaskan Hartanah sebagai tanah bandar atau tanah pekan, sebagaimana dihakimi YA Peh Swee Chin, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Seremban (pada ketika itu) dalam kes Si Rusa Inn Sdn. Bhd. & Ors. v. The Collector of Land Revenue, Port Dickson & Ors. [1986] CLJ (Rep) 673. • Oleh itu, dihujahkan bahawa berdasarkan butiran hakmilik asal Hartanah, adalah jelas bahawa sungguhpun jika Hartanah tersebut ialah suatu hakmilik Pendaftar, namun ia juga merupakan tanah desa dan sebagaimana diperuntukkan dalam seksyen 53(2)(a) KTN dan perenggan 6.1.1 Pekeliling Ketua Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Persekutuan Bilangan 1/2002, semua tanah desa tanpa mengira di bawah hakmilik S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 Pendaftar atau Pejabat Tanah, yang tidak ditetapkan syarat kegunaan tanah hendaklah tertakluk kepada syarat tersirat iaitu digunakan bagi maksud pertanian sahaja. • Dengan itu dihujahkan bahawa autoriti-autoriti yang dirujuk oleh Plaintif-Plaintif seperti Garden City Development Berhad dan Tan Wei Mia & Ors v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak & Anor [2016] 5 MLJ 43 adalah tidak terpakai dalam kes ini kerana perbezaan status tanah masing-masing. • Autoriti-autoriti mengenai rujukan tanah di bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 adalah tidak relevan bagi tujuan taksiran ganti rugi yang tertakluk kepada prinsip-prinsip berbeza. • Plaintif-Plaintif selanjutnya telah merujuk kepada prinsip- prinsip dan kes-kes berkaitan rujukan tanah di bawah Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 dalam menyokong hujahannya. • autoriti-autoriti oleh Plaintif-Plaintif adalah tidak relevan dalam kes ini. Hal ini kerana sebagaimana dipersetujui pihak-pihak di perenggan 2 Penghakiman Persetujuan bertarikh 4-9-2023, nilai pasaran Hartanah hendaklah ditaksirkan di bawah Aturan 37 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (“KKM”) iaitu sebagai taksiran ganti rugi, dan bukannya sebagai pampasan yang perlu ditentukan menurut Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 • prinsip-prinsip taksiran ganti rugi sebagaimana dihujahkan oleh PPUU terpelajar hendaklah terpakai dalam kes ini, dan beban pembuktian masih terletak ke atas Plaintif-Plaintif untuk membuktikan fakta dan jumlah ganti rugi yang dituntut. [20] Mahkamah berpendapat perenggan 2 Penghakiman Persetujuan bertarikh 4-9-2023 tersebut adalah terma yang sudah dipersetujui oleh semua pihak. Maka pihak-pihak hendaklah mampu, berupaya dan perlu membantu Mahkamah ini memastikan nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut melalui afidavit dan Laporan Penilai. Sama ada autoriti/nas undang- undang kes yang dirujuk oleh pihak-pihak itu terpakai atau tidak, relevan atau tidak bagi tujuan menyokong hujahan masing-masing, Mahkamah ini masih memerlukan analisa Laporan Penilai yang dapat meyakinkan Mahkamah ini. [21] Dalam hujahan balas peguam cara Plaintif-Plaintif terpelajar mengenai Taksiran Nilai Pasaran Hartanah, hujahan yang berikut dinyatakan: • pursuant to the Consent Judgment on 4.9.2023, the full trial of this suit is deemed disposed of and the trial dates have been vacated. • the instant proceedings are being conducted under Order 37 of the ROC 2012 for the sole purpose of assessing the market value of the Land. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 • in this regard, this Court has specifically directed that the assessment shall be done by way of affidavit evidence without calling any witnesses. • all parties agreed to the directions and will merely rely on the valuation reports contained in the trial bundles (without any expert evidence) for the purpose of filing their respective written submissions. • the instant proceedings are akin to any foreclosure (or auction) proceedings and land reference proceedings where an assessment of the market value of land is made entirely on the data and information contained in the valuation reports tendered by the parties. • no “expert witness” is required or will be called or examined. • if the 1st to 3rd Defendants’ contention is accepted as correct, no valuation report may be received in any foreclosure (or auction) proceedings and land reference proceedings unless it is exhibited vide an affidavit filed under Order 40A of the ROC 2012. • the cases of Amzed Development Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Mat Jahya Hussin & Anor [2021] 5 MLJ 149 and Balbeer Singh a/l Karam Singh & 6 Ors v Sentul Raya Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 1546 relied upon by the 1st to 3rd Defendants are of no assistance. In Amzed Development and Balbeer Singh’s cases, the assessment of damages was done by way of a full S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 trial where witnesses including the experts were called to give oral evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses were required to comply with the requirements of Order 40A of the ROC. In sharp contrast, the assessment of the market value of the Land does not call for any “expert witnesses” or “full trial”. • in an Affidavit affirmed by the valuer exhibiting the valuation reports pursuant to Order 40A of the ROC 2012 on 22-9-2023, the Plaintiffs submit that the preliminary objection raised by the 1 st to 3rd Defendants is a non-issue and should be rejected accordingly. In JLA Motorsports Sdn Bhd lwn Ahmad Suhaimi bin Abdullah dan Lain-Lain [2020] MLJU 801, Ahmad Kamal J held − “[85] Peguam Defendan yang terpelajar telah mempersoalkan laporan pakar P1, P17A dan P17B yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif kerana ianya dikatakan telah gagal mematuhi peruntukan mandatori Aturan 40A Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah (KKM) 2012. … [89] Setelah meneliti nas-nas undang-undang yang dirujuk oleh peguam Defendan yang terpelajar, saya dapati nas-nas tersebut dapat dibezakan dan dengan hormatnya saya berpandangan ianya tidak terpakai di dalam kes ini. Ini ialah kerana Aturan 40A KKM 2012 tidak memperuntukkan penerimaan dan/atau S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 pengecualian mengenai keterangan seorang pakar. [Rujuk kes Syarikat Faiza Sdn Bhd & Anor v Faiz Rice Sdn Bhd & Anor and another appeal [2018] MLJU 1749]. Market value of the Land • the 1st to 3rd Defendants contended that the valuation by the Plaintiffs’ Valuer is not accurate based on, inter alia, the following reasons: (a) reference was made to the new document of title held by PKNS and not by the original registered owners, i.e., Low Swee Tit @ Low Tit, Low Tin Fong @ Low Thian Hong and Thep Jim @ Low Kok Tee; (b) assessment was made based on the value of land used for residential buildings, which is based on the new document of title held by PKNS; (c) the comparables used by the Plaintiffs’ valuer are under the category of land use of “building” as opposed to the Land, which the category of land use is not stated; and (d) the Land is for agricultural use only, i.e., plantation of rubber as the Land was alienated before the commencement of NLC with condition “lease for agricultural land” under CT26507. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 • the assessment by the Plaintiffs’ valuer was done by referring to land held by the original registered owners (Lot 10231) and not PKNS (Lot 89399). Nowhere in the Valuation Reports prepared by the Plaintiffs’ valuer has indicted otherwise. For ease of reference, paragraph 16 of the Valuation Report dated 28-7-2021 is reproduced as follows: “16. Valuation We are of the opinion that the market value of the freehold interest of the development land on Lot 10231, Geran No. 52085, Mukim Batu, District of Gombak, State of Selangor with vacant possession and subject to its title being free from encumbrances, good and marketable and registrable in its existing state as of 7 February 2019 and 28 May 2021 is.”. • the assessment by the Plaintiffs’ valuer was done by referring to the category of land use “NIL”. This is evidently clear from paragraph 7 of the Rebuttal Report dated 9-5-2023 which is reproduced as follows (Enclosure 87 at page 121): - “7.0 Conclusion Title GRN 52085 with category of land use NIL was issued some time ago when the town or village zoning plan remained unclear. This type of land is valuable as the owner can use it for any purpose or a combination of purposes.”. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 • the comparables relied on by the Plaintiffs’ valuer bear similarities with the Land, especially Lots 772, 773 and 774 which bear the most similarities … . It is incorrect for the 1st to 3rd Defendant to say that they are not comparable to the Land. • on the contrary, the comparables relied upon by the Government valuer are leasehold agricultural lands with condition imposed, i.e., plantation of fruit, rubber and dusun as opposed to the Land which category of land use and condition are not stated. • although the Land held under CT 26507 was alienated with condition “lease for agricultural land” and the plan attached stated that it is for plantation of rubber, it cannot be said to have the effect of imposing a condition for use for agricultural only. As has been decided in the case of Garden City Development Berhad v Collector of Land Revenue, Federal Territory [1982] 2 MLJ 98, where the Privy Council said that the words “lease for agricultural land” do not create any prohibition for the Land to be used for building purposes. • the 1st to 3rd Defendants’ Valuation Report is silent on the potential value of the Land and has failed to consider the following important factors: (i) the Land is not a piece of undeveloped land surrounded by agricultural crops; S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 (ii) the Land is located in town and is zoned residential under Majlis Perbandaran Selayang Local Plan; (iii) the Land is accessible from Kuala Lumpur City Centre and DUKE Highway; (iv) the Land is bounded by highways, petrol stations and light industrial buildings; (v) the Land is surrounded by landed residential dwellings, condominium, shophouses and industries; (vi) water supply, electricity supply and telephone lines are connected to the Land; (vii) public transports such as buses and taxies are available at the Land; and (viii) public services such as rubbish collection, repair and maintenance of the roads, drains and pavements, street lighting and landscaping are provided by the local authority. • most importantly, it is pertinent to note that under the new document of title held under Lot 89399 by PKNS (which is a continuation from GRN 52085 Lot No. 10231), the category of land use and the express condition of the Land are stated to be “building” and “residential building” respectively. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 • based on the foregoing, we submit that the Government’s valuation is unreasonable and the market value as opined by its valuer is excessively low. That is simply because the Government’s valuer has failed to take into account the relevant factors and has relied on the wrong comparables. • on the other hand, the Plaintiffs’ valuation is fair and ought to be accepted by this Court in determining the market value of the Land. • whereof, the Plaintiffs humbly pray for the following orders: (a) the market value of the Land to be assessed and fixed at RM61,065,854.81; and (b) the Plaintiffs’ 61.735% shares in the Land to be assessed and fixed at RM37,699,005.47. The Government’s valuer: [22] Keterangan afidavit yang dikemukakan oleh Defendan-Defendan 1, 2 dan 3 ialah melalui 2 orang pegawai iaitu – (a) Penolong Pegawai Daerah yang diwartakan sebagai Penolong Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak; dan (b) Pegawai Penilaian di Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH) Gombak. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 [23] Pegawai JPPH ialah pegawai yang menyediakan Laporan dan Nilaian Hartanah bertarikh 2-2-2023 (selepas ini disebut “Laporan Penilaian Kerajaan”) yang mana beliau menjelaskan secara terperinci mengenai penilaian yang telah dijalankan ke atas Hartanah/Tanah tersebut. Beliau mempunyai kelulusan Diploma Pengurusan Hartanah dan Ijazah Sarjana Muda Pengurusan Hartanah (Kepujian), kedua-dua kelulusan akademik diperoleh dari Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM). [24] Bagi tujuan maklumat yang tepat, pihak-pihak sendiri yang bersetuju bahawa bagi tujuan taksiran nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut berdasarkan tahun nilaian 2022, adalah dengan membentangkan keterangan masing-masing melalui keterangan afidavit di mana laporan penilai difailkan dan pihak-pihak berhujah secara bertulis. [25] Keterangan afidavit Penolong Pegawai Daerah yang diwartakan sebagai Penolong Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Gombak menerangkan mengenai latar belakang Tanah tersebut berdasarkan rekod dalam simpanan Pejabat dan Mahkamah ini tiada masalah untuk memahaminya. Penolong Pegawai Daerah memohon agar Mahkamah ini menimbangkan latar belakang dan rekod pemilikan Hartanah/Tanah tersebut bagi maksud penentuan nilai pasaran Hartanah/Tanah pada tahun 2022. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 [26] Keterangan afidavit Pegawai JPPH dan Laporan Penilaian Kerajaan yang disediakannya menyatakan keterangan fakta yang berikut: • rekod mengenai pemilik, keluasan, taraf pegangan, kegunaan, syarat nyata dan sekatan kepentingan didaftarkan ke atas Hartanah/Tanah adalah berdasarkan Carian Rasmi dan Dokumen Hakmilik yang dibekalkan kepada Pegawai JPPH. • semakan dengan Majlis Perbandaran Selayang mendapati bahawa kawasan Hartanah/Tanah tersebut telah dizonkan sebagai perumahan. • lawat periksa telah dijalankan dan disahkan bahawa kedudukan Hartanah/Tanah tersebut secara amnya terletak di Lot 10231, kampung Seri Makmur berhampiran Prima Sri Gombak yang boleh dihubungi dari Pusat Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur melalui Jalan Kuching dan susur keluar ke Jalan Lingkaran Tengah II (MRRII). • dalam menentukan nilai pasaran Hartanah/Tanah tersebut Pegawai JPPH menggunakan Kaedah Perbandingan iaitu perbandingan dibuat dengan bukti jual beli dan nilaian bagi hartanah lain yang hampir sama atau serupa.. Pelarasan akan dibuat ke atas mana-mana faktor ketidaksamaan saiz, pegangan hakmilik, lokasi, kedudukan dll yang didapati antara kedua-dua Hartanah dengan hartanah perbandingan. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 • setelah menyemak dan meneliti Laporan Penilaian oleh Zaharin Nexcap Property Consultant Sdn Bhd, pada perenggan 23 afidavitnya, Pegawai JPPH menyatakan/ulasan yang berikut: (a) tanah yang dinilai oleh Penilai Swasta tidak merujuk kepada pemilik-pemilik berdaftar Hartanah iaitu Low Swee Tit @ Low Tit, Low Tin Fong @ Low Thian Hong dan Thep Jim @ low Kok Tee; dan sebaliknya didaftarkan atas nama PKNS (Defendan Keempat); (b) Penilai Swasta menilai dengan asas nilaian kegunaan tanah bangunan kediaman iaitu berdasarkan dokumen hakmilik yang dikeluarkan kepada PKNS selepas pengambilan tanah dijalankan ke atas Hartanah; (c) oleh itu, tanah-tanah perbandingan yang dirujuk oleh Peniali Swasta seperti di perenggan 14 Laporan Penilaian Swasta, yang merupakan tanah-tanah dengan kategori kegunaan bangunan adalah tidak sebanding dengan Hartanah yang masih berkategori kegunaan “tiada”; dan (d) berdasarkan seksyen 53(2) Kanun Tanah Negara (Disemak-2020) (dahulunya 1965) (“KTN”) dan perenggan 6.1.1 Pekeliling Ketua Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Persekutuan Bilangan 1/2002, semua tanah desa yang tidak ditetapkan syarat kegunaan tanah hendaklah tertakluk kepada syarat tersirat bagi maksud S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 pertanian sahaja. • pada perenggan 24 afidavitnya, Pegawai JPPH merumuskan bahawa kadar RM320.00 semeter persegi adalah penilaian yang lebih tepat dan munasabah bagi maksud penentuan nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut pada tahun 2022. [27] Mahkamah ini mendapati rumusan yang dibuat oleh Pegawai JPPH yang bertindak sebagai Pegawai Penilai bagi Defendan-Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga bercanggah mengenai pemahamannya mengenai Tanah tersebut. Sebagai Pegawai Penilai Kerajaan, Mahkamah ini memerlukan laporan jitu mengenai nilai pasaran Tanah tersebut pada tahun 2022 dari segi/aspek perbandingan yang tepat dan apakah perbezaan dengan Penilai Swasta. Hal perkara mengenai sejarah pemilikan tidak dipertikaikan. Jika dipertikaikan pun, bukanlah Pegawai JPPH yang perlu memberitahu Mahkamah ini. [28] Hasil lawat periksa pegawai JPPH dan kategori zon Tanah tersebut adalah jelas bahawa Tanah tersebut “kini” dalam zon yang maju dan bukannya tanah desa atau pertanian. [29] Peruntukan Kanun Tanah Negara yang disebut oleh Pegawai JPPH dalam afidavitnya hendaklah dijawab oleh peguam Defendan-Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga iaitu PPUU. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 [30] Selepas meneliti keterangan afidavit Penilai yang dilantik dan yang mengikrarkan afidavit bagi pihak Plaintif-Plaintif dan Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga yang dikemukakan di hadapan Mahkamah ini dalam taksiran ganti rugi bagi taksiran nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut, Mahkamah ini memutuskan – • hakikat dan apa yang tersurat ialah Hartanah tersebut tidak mempunyai sebarang kategori kegunaan tanah, syarat nyata dan sekatan kepentingan didaftarkan ke atasnya. Maksud tersirat bahawa Hartanah tersebut dalam kategori pertanian tidak menepati realiti sebenar Hartanah tersebut. • Kaedah Perbandingan (Comparison Method) dengan hartanah lain yang hampir sama atau serupa yang digunapakai oleh Penilai Plaintif-Plaintif dan Penilai Defendan Pertama hingga Defendan Ketiga adalah sama dari segi skop perbandingan. Namun, untuk menentukan pemilihan hartanah lain yang hampir sama atau serupa yang mana lebih mirip kepada Hartanah tersebut, penjelasan Penilai Plaintif- Plaintif adalah lebih meyakinkan. • Perbezaan yang meningkatkan harga sekaki persegi yang dinyatakan oleh Penilai Plaintif-Plaintif bagi tujuan nilaian tahun 2022 secara relatifnya adalah minimal. S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 • Mahkamah ini menerima penentuan nilaian pada kadar RM257.00 setiap kaki persegi adalah penilaian yang lebih tepat dan munasabah bagi tujuan penentuan nilai pasaran Hartanah tersebut pada tahun 2022 berbanding dengan RM320.00 semeter persegi. [31] Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam cara terpelajar Plaintif-Plaintif bahawa pihak Defendan-Defendan Pertama hingga Ketiga gagal menjawab mengenai important factors yang berikut: (i) the Land is not a piece of undeveloped land surrounded by agricultural crops; (ii) the Land is located in town and is zoned residential under Majlis Perbandaran Selayang Local Plan; (iii) the Land is accessible from Kuala Lumpur City Centre and DUKE Highway; (iv) the Land is bounded by highways, petrol stations and light industrial buildings; (v) the Land is surrounded by landed residential dwellings, condominium, shophouses and industries; (vi) water supply, electricity supply and telephone lines are connected to the Land; S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 (vii) public transports such as buses and taxies are available at the Land; and (viii) public services such as rubbish collection, repair and maintenance of the roads, drains and pavements, street lighting and landscaping are provided by the local authority. • most importantly, it is pertinent to note that under the new document of title held under Lot 89399 by PKNS (which is a continuation from GRN 52085 Lot No. 10231), the category of land use and the express condition of the Land are stated to be “building” and “residential building” respectively. [32] Mahkamah ini memutuskan perintah taksiran sebagaimana yang dipohon oleh Plaintif-Plaintif adalah dibenarkan. Tiada perintah atas kos. Kesimpulan [33] Berdasarkan penelitian Mahkamah ini, selepas meneliti semua keterangan afidavit, dokumen dan hujahan bertulis yang dibentangkan oleh pihak-pihak di hadapan Mahkamah ini, Mahkamah ini membenarkan perintah yang dipohon oleh Plaintif-Plaintif berkenaan dengan Taksiran Nilai Pasaran Tanah tersebut. Bertarikh: 6 Disember 2023. RoziBainon ( ROZI BINTI BAINON ) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam NCvC12 S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 Peguam cara: Bagi pihak Plaintif-Plaintif: Leong Xin Wen Tetuan Kee Sern, Siu & Huey, Kuala Lumpur Bagi pihak Defendan-Defendan Pertama, Kedua dan Ketiga: Husna binti Abdul Halim Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor, Shah Alam Bagi pihak Defendan Keempat: Mohd Yaacob bin Bakanali Tetuan Lainah Yaacob & Zulkepli, Kuala Lumpur Bagi pihak Defendan-Defendan Kelima dan Keenam: Ryan Chu Tetuan Tuang, Chu & Co., Petaling Jaya S/N ZhDr6bVHsku4wk13B74mvQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

W-01(A)-732-12/2021

PERAYU INTERNATIONAL NATUROPHATIC BIO-TECH (M) SDN. BHD RESPONDEN KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA

REVENUE LAW: Tax - appeal against assessment - decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax ('SCIT') - whether disposal of landed property is subjected to the Real Property Gain Tax ('RPGT') under section 3 or under section 4(a) of the Income Tax Act ('ITA') - Guiding principles to determine the concept of badges of trade - whether the gains were capital or trading in nature.

06/12/2023

YA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd GhazaliKorumYA Datuk S. Nantha Balan A/L E.S. MoorthyYA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd GhazaliDato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5876d667-061a-4caa-8ca1-addcef7b6ae0&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - INTERNATIONAL NATUROPATHIC BIO 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA DI PUTRAJAYA (BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-01(A)-732-12/2021 ANTARA INTERNATIONAL NATUROPATHIC BIO-TECH (M) SDN BHD …PERAYU DAN KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI …RESPONDEN (DI DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR RAYUAN SIVIL NO: WA-14-4-02/2021) ANTARA INTERNATIONAL NATUROPATHIC BIO-TECH (M) SDN BHD …PERAYU DAN KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI …RESPONDEN (DALAM PERKARA PESURUHJAYA KHAS CUKAI PENDAPATAN RAYUAN NO. PKCP(R) 423/2015 ANTARA INTERNATIONAL NATUROPATHIC BIO-TECH (M) SDN BHD …PERAYU 06/12/2023 14:41:11 W-01(A)-732-12/2021 Kand. 51 S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 DAN KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI …RESPONDEN) CORAM S NANTHA BALAN, JCA MOHD NAZLAN MOHD GHAZALI, JCA DR CHOO KAH SING, JCA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Introduction [1] This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court which had by way of case stated affirmed the decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (“SCIT”) which had earlier dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the assessment raised by the respondent under Section 4(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (“the ITA”). [2] Having heard the appeal - which was conducted by way of a remote communication technology via Zoom - examined the appeal records and considered the submissions by parties, we unanimously decided to affirm the decisions of the High Court and the SCIT, and therefore dismiss the appeal, for the reasons which we set out herein. Key Background Facts [3] International Naturophatic Bio-Tech (M) Sdn Bhd, the appellant herein, is a locally incorporated company, and has as its main business, the promotion of naturopathic medicine including the provision of training, advice, information, consultancy, guidance and counselling on all aspects of naturopathic medicine. The appellant company’s two first S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 shareholders and directors were Dr Fei Chong Ming and Fei Xiao Yun. The appellant operated its health product distribution business from 1986 until the passing of Dr Fei Chong Ming in 2012. [4] On 8 July 2008 the appellant executed six sale and purchase agreements to purchase six different shop lot units - specifically A-3A-G, A-3A-1 and A-3A-2 in Block A as well as B-23A-G, B-23A-1 & B-23A-2 in Block B at Zenith Corporate Park located in Kelana Jaya, Petaling Jaya (“the Shop Lots”). [5] Delivery of vacant possession in respect of all the Shop Lots was made in August 2010. [6] Subsequently, the Shop Lots in Block A were sold on 27 June 2011 and those in Block B, on 1 August 2011. [7] The respondent is the Director General of Inland Revenue who had raised the notice of assessment dated 18 December 2014 in the requisite Form J on the appellant company in respect of the disposal of the Shop Lots, amounting to RM543,906.00 for the year of assessment 2011. Principal Issue for Determination in this Appeal [8] The one central issue in this appeal as it was before the SCIT and the High Court is whether the disposal by the appellant of its Shop Lots is subjected to real property gains tax (RPGT) under Section 3 of the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 or Section 4(a) of the ITA. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [9] The SCIT and the High Court both held that the disposal of the Shop Lots in Block A and Block B were subject to income tax, thereby confirming the assessment made by the respondent dated 18 December 2014 for the year of assessment 2011, with tax payable in the amount of RM543,906.00. [10] The High Court found no reasons to interfere with the findings of fact made by the SCIT, which were found to be consistent with the evidence produced before it. The High Court also agreed with the SCIT that the appellant is not an investment holding company within the meaning of Section 60F of the ITA (although this point was abandoned by the appellant) and also concurred that once the appellant was found to have made an incorrect return, the respondent had every right to impose a penalty. Both the SCIT and the High Court affirmed that the imposition of a 45% penalty on the appellant was allowable and correct. Principles governing appellate intervention in appeals against decisions of SCIT [11] Although the merits of the appeal would require examination on whether the disposals by the appellant of the Shop Lots in Block A and in Block B ought properly to be made subject to the ITA or to the RPGT, where the appellant’s principal ground of appeal is founded on the main argument that the application of the badges of trade criteria should rightfully result in a determination that gains from the disposals would not be subject to the ITA, it would be remiss of us not to highlight, albeit in summary fashion, the principles on appellate intervention, and their relevance to this appeal, given the fact that this appeal emanates from a decision of the SCIT. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [12] As distilled from caselaw authorities on the subject, we find it useful to summarise the governing principles on appellate intervention vis- à-vis decisions of the SCIT in the following terms. [13] First, the tax statute states that the decision of the SCIT is final; and it is appealable only on a question of law. Paragraph 23 of Schedule 5 to the ITA provides: 23. As soon as may be after completing the hearing of an appeal, the Special Commissioners shall give their decision on the appeal in the form of an order which shall be known as a deciding order and which, subject to this Schedule shall be final. [14] Paragraph 34 of the same Schedule 5 further states as follows: 34. Either party to proceedings before the Special Commissioners may appeal to the High Court on a question of law against a deciding order made in those proceedings. [15] And to further augment the position that an appeal to High Court is only on a question of law, Paragraph 39 of Schedule reads thus: 39. The High Court shall hear and determine any question of law arising on an appeal under paragraph 34 and may in accordance with its determination thereof: (a) order the assessment to which the appeal relates to be confirmed, discharged or amended; S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (b) remit the appeal to the Special Commissioners with the opinion of the court thereon; or (c) make such other order as it thinks just and appropriate. [16] Further elucidation was made by the former Federal Court in Director General of Inland Revenue v Rakyat Berjaya Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 108 as to the limited situations where finding of facts by the SCIT could be disturbed on appeal, where Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) stated as follows: “In Chu[a] Lip Kong’s case the Privy Council reversed the Commissioners’ decision on the ground that it was wrong in law. The approach is similar to that of the House of Lords in Edwards v. Bairstow & Harrison [1956] AC 14; [1955] 3 All ER 48; [1953] 36 TC 207, a case universally acknowledged as the leading authority on the distinction between questions of fact and questions of law. It was also referred to by the learned Judge. He was fully conscious of the critical distinction between questions of fact and law. He stated the position succinctly and accurately before citing a passage from the above case. At p. 54 of the Appeal Record he reminded himself in the following words: “...The power of the Court to interfere is quite limited where the findings of the Special Commissioners are basically findings of facts. The Court will interfere only if there is no evidence to justify the finding or where they have applied erroneous tests in arriving at their conclusions or have drawn a wrong inference on the facts or have misdirected themselves in law ...”. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [17] We should add in this regard that a true appreciation of the law, as so legislated, cannot be emphasized enough. This was highlighted by the Court of Appeal in Kenny Heights Development Sdn. Bhd. v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2015] 5 CLJ 923, where the following observation was made: “[24] We make the general observation that courts, acting in accordance with the law, are at all times bound by the legislation placing jurisdiction and authority in specialised bodies such as the SCIT. The legislation specified that the deciding order of the SCIT is final and allowed appeals to the court on question of law and not any grievance. It underlines, within the SCIT’s jurisdiction, its authority, and prevents the courts being buried under an avalanche of tax appeals by parties unhappy with the determination of the KPHDN and the SCIT”. [18] Secondly, and it follows from the first, findings of primary facts by the SCIT are unassailable. The High Court cannot interfere with such findings. This much was made clear by Privy Council in an appeal from Malaysia in the case of Chua Lip Kong v Director General of Inland Revenue [1982] 1 MLJ 235 where it was stated as follows: “Their Lordships cannot stress too strongly how important it is that, in every Case Stated for the opinion of the High Court, the Special Commissioners should state clearly and explicitly what are the findings of fact upon which their decision is based and not the evidence upon which those findings, so far as they consist of primary facts, are founded. Findings of primary facts by the Special Commissioners are unassailable. They can be neither overruled nor supplemented by the High Court itself; … From the primary facts admitted or proved the Commissioners S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 are entitled to draw inferences; such inferences may themselves be inferences of pure fact, in which case they are unassailable as the Commissioners’ finding of a primary fact; but they may be, or may involve (and very often do), assumptions as to the legal effect or consequences of primary facts, and these are always questions of law upon which it is the function of the High Court on consideration of a Case Stated to correct the Special Commissioners if they can be shown to have proceeded upon some erroneous assumption as to the relevant law...” [19] The third principle that may be distilled from the authorities is that where the appeal is by way of a Case Stated, like presently, the High Court is only concerned with the points of law on the facts stated as given in the Case Stated as set out by the SCIT. It cannot go beyond the Case Stated from the SCIT. The former Federal Court in UHG v Director General of Inland Revenue [1974] 2 MLJ 33, in the judgment written by Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as HRH then was) had stated thus: “It is well established that where the appeal is by way of a Case Stated a statutory duty is laid upon the Special Commissioners to set forth the facts as found by them and the deciding order but not the evidence on which the findings are based. The court of appeal is not concerned with the evidence given in the Case Stated but with the facts therein stated and it is points of law upon those facts the court has to decide. The question for the court of appeal therefore is whether, given the facts as stated, the Special Commissioners were justified in law in reaching the conclusions they did reach”. [20] Fourthly, the High Court is not entitled to interfere with the decision of the SCIT even if the High Court would not have come to the S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 same conclusion, on the same material. In the same case of UHG v Director General of Inland Revenue (supra), the Federal Court explained thus: "But where there is evidence to consider, the decision of the Special Commissioners is final, even though the court might not, on the materials, have come to the same conclusion. In treating the question I can desire no more apt exposition of the law than what is contained in Lord Atkinson's speech in Great Western Railway Co v Bater (1928) 8 TC 231 244. "Their (Commissioner's) determination of questions of pure fact are not to be disturbed, any more than are the findings of a jury, unless it should appear that there was no evidence before them upon which they, as reasonable men, could come to the conclusion to which they have come: and this, even though the Court of Review would on the evidence have come to a conclusion entirely different from theirs." To displace the presumption the respondent led the following evidence: the drivers of the taxpayer company were not direct employees; they were independent contractors who hired out the taxis from the company on rentals; at all material times no relationship of master and servant ever existed between them; the taxi drivers were forced to sign certain documents, one of which was exhibit A1, the contents of which were never explained to them. I should have thought that this is a case of a finding of fact that the service agreements are a sham. If that is so, then such finding is one which ought to be accepted and the court will not disturb it simply because it prefers a different conclusion.” S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [21] A similar outcome was arrived at in Director General of Inland Revenue v Lahad Datu Timber Sdn Bhd [1978] 1 MLJ 203 where Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) observed as follows: “With respect, the learned judge was wrong to interfere with the decision of the Special Commissioners as there was sufficient evidence to support their conclusion. The learned judge, in exercising appellate jurisdiction, was not supposed to alter conclusion of facts simply because he feels that on the evidence the Special Commissioners should not have arrived at the conclusion of facts they did. In Bracegirdle v Oxley Lord Goddard CJ made these observations: “It is, of course said that we are bound by the findings of fact set out in the Case by the justices, and it is perfectly true that this court does not sit as a general court of appeal against justices’ decisions in the same way as quarter sessions, for instance, sit as a court of appeal against the decisions of courts of summary jurisdiction. In this court we only sit to review the justices’ decisions on points of law, being bound by the facts which they find, provided always that there is evidence on which the justices can come to the conclusions of fact at which they arrive.” [22] The fifth principle, another corollary of the others, is that even if the primary facts found by the SCIT are capable of two alternative inferences, the High Court would not substitute its own preferred inference. This is trite since an appellate court would only set aside the decision of the tribunal if the tribunal had acted without any evidence or on a view of facts which could not reasonably be S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 supported. But if the primary facts, as found, were capable of supporting two alternative inferences, the appellate court would not substitute its preferred inference over the one validly drawn by the tribunal (see Furniss v Dawson [1984] STC 153 at 166 per Lord Brightman, Lim Foo Yong Sdn Bhd v Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue [1986] STC 255 at 259 per Lord Oliver and reaffirmed in Richfield International Land and Investment Co Ltd v IRC [1989] STC 820). [23] This was elucidated in clear terms by the Privy Council in Richfield International Land & Investment Co Ltd v IRC [1989] STC 820 where it was held that: “The sole question therefore in this appeal is whether they were entitled to draw the inference from the circumstances of these sales that Gardena Court had become part of the trading stock prior to its sale. A finding of fact by tax commissioners or other similar bodies charged with the hearing of appeals against assessment to tax will only be set aside by an appellate court, whose jurisdiction is restricted to matters of law, if it appears that the body in question has acted without any evidence or on a view of the facts which could not reasonably be supported (Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 at 29, 36 TC at 224 per Viscount Simonds). These principles apply not only to primary facts but to inferences drawn there from (Furniss (Inspector of Taxes) v Dawson [1984] STC 153 at 166, [1984] AC 474 at 527–8 per Lord Brightman). Furthermore if the primary facts as found are capable of supporting two alternative inferences it is no function of the appellate court to substitute its preferred inference for that legitimately drawn by the body in question (Furniss v Dawson per S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 Lord Brightman, Lim Foo Yong Sdn Bhd v Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue [1986] STC 255 at 259 per Lord Oliver).” Analysis & Findings of this Court Whether disposal gains by the appellant is caught under the ITA [24] This case brings to the fore yet another tax dispute which highlights the fine line between income tax and capital gains tax vis-à-vis disposals of landed properties. This determination is important since only gains or profits arising from the sale of property acquired for profit-making which is subject to income tax. In determining whether a tax liability exists under Section 4(a) of the ITA, it is essential to establish whether the taxpayer, like the appellant herein is deriving gains or profits from the carrying on of a business. The Act does not prescribe the circumstances an income or a gain is considered as a capital or revenue in nature. [25] The key question whether the gains from the disposals of the Shop Lots fell under the scope of the ITA arises since Section 4 (a) provides for several classes of income which is taxable under the ITA. The relevant parts read as follows: 4. Classes of income on which tax is chargeable Subject to this Act, the income upon which tax is chargeable under this Act is income in respect of – (a) Gains or profit from a business, for whatever period of time carried on; …. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [26] This in turns calls for the need to construe the meaning of the aforesaid word “business” which is provided in Section 2(1) of the ITA to include: “…professions, vocation and trade and every manufacture, adventure or concern in the nature of trade, but excludes employment.” [27] Relevant for present purposes, the word “trade” is mentioned, but is not defined in the ITA. Caselaw authorities on this subject are sufficiently well-established. Trade has been described as involving “something in the nature of a commercial undertaking, of which the buying and selling are most obvious characteristics” by Lord Buckmaster in The CIR v The Forth Conservancy Board 16 TC 103. [28] The former Federal Court in E v Comptroller of Inland Revenue [1970] 2 MLJ 117, when interpreting the meaning of trade under the Income Tax Ordinance in force then (whilst making references to the applicable English statutes which had also defined ‘trade’ to include “every trade, manufacture, adventure or concern in the nature of trade”), held in the judgement written by Gill FJ, as follows: “...Whilst a trade usually consists of series of transactions implying some continuity and repetition of acts of buying and selling, or manufacturing and selling, in view of the definition of ‘trade’ in the English Income Tax Act which I have mentioned above, the mere fact that there is only one transaction does not preclude the possibility that the transaction is in the nature of trade. Thus, one single purchase and sale or one purchase and many sales have been held in the English and Scottish courts to be trading...”. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [29] That a single transaction may amount to a trade is further augmented by the definition of business as set out above which includes the concept of “adventure or concern in the nature of trade”. In other words, in light of Sections 2(1) and 4(c) of the ITA, the business gains designed to be taxable under the ITA result from the activity of buying and selling, either in a series of transaction, continuously and repeatedly, or that it could also merely be an isolated or single transaction. The Badges of Trade [30] Crucially, on the pivotal question whether it is non-taxable capital receipt or a taxable profit from a trade or an adventure in the nature of trade, guidance may be sought by examining the characteristic features of a trading activity, or the concept of “badges of trade”. This was attributed to the Final Report released in 1955 of the UK’s Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income or the Radcliffe Commission which then suggested six “badges of trade” to be considered to test the existence of a trade or an adventure in the nature of trade. The UK’s HM Revenue & Customs now lists nine badges of trade. [31] The application of the badges of trade concept is also found in Malaysia’s tax jurisprudence and practice. [32] However we must make four key observations on the application of the badges of trade. First, these badges are merely a guide which is employed to assist in the deliberation as to whether a set of facts and circumstances would constitute a trade or an adventure in the nature of trade. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [33] Secondly, no one single badge is usually conclusive or determinative in answering the question itself, for it is likely that the answer will turn on a combination of more than one badge. In some circumstances, the existence of one single badge is enough to show trading but in most cases consideration of a combination of the badges of trade is warranted. In other words, the presence of a specific badge is generally unlikely, by itself, to achieve anywhere near a definitive answer to the question of whether or not there is a trade. [34] Thirdly, it is also not uncommon that the application of one badge may lead to one answer but that of another result in another, potentially contradictory conclusion. As such, fourthly, often, the deliberation involves the interplay of the combination of the various badges, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, with certain badges being considered as more significant. The weight to be attached to each badge will depend on the precise circumstances of the case. Fifthly, it is also fair to say that the more badges of trade that can be fastened on a transaction makes it more likely that the transaction will be construed as a trade and thus subject to income tax. [35] It is apposite that these nine badges of trade be stated briefly, together with the general proposition that each of them carries, and in no particular order of significance, in summary fashion, as follows. [36] The first is the intention or the motive of the purchase of the property which is subsequently disposed. Here, in order to establish that a trade is being carried on, the taxpayer must show motive rather than the existence of profit. Having an intention to make a profit indicates a S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 trading activity. In Rutledge v Commissioners of Inland Revenue 14 T.C. 490; 1929 S.C. 379 it was held that the profit realized on the sale of a million rolls of toilet-paper being a large quantity single purchase and resale item was taxable as being from an adventure in the nature of trade. The purchase was of a large quantity that would not be purchased for ordinary domestic needs, or for investment purposes. This was therefore held to be an adventure in the nature of trade. [37] The second is the subject matter of the asset being disposed of. This looks at the nature of the asset. In comparison with property which does yield to its owner an income or personal enjoyment simply by reason of its ownership, property which does not provide its owner income or enjoyment is more likely to have been required with the object of dealing with it - trading activity. Properties that yield rental income are generally construed as being held for investment purposes. Conversely, if the asset is inherited or gifted, it would likely signify that it was not acquired with a view to sale for profit. [38] Still, landed properties may give rise to different inferences depending on circumstances. For example, a land would be a stock-in- trade to a property developer, but an investment to an individual. A leading case on this subject is Marson (Inspector of Taxes) v Morton [1986] 1 WLR 1343 where despite having purchased the land as an investment with the intention of holding on to it for at least two years, no income was however generated. This was also despite the taxpayer having obtained planning permission to increase the value of the land. The transaction was not an adventure in the nature of a trade as the sale was ruled to have been far removed from the taxpayer’s normal activity; and the gains was not a trading profit. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [39] The third badge of trade is the interval of time between purchase and sale or what may essentially be the length of the period of ownership where in general, property intended for trading is realized within a short time after acquisition. This also means that the longer the period of ownership the greater the likelihood the property be regarded as an investment rather than a trade (see Wisdom v Chamberlain [1969] 1 All ER 332, Marson v Morton (supra)). [40] Fourth is the number or frequency of transaction in that repetitious transactions in the sense of the disposal of similar property takes place in succession over a period of years or there are several of such transactions at about the same date, thus usually indicating that the purpose was for resale at a profit. [41] A leading case on this badge is Pickford v Quirke [1927] 13 TC 251 where after purchasing a cotton mill for trading purposes, the taxpayer bought a spinning mill business but then stripped all the items out and sold them piecemeal. Given the repeated number of transactions – four times, it was held that the profits were taxable as trading income. In light of the various transactions where there were several such realizations at about the same date, the Court stated that whilst an isolated transaction would not have given rise to a trading gain, such systematic repetition raises an inference of trading in respect of each. [42] But even if it is to be regarded as isolated, superior courts have also decided that a single or isolated transaction could amount to trading (see the Federal Court decision in E v Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue [1970] 2 MLJ 117 and the Privy Council decision in International Investment Ltd v Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue [1979] 1 MLJ 4). S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [43] The fifth is changes made to the asset which would make it more saleable. Generally, any special effort to attract purchasers, including large scale advertising provides some evidence of trading. Essentially where there seems to be an organized effort to obtain profit, this suggests the presence of a source of taxable income. However, if nothing at all is done, the inference would be to the opposite effect. [44] Much however depends on the subject-matter. If the property is intended for investment, it could be said that renovation could make it more tenantable, and thus fetch a higher rental. If the property is meant for resale (in the nature of trade), it would probably make little sense to renovate the properties in advance as it might not satisfy the intended purchaser’s requirements. However, if the purchase was for other purposes (for example home occupation) and subsequent improvement was done to render it more saleable after it was no longer useful for such original purpose (say after having occupied for so many years), the gain on the disposal should not ordinarily be taxable. [45] Thus more difficult to differentiate is between work which merely adds to the value and marketability of the asset (investment activities) and work which alters the nature and identity of the subject matter (trading activities). In the case of Cape Brandy Syndicate v IR Commissioners [1921] 2 KB 403 the taxpayers, who were members of different firms purchased three lots of brandy, then shipped them to London where they were blended, mixed and packaged before being sold by the taxpayers. The Court of Appeal held this to be trading, and rejected the argument that the transaction was of a capital nature from the sale of an investment. On the other hand, in Jenkinson v Freedland (1961) 39 TC 636, having bought two metal stills, the taxpayer used his own skill to have them repaired and restored them to use. He then sold the stills to two S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 companies which he controlled. The Court of Appeal did not consider this to be a trading transaction. [46] We reiterate that the general rule is that where the additional work to the property does not change the nature of the property apart from making it somewhat more desirable a piece of property, thus commanding a higher purchase price, gains from the sale of the property ought not therefore to be deemed as taxable income. This is to be contrasted with works which say converts a large house into a boutique hotel, in respect of which the profit realized on a resale should generally be assessable as a profit from a trading venture, since the venture and identity of the subject matter has been totally changed. But where no steps at all are made vis- à-vis the property to increase its value, this may not always be consistent with the contention that the property is held for investment. [47] Sixth, is in relation to the circumstances that were responsible for the realization of the property. This badge of trade envisages certain explanation such as a sudden emergency which displaces the contention that the purchase was accompanied by a plan to trade in the property. As such, if the sale is attributed to an unanticipated need for funds or as a result of an unsolicited offer, this will tend to indicate that the sale is not made pursuant to a profit-making scheme. [48] Similarly if sale of the property is as a result of financial constraints or compulsory acquisition by the Government, this would suggest that the disposal was not initiated by the property owner. This in turn would mean that it is unlikely to be a transaction in the nature of trade. This badge necessarily requires assessment of the transaction from the perspective of the requirements of the taxpayer at the later time of realisation, not at the initial purchase. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 [49] In HCM v Director General of Inland Revenue [1993] 2 MSTC 539 the taxpayer sold three lots of land to finance her domestic requirements and for the education of her children. The SCIT decided that she was realising her investment which did not thus attract income tax. This ruling was arrived at notwithstanding that the taxpayer had a history of trading in land 10 years prior, given the findings that among others, she did nothing to enhance the value of the properties, the properties had been held for a long period of time - between 10 and 22 years; and she did not take steps to attract purchasers and that the disposal was actuated by her needs and her children’s educational expenses (see also the decision of the Supreme Court in Lower Perak Co-operative Housing Society v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [1994] 2 MLJ 713). [50] It is of some interest to note that prior to the introduction of Section 4C of the ITA, the Court of Appeal in Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Penang Realty Sdn Bhd [2006] 3 MLJ 597, following Lower Perak Cooperative Housing Society Berhad (supra) held that compensation received by the taxpayer for compulsory acquisition of land is not subject to income tax since the element of compulsion vitiated the intention to trade. [51] Although Section 4C subsequently reversed the effect of these decisions, more recently the Federal Court in Wiramuda (M) Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2023] 5 MLRA 285 ruled that Section 4C of the ITA was unconstitutional since it violated Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution by depriving the taxpayer of adequate compensation arising from the compulsory acquisition of the land. [52] Seventh is the source of finance or method of financing for the purchase of the property. Its relevance is in respect of whether the S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 financing was taken to purchase the property which suggests that the same property may have to be sold to repay the facility. If however an asset is purchased on a short term loan which the taxpayer is unable to fund without selling the asset again, it may be argued that the same was purchased specifically with a view to selling it (see Wisdom v Chamberlain (supra)). [53] In addition, the financial ability of the taxpayer to acquire the asset is an indicator of whether the asset is acquired for long term investment such that where there is sufficient capital coverage and reserves to finance long term assets, the taxpayer would be considered to be in a stronger position to maintain itself as a long term investor. [54] In Turner v Last (HM Inspector of Taxes) [1965] T.R 249, it was held that the weak financial position of the taxpayer made it doubtful that the taxpayer would have been able to hold the land indefinitely as an investment. [55] Eight is the existence of similar trading transactions or interests. By this it is meant that if the disposal transaction is in keeping with the ordinary business of a taxpayer, the same would likely be deemed as a trade transaction. The converse is true if the disposal is far removed from the taxpayer’s usual business activity. [56] Ninth is the way the sale or disposal was carried out in that if the disposal is undertaken within an organized arrangement which could involve activities such as utilization of property brokers, printing of brochure and pamphlets, extensive advertising, opening of an office, and employment of sales staff etc., this would tend to signify the presence of a business of trading. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 The Key Findings of the SCIT [57] We now refer to the key findings made by the SCIT. There, the appellant had argued that its ownership of the Shop Lots was in the nature of a long term investment such that the subsequent disposal was subject to RPGT, not income tax. The respondent viewed it in directly opposite fashion, asserting that the badges of trade methodology designed to distinguish between taxable and non-taxable profits concluded that the sale of the Shop Lots was in the form of trade or adventure in the nature of trade, thus attracting the application of the ITA instead. [58] The primary finding by the SCIT, as affirmed by the High Court, that the gains arising from the disposal of the Shop Lots in Block A and Block B owned by the appellant company were subject to the ITA are attributed to a number of considerations, which included the following. [59] First, on frequency of transaction, it was found that Block A Shop Lots were rented for a short period and that no effort was done to look for tenant for Block B. Secondly, there was only short period of ownership, in the sense that the Shop Lots in Block A were sold some 6 months after they were rented out and 10 months after delivery of vacant possession, whilst the Shop Lots in Block B were sold 12 months after vacant possession. The Shop Lots in Block B were left vacant, and there was admission of absence of any attempt to secure tenants for its Shop Lots in Block B or to advertise for better rental for those in Block A. [60] Thirdly, the circumstances responsible for the sale were not established by the appellant as its assertion that the disposal of the Shop S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 Lots was undertaken with the objective of utilising the sale proceeds to help pay for the medical bills of Dr Fei Chong Ming was not substantiated by any documents such as medical receipts recording such expenses. [61] Fourthly, the intention for the purchase of the Shop Lots in the first place was to trade, by reasons of the findings among others that the purchases were financed by loans taken by a director, not by the appellant company; that the Shop Lots were located at a strategic business area – Kelana Jaya, PJ; that the availability of strata titles of the Shop Lots when purchased by the appellant made the value of the properties more attractive and any sale and purchase transactions much easier to complete; that the appellant did not find it difficult to sell the Shop Lots within the relatively short period of not more than 12 months after obtaining vacant possession of the same; and that there was not much effort expended to rent out the Shop Lots. The Principal Grounds of Appeal [62] Here before us, the appellant raised a number of grounds of appeal as stated in its memorandum of appeal. We shall deal with the more substantive of the grounds as they are set out in the appellant’s written submissions and raised in oral submissions at the hearing, and that a number of which will be examined together given that certain of the issues and arguments overlap. 1) There was no intention to trade [63] The first grievance of the appellant is that the appellant never had the intention to trade in the Shop Lots, disagreeing with the decisions of the SCIT and the High Court. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [64] The SCIT stated that the appellant had failed to prove that the acquisition of the Shop Lots was for the purpose of investment as the facts instead showed that these were the appellant’s stock in trade acquired for trading purposes. The High Court stated that even though intention at the time of purchase may be for investment it could later change and be for trading. [65] This potential for change in intention was recognised by the House of Lords in the following passage from the case of Simmons (As Liquidator of Lionel Simmons Properties Ltd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1980] 2 All ER 798, 53 TC 461 : “One must ask, first what the Commissioners were required or entitled to find. Trading requires an intention to trade: normally the question to be asked is whether this intention existed at the time of the acquisition of the asset. Was it acquired with the intention of disposing of it at a profit, or was it acquired as a permanent investment? Often it is necessary to ask further questions: a permanent investment may be sold in order to acquire another investment thought to be more satisfactory; that does not involve an operation of trade, whether the first investment is sold at a profit or at a loss. Intentions may be changed. What was first an investment may be put into the trading stock, and, I suppose, vice versa. If findings of this kind are to be made precision is required, since a shift of an asset from one category to another will involve changes in the company’s accounts, and, possibly, a liability to tax ... What I think is not possible is for an asset to be both trading stock and permanent investment at the same time, nor for it to possess an indeterminate status, neither trading stock nor permanent asset. It must be one or the other ...” [Emphasis added] S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [66] In the English Court of Appeal case of Taylor v Good (Inspector of Taxes) [1974] 1 WLR 556, a husband purchased a property to be used as a family home but his wife refused to live in it, which resulted in the sale of the house. This was plainly one-off but despite the existence of a badge of trade given the short period of ownership (which suggested trading gains) it was determined that the transaction was not a trading transaction because there was a genuine intention by the taxpayer to live in the house rather than to make a quick profit. The Court of Appeal allowed the taxpayer’s appeal as it found no evidence of an adventure in the nature of trade. [67] A related point of interest is that although the decision the High Court was set aside, the following passage from the judgment of Megarry J on change of intention is instructive and still correct in its proposition: “Even if the house was purchased with no thought of trading, I do not see why an intention to trade could not be formed later. What is bought or otherwise acquired (for example, under a will) with no thought of trading cannot thereby acquire an immunity so that, however filled with the desire and intention of trading the owner may later become, it can never be said that any transaction by him with the property constitutes trading. For the taxpayer a non- trading inception may be a valuable asset: but it is no palladium. The proposition that an initial intention not to trade may be displaced by a subsequent intention, in the course of the ownership of the property in question, is, I think, sufficiently established…” [Emphasis added] [68] In the instant case, the appellant submitted that the High Court held that the appellant’s only witness, Fei Xiao Yun (AW1)’s evidence was S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 that the subject property was for investment purpose which was later changed to resale at profit because of the problem to rent the said properties. This, according to the appellant is an error in law because a mere sale does not change ‘intention’ nor evidence of change of ‘intention’, and that as held by Simmons (supra), an intention to change must be precise. But the High Court gave no evidence of a change in ‘intention’ of the appellant, nor is there finding that intention was changed. The Shop Lots were also held in fixed assets accounts until sold. [69] The appellant also made much of the finding by the SCIT that the principal activity of the appellant company as stated in the director's report was as distributors of health products and particularly as an investment holding company. The appellant maintained therefore that the Shop Lots were held in fixed assets as found by the SCIT and never changed. [70] The appellant repeated the argument that no intention to trade at time of acquisition of Block A and B was found in the facts proved, and this was agreed by the High Court. Since there was no finding of fact at time of acquisition of Block A and B, the appellant had no intention to trade in Block A and Block B, the principles in Simmons (supra) on need for precision on evidence of change of intention should apply and the assessments by the respondent on the appellant should accordingly be discharged. The appellant thus maintained that the dominant purpose of purchasing Blocks A and B which were office lots was for investment, that is, to use as an office. [71] We are mindful that a mere sale does not change a capital asset into a trading stock. Also, a mere profit motive is not trading as ruled S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 by the Supreme Court in Lower Perak Co-operative Housing Society (supra) which found the SCIT had erred in holding that the mere acquisition and sale of an asset resulting in a profit constituted trading or an adventure in the nature of trade. [72] The appellant thus argued that as the High Court agreed that there was no initial intention on the part of the appellant to trade in the Shop Lots and there is no supporting fact found of a change in intention upon the principle cited in Simmons (supra) the case for an adventure in the nature of trade is not proved. [73] We must at the outset state that it is settled law that the burden of proof in tax cases lies on the taxpayer to prove that the assessment is erroneous or excessive. This is stated plainly in Paragraph 13 of Schedule 5 to the ITA. The taxpayer like the appellant herein also bears the same onus when he brings a further appeal to the High Court and yet another appeal to the Appellate Court (see also the Supreme Court decision in Lower Perak Co-Operative Housing Society (supra)). [74] And as a corollary to this, it is equally well-established that in order to successfully challenge the respondent’s assessment of business income, it is also for the appellant to prove that the Shop Lots were acquired for the purpose of investment. [75] This was made clear in MR Properties Sdn Bhd v KPHDN [2005] 7 MLJ 260 where Raus Sharif J (later Chief Justice) stated thus: “[19] In fact, the burden is on the taxpayer to prove that the subject lands were purchased for investment purposes, and such S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 intention must be shown to have existed at the time of the acquisition of the asset…”. [76] We find that the SCIT did clearly make the determination that the appellant had not proven that the purchases were investment in nature. Paragraph 10.19 of the Case Stated had this to say: "Oleh itu, Panel berpandangan fakta-fakta di atas tidak menunjukkan harta tanah tersebut adalah merupakan suatu pelaburan. Dakwaan Perayu perolehan kesemua hartanah di Blok A dan B bagi tujuan pelaburan tidak dapat dibuktikan Perayu. Berdasarkan fakta yang ada, Panel berpandangan kesemua harta tanah tersebut menjadi 'stock in trade' Perayu bagi tujuan 'trading'.” [77] We observe that the High Court found that the appellant’s initial intention was for investment purposes but that this was later changed to resale at profit because of difficulties faced by the appellant associated with the renting out of the Shop Lots. We emphasise that this change potential was recognised by the House of Lords in Simmons (supra), as mentioned above. But despite the evidence given by the appellant’s own witness (AW1) on such a change, which evidence of change in intention as so testified we consider to be sufficient in meeting the Simmons’ requirement concerning precision, the appellant argued there was no evidence of any change. [78] There is in our view absolutely nothing wrong with this finding of fact by the SCIT on the true intention of the appellant since the SCIT had made inferences from evidence on the conduct of the appellant and S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 the related factual circumstances, as more than plainly set out in paragraph 10.22 (c) of Case Stated, as follows: " Niat Perayu memperoleh harta tanah tersebut boleh dilihat melalui: - Pembelian dengan pinjaman oleh Pengarah Perayu bukan melalui pinjaman bank. - Kedudukan harta tanah kawasan strategik dan pesat membangun di Kelana Jaya, Petaling Jaya. - Jangkamasa harta tanah dilupuskan adalah dalam masa yang terlalu singkat (12 bulan). - Perayu tidak sukar untuk menjual kesemua harta tanah tersebut dalam masa yang singkat tersebut. - Harta tanah tersebut telah sedia ada dibeli oleh Perayu dalam hakmilik strata yang berasingan di mana ini secara langsung menambahkan nilai tanah tersebut dan memudahkan urusan jual beli. - Tiada aktiviti atau usaha dilakukan untuk menyewa harta tanah berkaitan. " [79] This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of the various factors as stated in the above-mentioned paragraph 10.22 (c), which specifically are again first; the purchase was financed by a loan taken from its own director - Dr Fei Chong Ming; secondly, the strategic location of the Shop Lots; thirdly, that they were disposed of within a short period of less than 12 months (after delivery of possession); fourthly, the appellant did face no difficulty in selling them within such period; fifthly, the availability of separate titles for the Shop Lots when purchased by the S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 appellant made it easier for them to be sold and had increased their value to begin with; and; sixthly, the absence of efforts to rent them. [80] We must in this connection also mention that Sharma J in N.Y.F Realty Sdn Bhd v Comptroller of Inland Revenue [1974] 1 MLJ 182 had emphasized that intention has to be determined by inference from proved facts, which inference is a question of fact and not law, in the following terms: “The question of what the intention of a taxpayer was when he acquired an asset, i.e. whether he bought it as an investment or with a view to selling it at a profit, is a question of fact. It has to be determined by inference from proved facts and such an inference is one of fact and not of law…”. [81] In our judgment, in the instant appeal before us, we cannot but similarly find that the SCIT and the High Court had directed their minds correctly on the law and the facts in respect of this issue of intention at the time of the purchase of the Shop Lots, in their respective evaluation of the case. [82] This is further supported by the undisputed finding of fact by the SCIT that the said properties were classified as current assets at the point of purchase in 2008 (but later re-classified as fixed asset upon the buildings’ completion) which indicated they were purchased for trading. Notwithstanding the subsequent classification of the Shop Lots as fixed assets, the appellant’s conduct in disposing the said properties somewhat contradicted the effect of classifying the same as fixed assets. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [83] This underscores the point that the conduct or acts of the taxpayer are important considerations in determining whether the properties in question are for investment or trading purposes. Reference to the Federal Court decision in Director General of Inland Revenue v LCW [1975] 1 MLJ 250 it apt, where it was stated: “The important thing is to see whether the acts and conduct of the respondent in relation to the business amount to trading. In the words of Buckmaster in J & R. O’Kane & Co. v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue: - “...yet the intention of a man cannot be considered as determining what it is that his acts amount to: and the real thing that has to be decided here is what were the acts that were done in connection with this business and whether they amount to a trading which would cause profits that accrued to be profits arising from a trade or business?” [84] Furthermore, having regard to the badge of trade on financing of the property, as discussed earlier, the fact that the purchase of the Shop Lots was financed through loan, and even then taken from its director, tends to show that the appellant did not possess the requisite financial capacity to sustain the Shop Lots as an investment or held for a long-term investment. After all, loans must be repaid and the source for it could be the proceeds from the sale of the properties, although in this case the loan to the director was largely repaid in the financial year ended 2011. [85] Another of the appellant’s ground of appeal is the stand that the sale of the Shop Lots was not an adventure in the nature of trade. It S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 has earlier been explained that a single transaction could under certain circumstances be construed as a trade and that additionally and separately the phrase “adventure in the nature of trade” further supports such a construction and consequence. In other words, apart from gains or profits from ‘trade’, a taxpayer may also be subject to tax under the same Section 4(a) of the ITA 1967 for gains or profits arising from adventure or concern in the nature of trade. The application of this concept “adventure or concern in the nature of trade” usually arises when there is only an isolated transaction, in comparison to a series of transactions of buying and selling that would more clearly signify trading. [86] The Case Stated by the SCIT does not deal with the specific issue of whether the disposal of the Shop Lots was an adventure in the nature of trade since the SCIT dealt with the matter more wholesomely by examining whether the transactions fell within Section 4 (a) of the ITA, and simply focusing on the key question whether they are in the nature of trade or investment. In other words it was unnecessary to do so since findings were made on the issue of ‘trade’ without the need to examine the same vis-à-vis ‘adventure in the nature of trade’. [87] The High Court did make mention of the Supreme Court case of Director General v Khoo Ewe Aik Realty v Director General of Inland Revenue [1990] 1 CLJ Rep 91 which stated the meaning of adventure in the nature of trade, in the following terms: “………..She then referred to a passage from the judgment of the former Federal Court in E. v. Controller-General of Inland Revenue [1970] 2 MLJ 117, 123 in which Gill FJ (as he then was) referred to the House of Lords' decision in Edwards (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow & S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 Harrison 36 TC 207 in which that Court considered the following four conditions approved in Leeming v. Jones 15 TC 333 one of which must be present to establish the existence of an adventure in the nature of trade: (i) the existence of an organisation, (ii) activities which lead to the maturing of the asset to be sold, (iii) the existence of special skill, opportunities in connection with the article dealt with, (iv) the fact that the nature of the asset itself should lend itself to commercial transaction. [Emphasis added] [88] Even though the appellant contended that the conditions cited by the High Court have not been fulfilled, we find that it is quite plain that only one of the conditions needs to be satisfied and also that it is difficult to deny that shop lots are of a nature of asset that lends itself to commercial transaction. Furthermore, as the appellant submitted, recent cases have stated that it is not possible to determine the scope of the term or lay down any single criterion for deciding whether a particular transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade because the answer in each case must depend on the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case (see Minister of National Revenue v James A Taylor 51 DTC 1125). [89] We therefore find no merit in this ground. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 2) The disposal gains was not from the ordinary course of appellant’s business [90] The appellant next submitted that the profits from sale of a capital asset - claimed in this case to be the Shop Lots, was not ‘income’ under Section 3, read with Section 4 of the ITA as the sale of the Shop Lots was not in the ordinary course of the appellant’s business. Reliance by the SCIT and the High Court on the assertions to the contrary made by the respondent’s sole witness, its officer, Nokkidzan Ahmad Mokhtar (RW1) resulted in a misdirection. [91] It is useful to state Section 3 of the ITA which reads: Subject and in accordance with this Act, a tax to be known as income tax shall be charged for each year of assessment upon the income of any person accruing in or derived from Malaysia or received in Malaysia from outside Malaysia. [92] Section 4 of the same statute, it is hereby repeated, states: Subject to this Act, the income upon which tax is chargeable under this Act is income in respect of: (1) gains or profits from a business, for whatever period of time carried on;….. [93] In its decision, it is quite clear that the SCIT did consider whether the gains were capital or trading in nature and expressly stated that it had taken into account principles applicable to Section 4 of the ITA as set out by RW1 in his testimony. As recorded in paragraph 10.13 of the Case Stated, these included that the Shop Lots were stock in trade of the appellant, its main activity was as a retail sale of direct selling products, S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 its intention in the purchase of the properties, the method of the purchase, the strategic locations of the Shop Lots, all properties were disposed of within a short period of time without much difficulty, the Shop Lots were purchased with strata titles already available which increased their value and facilitated the sale process, the absence of activities to show that these Shop Lots were for investment purposes and held for a long period, and the Shop Lots were sold to a number of different buyers on different dates within a short period again showed lack of difficulty in securing buyers. [94] The fact that the business of the appellant company as a health product distributor has nothing to do with trading in property does not and cannot mean that any disposal of the appellant’s property can never result in taxable gains. [95] The related complaint of the appellant here is that the High Court, according to the appellant, held that the SCIT had come to the aforesaid findings and accepted the findings as “facts” when in fact, those “findings” are mere allegations or opinions expressed by RW1 - the respondent’s witness. [96] We do not think this contention is tenable. For the very reason that the appellant put forth - which is based on the leading authority of Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 where Viscount Simonds, for the House of Lords held that: “For it is universally conceded that, though it is a pure finding of fact, it may be set aside on grounds which have been stated in various ways but are, I think fairly summarized by saying that the court should take that course if it appears that the commissioners S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 have acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained.” [Emphasis added] [97] Ergo, can it be seriously argued that the SCIT in the case before us acted without evidence or on a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained, when it decided to take into consideration and accepted the evidence (as per the above-mentioned paragraph 10.13 of the Case Stated) given by the respondent’s witness, the officer who was responsible for putting up the assessment in respect of the gains arising from the disposal of the Shop Lots? [98] Surely not. And more so given the fact that the SCIT had considered other factors as well when evaluating the badges of trade test in this case before it determined that profits from the sale of the Shop Lots is not “income” under the ITA. [99] This in our view is the main recurring problem with the submissions of the appellant before us, which have the tendency to cherry pick on certain points and argue that a finding on any such particular issue should not, based on case law authorities, automatically lead to a specified consequence. This is of course not untrue, but the SCIT did not just rely on any single issue to arrive at its decision. As mentioned, the SCIT had set out a number of considerations which largely followed the badges of trade methodology which it had considered in arriving at its decision that the gains from the disposal of the Shop Lots was subject to income tax under the ITA. [100] We ought to state again that the appellant made much of the argument that mere opinions of the key witness for the respondent, RW1, S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 37 were relied on as findings by the SCIT. This, according to the appellant are factual errors that also became errors of law. [101] One example highlighted by the appellant was the testimony of RW1 that one of the bases he used to raise the assessment under Section 4 the ITA for the disposals of the Shop Lots by the appellant was that “a. Tanah tersebut adalah stok perniagaan Perayu”. Or that the Shop Lots were stock in trade of the appellant. The appellant insisted that no evidence of facts were given in support of this allegation, relying on the earlier passage from the leading case of Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow (supra) particularly in respect of the commissioners having acted “without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained”. [102] We fail to appreciate how this advances the case of the appellant. For two simple reasons. First, it certainly cannot be said the SCIT acted without evidence when it accepted the testimony of the witness for the respondent. Secondly, it would be wholly unwarranted to say that the SCIT acted on a view of the facts - essentially that the Shop Lots were the appellant’s stock in trade - which could not reasonably be entertained. Not when the facts of this case are examined as was indeed done by the SCIT as affirmed by the High Court. [103] In fact it is untrue that the SCIT merely relied on the evidence of RW1, without more. The SCIT in the Case Stated did examine the very issue of stock in trade, as set out in paragraphs 10.14 to 10.18 before concluding with the finding that the properties were the appellant’s stock in trade in paragraph 10.19, as stated earlier. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 38 [104] And just to give one other example - in support of its decision, the SCIT considered that the Shop Lots were in a strategic location. But the appellant asserted that the respondent was in error of law since a property in a strategic area does not automatically become “stock-in- trade” (by referring to the case of Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v Gracom Sdn Bhd [2013] Tax Practice e-LawAlert LHAG). [105] But it is to us clear that the SCIT never stated that it was only because the address of the Shop Lots was in strategic locations that the properties became the appellant company’s stock in trade. In contrast, as has been shown earlier and as was unequivocally reasoned by the SCIT and the High Court, the conclusion that the gains from the disposal was trading in nature was arrived at after consideration of several factors, and a number of the badges of trade, to the extent that it would be fair to say that none of which was determinative of the issue. [106] It is therefore unnecessary, despite the argument of the appellant, that the respondent must show that the appellant had traded in office or shop lots consistently to justify the finding that the gains were trading in nature and subject to tax under the ITA. We therefore reiterate that as mentioned earlier on the true construction of Sections 2(1) and 4(c) of the ITA the business gains taxable would not only be from a series of transaction, continuously and repeatedly, but that it could also be an isolated or single transaction. This we repeat has also further been made plain by authorities such as E v Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue (supra) and International Investment Ltd v Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue (supra). [107] We venture to add that it is true that as stated earlier in one of the badges of trade, in general, repetitious transactions - to the extent that S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 39 the sale transactions of Shop Lots in Block A and in Block B could be deemed as such - would tend to show that the objective is for resale at a profit - but even if the transactions undertaken by the appellant here are construed as a single and isolated transaction, they could also be deemed as trading. As such, on the one hand, in Pickford v Quirke (supra) the Court observed as follows: “Now of course, it is very well known that one transaction of buying and selling a thing does not make a man a trader, but if it is repeated and becomes systematic, then he becomes a trader and the profits of the transaction, not taxable so long as they remain isolated, become taxable as items in a trade as a whole, setting losses against profits, of course, and combining them all into one trade... “ [108] On the other hand, again, at the risk of further repetition, it suffices for us to state that there are enough authorities to also hold that even if certain disposals such as in the instant case were regarded as an isolated transaction, they could still constitute an adventure or concern in the nature of trade (see again the Federal Court decision in E. v Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue (supra), and the Privy Council decisions in I. Investment Ltd v Comptroller-General of Inland Revenue (supra). And in Teoh Chai Siok v Director General Of Inland Revenue [1981] 1 MLJ 269, where the taxpayer, after having purchased land and obtained the permission of the Government to alter the conditions in the land title from agricultural purposes to one of erecting dwelling houses, sold the land at a profit, Lord Edmund-Davies, for the Privy Council held that the SCIT, the High Court and the Federal Court were all correct in holding that the transaction, although an isolated one, was an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 40 [109] Accordingly, largely for the same reason, and in light of these authorities, it is not strictly necessary for the respondent here to establish what was held in Reed v Nova Securities Ltd [1985] 1 All ER 686, in that in order to qualify an asset as trading stock, the asset acquired by the company must not only be of a kind which is sold in the ordinary course of the company's trade but must also be acquired for the purposes of that trade with a view to a resale at a profit. [110] After all, it is to be further noted that in Rutledge (supra), a case referred to in the discussion earlier on the badge of trade on intention to trade, the profit realized on the sale of a million rolls of toilet-paper was taxable as being from an adventure in the nature of trade, even though the taxpayer was in a money-lending business. Thus, just because the appellant here was a distributor of health products, it does clearly not follow, as contended by the appellant, that the disposal of the Shop Lots could not amount to trade or adventure or concern in the nature of trade. We therefore find that this ground of appeal that to be taxable as trading gains the same must have arisen from the ordinary course of the business of the appellant to be without merit. 3) Accounting evidence not given due weight and whether the appellant is an investment holding company [111] The third ground raised by the appellant is the complaint that accounting evidence was not given due weight by the SCIT and the High Court. The appellant stated that the accounting treatment accorded to Block A and Block B was, as shown earlier, that of “fixed assets”, and this was also the finding of the SCIT which held that the audited accounts of S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 41 the appellant company from 2008 to 2013 showed that the said properties were classified as current assets in 2008 at time of purchase and later re- classified as fixed asset upon the buildings' completion. [112] The appellant further highlighted that the appellant is an investment company as stated in the accounts, in that other than distributing health products, the accounts also recorded that it holds property as investment and it was in fact also the finding of the SCIT that the appellant is an investment holding company. This therefore renders the decision of the SCIT that the Shop Lots were trade in stock to be untenable. [113] We do not disagree that accounting treatment and audited accounts would constitute supporting evidence of some weight (see Odeon Associated Theatres Ltd v Jones [1971] 2 All ER 407), and we are mindful of this passage from the case of DJ Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [1996] MSTC 2471 which stated the following: "(e) Treatment in the accounts Right from the time of purchase of the estate till now the estate has been treated as a fixed asset in the balance sheet of the appellants. We do realise that accounting evidence is not conclusive (see DGIR v LCW [1975] 1 MLJ 250). As was said in Gold Coast Selection Trust Ltd v Humphrey 30 TC 228 the method of keeping accounts is often a guide though not conclusive in income tax issues. However, it should be given due weight (see I Investment Ltd v Comptroller General of Inland Revenue (1975) 2 MLJ 208)….”. [114] Further, despite the appellant’s focus on the Shop Lots being classified as fixed asset, it is again clear from the decision of the SCIT that the said properties were in fact classified in the accounts of the company as current assets, from the point of purchase in 2008. But the Shop Lots S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 42 were later re-classified as fixed asset upon the completion of the Shop Lots. [115] In our view, the incontrovertible fact that the Shop Lots were originally classified as current assets in 2008, which was unmistakably from the point of acquisition meant, as found earlier, that the appellant’s intention was not for the purpose of investment given that such accounting treatment as current assets at the time of acquisition (and which continued for a number of years thereafter) typically signified the holding of the same as trading stock. [116] It is no less true that the Shop Lots were indeed later re- classified and remained as fixed assets until disposal, but that fact had been considered by the SCIT together with other evidence concerning the acts and conduct of the appellant and other circumstances vis-à-vis the Shop Lots which concluded with the finding that the appellant did not succeed in showing that the same were acquired for the purpose of investment. [117] The crucial point is to ascertain whether despite any classification made or professed, the acts and conduct of a taxpayer in relation to its business amount to trading or investment (see the Federal Court decision in Director General of Inland Revenue v LCW [1975] 1 MLJ 250). And in I Investment Ltd v CGIR [1975] 2 MLJ 208 Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as HRH then was) similarly observed thus: “In my opinion, the form which a company takes is no criterion in determining the question whether it was carrying business. To ascertain the business of a limited company, one must look at S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 43 what business it actually carries and not what business it professes to carry on”. [118] Reference to the Canadian case of Minister of National Revenue v Louis W. Spencer [1961] C.T.C. 109, 61 D.T.C. 1079, as highlighted by the respondent, is equally apt, where the Court expressed the following observation: “I have only one further comment to make on the facts as I have outlined them, namely, that the respondent's statements that when he and Mr. Addison had purchased or acquired their mortgages they intended to keep them as investments and that the discounts at which they had purchased them or the bonuses with which they had been acquired were for the purpose of safeguarding their investments against the risk of loss cannot be accepted. It is well established that a taxpayer's statement of what his intention was in entering upon a transaction, made subsequently to its date, should be carefully scrutinized. What his intention really was may be more nearly accurately deduced from his course of conduct and what he actually did than from his ex post facto declaration.” [Emphasis added] [119] That the accounting evidence is not conclusive and should always be considered with other evidence in order to determine the true nature of the transaction has also been stated by the Federal Court in Director General of Inland Revenue v LCW [1975] 1 MLJ 250. In that case, the land was purchased with the intention of constructing flats thereon for renting as an investment. The flats were subsequently sold. The Federal Court reversed the High Court and held there was sufficient evidence to S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 44 conclude that the taxpayer was carrying on a concern in the nature of trade and therefore gains or profits derived therefrom were liable to taxation under Section 4(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1967. On the issue of valuation relevant to the accounting treatment of the land, Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) said: “It cannot be said that the Special Commissioners reached their conclusion that respondent was carrying on a concern in the nature of trade merely on the transfer of the land from fixed account to trading account in 1967. They have clearly taken other primary facts found by them into consideration. The way the U.C. House kept the account of respondent in respect of the land is admissible to show intention. However, such evidence must be weighed against other available evidence to enable the Special Commissioners to decide the nature of the transaction. As Buckley J. said at page 299 in Shadford v H Fairweather & Co Ltd 43 TC 291 :– "For, however genuinely the accounts may have been framed by those responsible for them, and however carefully they may have been studied by those responsible for auditing them, the other evidence may show that in fact they do not truly indicate the nature of the relevant operations." [Emphasis added] [120] Moreover, the appellant’s contention that the SCIT’s finding that the appellant is an investment holding company as stated in its memorandum and articles of association supported its case that it had always intended to hold the Shop Lots as investment, is in our view, misconceived. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 45 [121] This is because the concept of investment holding company commonly referred to in the objects clause in the memorandum of association or constitution of companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 (and the Companies Act 2016) is not quite the same with that same term as found in Section 60F(2) of the ITA which reads: "investment holding company" means a company whose activities consist mainly in the holding of investments and not less than eighty per cent of its gross income other than gross income from a source consisting of a business of holding of an investment (whether exempt or not) is derived therefrom.” [122] Simply put, an investment holding company in the context usually found in constitution of companies, and generally in corporate law, is one which owns or holds shares in another company. The investment holding company may thus either wholly own all the shares in a wholly owned subsidiary, a majority of the shares in a subsidiary or only some shares as an investor in an investee company. And as is the case here, the investment in this context concerns shares. Never about landed properties. [123] This can also be so readily seen from the relevant object clause of the appellant which states: “To carry on the business of an investment holding company and for that purpose to acquire and hold for investment either in the name of the Company or nominees share, stocks, debentures, debenture stock, bonds, obligations and securities issued or guaranteed by any company or private undertaking or any syndicate or persons constituted or carrying on business in Malaysia or elsewhere and debentures, debenture stocks, bonds, obligations and securities issued or guaranteed by any S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 46 government, sovereign ruler, commissions, public body or authorities supreme, municipal, local or otherwise in any part of the world”. [124] In contradistinction, an investment holding company under Section 60F(2) of the ITA does not specify or limit the subject matter of the investment and is relevant to the question whether the holding of such investments is sufficiently sizeable vis-à-vis its income to attract tax. [125] We understand that the appellant had even at the proceedings before the SCIT conceded that it is not a Section 60F(2) investment company under the ITA. But the appellant maintained that it is still an investment holding company under general law. This we agree for as long as the appellant company holds shares in another company. But the greater point is, notwithstanding this, its status as an investment holding company, even if true, has absolutely nothing to do with the question (let alone answer it) as to whether the appellant’s purchase of the Shop Lots was for trading or investment purposes. [126] In addition, it bears emphasis that what a company stated in its constitution - usually a wide ranging scope of business activities - does not automatically mean it is operating any such businesses. Abang Iskandar J (now PCA) in Kelana Muda Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [Rayuan Sivil No. R1-14-26-12-2011] instructively held as follows: “14. Among those points, the appellant taxpayer had adverted to the fact that it was a holding investment company and that according to its articles of association and memorandum of association, it was stated as such. The SCIT had considered this aspect of the case and dealt with it at page 16 of the case-stated S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 47 with reference to the case of Alf Properties Sdn Bhd v KPHDN MSTC 4155, like so: “It is not safe for the Special Commissioners to come to the conclusion that the Appellant’s principal activity is dealing in property merely on the ground that it is one of the stated objects of the Appellant as found in its Memorandum of Association. To come to a safe conclusion, one has to go into the activities of the Appellant whether in the past or in the present to find out whether the activities are one of the stated objects of the Appellant”. [italics added for emphasis by me] 15. While a company may have an activity as its stated objective, that professed objective may not indeed be its actual activity. So, while the stated objective may be indicative of what the company may hold out as its ‘legal’ objective that in itself is not conclusive in determining its actual activity in the market-place. This Court finds that the SCIT had directed their minds correctly on the legal position on that issue.” [Emphasis added] [127] We reiterate that when stating the appellant’s business of investment holding company, the SCIT was clearly only repeating what was recorded in the Directors’ report of the appellant company (in turn sourced from its memorandum and articles of association). Secondly we have stressed the point that “investment holding company” in the context stated in the memorandum or articles of companies, of their directors and other corporate statutory reports (as in the instant case, as shown earlier) concern holdings of shares, not landed properties. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 48 [128] There is as such no error in the findings of the SCIT as affirmed by the High Court concerning the accounting treatment or in respect of the investment holding company. 4) The SCIT did not provide detailed findings on badges of trade [129] The appellant next submitted that the SCIT misdirected itself by not setting out in detail the findings on badges of trade despite having stated that the sale of the Shop Lots in Block A and Block B had badges of trade. The SCIT stated thus: “Badges of Trade” and section 4(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (xxxiv) RW1 had given evidence in Q8 of RWIS that the findings derived at by him were based on the documents presented by Appellant by virtue of the RPGT forms submitted by the Appellant. There were in existence the “badges of trade” (petunjuk-petunjuk perdagangan) for the disposal of all 6 Units by the Appellant” (Page 1284, Bahagian D of Rekod Rayuan Jilid 3(7)). [130] The appellant argued there were no badges of trade. Its case was that rentals for the Shop Lots were poor and outstanding, as found by the SCIT, and the properties were sold not within a short period as they were bought in 2008 and disposed of in 2011 (relying on Marson v Morton (supra)), where one or two years could be considered long term). When purchased, there was no intention for re-sale at time of purchase. [131] Even if the subject land was not producing any income at all (which was not the case here), if there was an intention to hold the land S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 49 indefinitely to make a capital profit at the end of the day, that is a pointer towards a pure investment. The Court of Appeal case of ALF Properties (supra) was also referred to in support, where it was stated that property held as investment would eventually be sold, but the profit would not be taxable. [132] Now, it is unequivocally clear to us that the SCIT, as affirmed by the High Court had specifically made a finding on the existence of badges of trade in this case. The SCIT had provided reasons for its findings. It is untenable for the appellant to suggest that just because the SCIT did not detail out its determination and findings on each and every aspect of the applicable badges of trade, its conclusions were flawed in any manner. [133] We must in this regard state that even a grievance against an alleged non-consideration of evidence by the SCIT cannot succeed as it has always been recognized as a reasonable presumption that the findings of the SCIT would take into consideration all the evidence and contentions of the parties notwithstanding that such specific evidence or contention may not be expressly stated as such in the grounds of the decision of the SCIT. [134] In this regard, we need only refer to the case of U.N Finance Bhd v DGIR [1975] 1 MLJ 109 where Abdul Hamid Omar J (later Lord President) made the following important observations: “It has to be borne in mind that in arriving at a finding the Special Commissioners had in all probability weighed all the evidence before them, they had undoubtedly rejected some of the appellants' contentions. The fact that they had not said so in so S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 50 many words need not, I think, be construed that there was no basis for their finding. Mr. Peddie strenuously argued that it was necessary to determine the intention at the time of the purchase. He cited these cases – Harvey v Caulcott 33 TC 159; Mitchell Bros v Tomlinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) (1957) 37 TC 224 and Cooksey and Bibbey v Rednall (HM Inspector of Taxes) 30 TC 514. I quite agree that intention at the time of purchase is a relevant factor for consideration but whether the Commissioners' failure to make a specific finding would necessarily mean that they failed to appreciate its importance such that their decision ought not to be entertained is a matter for this court to determine in the light of the facts found and the inferences that may be drawn from these facts. It seems to me the Special Commissioners took into account the circumstances surrounding the buying and selling of the shares by the appellants from various companies commencing from October 1964 and extending over a period of time before they made their finding that the business was a concern or adventure in the nature of trade. If the court is satisfied that there was reasonable evidence to support the Commissioners' decision, then, in that event, I must not disturb their decision even though I personally may not have arrived at the same decision”. [Emphasis added] [135] Here in contrast, the SCIT did in fact find and state that badges of trade existed. And the SCIT, as affirmed by the High Court did conclude that the taxpayer failed to prove that it should not be subject to income tax. There is as such nothing in this ground of appeal. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 51 5) Circumstances on disposal negates trading [136] The appellant further asserted that the circumstances which led to the disposal of the Shop Lots - another test for the existence of the badge of trade - indicated that the appellant was not trading in them. It is worthy of emphasis that the Supreme Court in Lower Perak Co-Operative Housing Society (supra) stated that circumstances leading to the relevant sale could afford an explanation for the sale, as follows: “The circumstances necessitating the realization of an asset may be of prime importance as it may afford an explanation for the realization that negatives the idea that any plan of dealing motivated the original purchase.” [137] The appellant emphasised that here, the founder shareholder - Dr Fei Chong Ming was admitted to hospital in May 2011 and passed away on 1 May 2012. The properties in question were bought in July 2008 and sold in June and August 2011. [138] The appellant company did however purchase other units, one in Mont’ Kiara, Kuala Lumpur on 12 August 2011, and another in Johor Bahru on 10 November 2010. This led the appellant to argue that where a property was “exchanged” by the purchase of a more profitable one, it indicated a sale of investment, not trading stock (see Lower Perak Co- Operative Housing Society (supra)). Moreover, in Simmons (supra), it was stated by the House of Lords as follows: “… a permanent investment may be sold in order to acquire another investment thought to be more satisfactory; that does not involve an operation of trade, whether the first investment is sold at a profit or at a loss.” S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 52 [139] This was also because rent collection was poor, with outstanding rental payments becoming doubtful debts. [140] As discussed earlier the badge of trade on circumstances that were responsible for the realization of the property contemplates certain explanation such as a sudden emergency which displaces the argument that the purchase was accompanied by a plan to trade in the property. The case of HCM v Director General of Inland Revenue (supra) was referred to. Thus, if the sale is attributed to an unanticipated need for funds or as a result of an unsolicited offer, this usually indicates that the sale is not made pursuant to a profit-making scheme. [141] In NYF Realty (supra), circumstances responsible for the sale was reiterated to be one of the badges of trade. Sharma J had explained this test in the following terms: “If sale of property is occasioned by sudden emergency or unanticipated need for funds, such facts will tend to indicate that the property was not acquired for the purpose of resale at a profit and that the sale was not pursuant to a profit-making undertaking or scheme.” [142] In the instant case before us however, the SCIT agreed with the respondent that the sale was not due to any immediate need of funds or forced sale. Instead the disposal of the Shop Lots reflected the existence of a profit-making scheme. [143] The appellant did proffer a reason for the sale. The appellant explained that the sale was undertaken to finance the former director (Dr Fei Chong Ming)’s medical bills. As we have noted earlier, the SCIT had S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 53 rejected this reason, in our view correctly, since the appellant had not proved any of the payments claimed to have been expended towards medical expenses. [144] We stress that it is not that the fact of the illness and death is being disbelieved here. Rather it is whether the funds of the appellant company had been expended for settlement of the medical bills. No documentary evidence in this regard was forthcoming. In addition, neither was there any evidence that the appellant company was at the material time under financial pressure or some form of compulsion to dispose of all the Shop Lots in Block A and Block B within the same year. [145] Again, we must point out that the inference drawn by the SCIT was based on valid facts, which in turn were supported by evidence. It is in accordance with the above-stated principles governing appeals against SCIT. It is thus unassailable. As such, the assessment raised by the respondent against the appellant is correct as the appellant had engaged in a transaction in the nature of trade. The Shop Lots had been correctly held to be the appellant company’s stock in trade. [146] In our judgment the SCIT had correctly examined this badge of trade which concerns circumstances that were responsible for the realization of the property, which test, as discussed earlier, focuses on the reason or explanation for the subsequent disposal of the property, having regard to cases such as the above-stated HCM v Director General of Inland Revenue (supra), Lower Perak Co-operative Housing Society (supra), Penang Realty Sdn Bhd (supra), and Wiramuda (M) Sdn Bhd (supra). S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 54 6) The properties were held by appellant for a long period to justify finding of non-trading gains [147] The appellant next contended that based on Marson (Inspector of Taxes) v Morton (supra), long term investment could mean a period of only one or two years. In the instant case, the Shop Lots in Block A were sold after three years and 11 months after purchase whilst those in Block B, after four years. The appellant again referred to the case of ALF (supra) which on this point held: “[20] ………It is not disputed that a property kept for investment would eventually be sold but the profit realised from the sale would be capital realisation and not subject to tax. From the authorities it is clear that a property kept for some time from the time it was purchased would be considered as an investment and not business dealing in land. The authorities also show that a property purchased and sold soon after would not be considered as dealing in land when there is no evidence to show that preparation being made for the sale.” [Emphasis added] [148] Based on this, the keeping of the property for some time would be considered as an investment, not trading. But the case also stated that authorities show that even if the property was sold soon after, it would not be construed to be in the nature of trading if there is no evidence of preparation for sale. This raises one of the badges of trade in respect of preparation made for sale of relevant property, as discussed earlier. [149] Instead, the appellant developed this ground of appeal by stating that the SCIT and the High Court failed to appreciate the S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 55 background of the shareholders of the appellant company and the dominant purpose the appellant company was incorporated, that is, in the promotion of the business of the alternative medicine and not trading in “office lots”. [150] The appellant highlighted the case of HT Development Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [1996] MSTC 2775 which in turn made reference to Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Merv Brown Pty Ltd [1985] 7 FCR 1 which dealt with the purchase and sale of import quota, where the Federal Court of Australia observed that: “In determining whether moneys received by a taxpayer are of an income or capital nature one looks to the nature of the taxpayer's business and activities, the character of the assets realized and the relationship between the two. It is necessary to make both a wide survey and an exact scrutiny of the taxpayer’s activities. If, having regard to these matters, the conclusion is reached that the particular realization was a normal incident in the carrying on of the profit earning operations of the taxpayer’s business, the receipt will be of a revenue nature.” [Emphasis added] [151] This therefore raised another badge of trade, which is the nature of the asset of the appellant and the related aspect of the character of the business of the appellant company. [152] If nothing else, the submissions of the appellant which appear to deal with specific points of badges of trade but in truth juxtapose other elements of badges of trade in one ground of appeal underscores our view that evaluation of all these badges of trade where relevant must be taken together as was indeed undertaken by the SCIT. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 56 [153] Thus whilst arguing that the period was sufficiently long to qualify as an investment, the sale of the Shop Lots were not a ‘normal incidence in the carrying on of the profit earning operations’ of the dominant business of the appellant. However the appellant did not specifically elaborate with further argument on the nature of the property in the badges of trade analysis. [154] Regardless, we have already dealt with the considerations related to the Shop Lots of the appellant, and have also stated that the fact that the appellant company is in a business different from trading in property, whilst a relevant consideration, is in this case far from being determinative of the issue of whether the sale of the Shop Lots was for investment or trading purposes. Regard must be had to all relevant factors, as was indeed duly considered by the SCIT. We observe, as mentioned earlier, that generally long period of ownership before disposal would more likely to be regarded as an investment. At the same time, all cases, we reiterate, must depend on the consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, with the application of the interplay of the elements of the badges of trade. [155] And one factor concerning the period of ownership that is of relevance to the instant case is that whilst the appellant predicated its argument on the period from the date or purchase, the respondent took the date of delivery of vacant possession. The SCIT agreed with the respondent’s approach. And we do not disagree with the SCIT. [156] This in our view is consistent with the decision in A.S Sdn Bhd v Director General of Inland Revenue [1991] 1 MSTC 434 which held that the relevant period is to be computed from the time the taxpayer is in S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 57 complete possession of the asset. Thus in that case as the sale and purchase agreement dated 17 July 1973 conferred only 96/98 portion of the land to the taxpayer, and the remaining 2/98 portion was only acquired in 1979, the taxpayer company was considered not the sole proprietor of this land for seven years. It would not be correct to say that the complete lot of this land was owned by the company for seven years as the company was the sole proprietor of it only in 1979. [157] The Court in that case concluded that the taxpayer company was the sole proprietor of the whole lot for only two years before its disposal. It was as such held for a comparatively short period after its acquisition and, therefore, according to this criterion, the land was disposed of for trading. [158] In the instant case before us, based on the date from the delivery of the vacant possession - signifying complete possession - the sale of the Shop Lots was done in a period of less than one year for the Shop Lots in Block A and also for only one year for those in Block B. This in this context which is in line with the decision in A.S Sdn Bhd (supra) therefore correctly demonstrated they were acquired for trading. 7) No rentals did not mean Shop Lots were held for trading [159] The next ground raised by the appellant is the finding of the SCIT that since the appellant did not go out in search for tenants to rent in respect of its Shop Lots in Block B (which was never rented out) and that the Shop Lots in Block A was sold within only 10 months of vacant possession, the properties were the appellant’s stock in trade. The appellant disagreed with this. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 58 [160] The appellant argued that mere sale is not “trading” as held in many cases, and that not being rented out does not mean an investment asset becomes stock in trade, for there is no need for the relevant property to be rented out in order to show a capital asset. Marson (Inspector of Taxes) v Morton (supra) was again cited in support, as follows: “But in my judgment in 1986 it is not any longer self-evident that unless land is producing income it cannot be an investment.” [161] The SCIT and the High Court too, according to the appellant ignored the fact that the dominant purpose the appellant company was incorporated, that was to undertake the business of distributors of health products and alternative medicine, and not trading in office lots. Thus the appellant again referred to the same argument as previously and to the same passage on the significance of recognising the business of the taxpayer as mentioned in Merv Brown Pty Ltd (supra). However as reproduced above, the passage concerns not only the business but also the nature of the relevant asset, as well as the relationship between the two. We have already dealt with this issue on the nexus between the disposal and the business of the appellant. This was also a matter that had been taken into consideration by the SCIT. [162] The appellant repeated its submission that the inference drawn by the SCIT, as agreed by the High Court, that the sale of the Shop Lots after 10 months from vacant possession denoted trading was erroneous. This was because it was not supported by the fact that the Shop Lots were held by the appellant for a much longer period, because Block A were purchased on 8 July 2008, and those in Block B also on the same date. The appellant reiterated that the Block A Shop Lots were then sold on 27 June 2011 - after two years and six months of purchase, and S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 59 those in Block B on 1 August 2011 - more than three years after date of purchase. [163] We have dealt with this repeat contention, primarily by reference to the application of the principle that takes into consideration the period of time the taxpayer has ownership control of the property in terms of possession and not merely legal ownership prior to delivery of vacant possession. [164] The appellant argued that the SCIT was wrong in finding that the appellant did not go out in search for tenants to rent its Shop Lots in Block B. The SCIT had found that Block B was not rented out and that Block A Shop Lots were sold within 10 months of delivery of vacant possession. The appellant posited that not being rented out does not mean an investment asset (which it contended the Shop Lots were) becomes stock in trade. There was no necessity to rent to show a capital asset. In Marson (Inspector of Taxes) v Morton (supra), it was thus held: “But in my judgment in 1986 it is not any longer self-evident that unless land is producing income it cannot be an investment. The legal principle of course cannot change with the passage of time: but life does. Since the arrival of inflation and high rates of tax on income new approaches to investment have emerged putting the emphasis in investment on the making of capital profit at the expense of income yield. For example, the purchase of short- dated stocks giving a capital yield to redemption but no income has become commonplace. Similarly, split-level investment trusts have been invented which produce capital profits on one type of share and income on another. Again, institutions now purchase works of art by way of investment. In my judgment those are plainly not trading deals; yet no income is produced from them. I S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 60 can see no reason why land should be any different and the mere fact that land is not income-producing should not be decisive, or even virtually decisive, on the question whether it was bought as an investment.” [165] Again, we must highlight that the SCIT did not regard the fact that the Shop Lots in Block B were never rented out in itself as conclusive of the issue whether the gains from the disposal were trading in nature. As repeatedly stated by the appellant in its submissions itself, the SCIT, especially in paragraphs 10.16 of its decision referred not only to the fact that the Block A properties were rented out for only six months whilst none of the appellant’s properties in Block B were ever rented, but that reference was also made to the testimony of the appellant’s sole witness (AW1) herself who confirmed that no advertisements were issued to solicit potential tenants. Further, as per paragraph 10.17, the appellant had sold its Block A Shop Lots after six months of its tenancy with Caliente Sdn Bhd and 10 months after delivery of vacant possession, and for Block B Shop Lots, 12 months after delivery of vacant possession; and that in paragraph 10.18 it is stated that the disposal of all the Shop Lots were undertaken within a short period of 12 months from the delivery of vacant possession. [166] It was among others for these reasons that the SCIT concluded in paragraph 10.19 that it could not be said that the Shop Lots were acquired for investment purposes. [167] In other words, and we say this again, the SCIT, as later affirmed by the High Court, had arrived at the said important finding after evaluating various considerations, and not just as alleged by the appellant, the finding that Block B Shop Lots were never rented out by the S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 61 appellant. Based on those consideration, the SCIT concluded they were the appellant’s stock in trade, thus subject to assessment under the ITA. [168] Concerning the badge of trade on the subject matter of the transaction, as discussed earlier, and as has NYF Realty (supra) usefully explained, property which does not yield income or personal enjoyment to its owner merely by virtue of its ownership is normally the subject of trading and rarely the subject of investments. [169] Nevertheless, there is evidence of the existence of some rental income, albeit not substantial, for the Shop Lots in Block A (but not Block B). Thus, given the usual position, this seems to support the appellant’s position that its properties in Block A were therefore to that extent held for purposes of investment. [170] We further take cognizant that in NYF Realty (supra) it was also explained by Sharma J that contrary to the usual understanding that rentals collections suggest investment asset, it does not necessarily follow that any gain of rental income means that a property is an investment asset. It was held as follows: “...However, the Act (i.e. the Income Tax Act) does require that taxable income shall include: - (1) profit arising from the sale by the taxpayer of any property acquired by him for the purpose of profit making by sale; or (2) profit arising from the carrying on or carrying out of any profit-making undertaking or scheme. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 62 Most of the cases which have been decided on the subject have involved the application of the first of the above requirements. In determining the application of these requirements, the focal point of enquiry is the dominant purpose for which the particular property was originally acquired. If it is established that the dominant purpose in the acquisition of property was its resale at a profit, the presence of other purposes, such as the rental of that property does not remove any profit on ultimate sale from the taxable area.” [Emphasis added] [171] As such, whilst as is evident in the earlier discussion on the badge of trade concerning the subject matter of the asset that the presence of rentals may ordinarily indicate the property is for investment, it is again, like any single badge of trade, as shown in NYF Realty (supra), not conclusive; and that depending on the circumstances of each case, the gains of the subsequent sale of such property may still be deemed to be in the nature of trade. [172] More so that in the instant case, there was no attempt by the appellant to rent out its Shop Lots in Block B. So much so that the position of the appellant is that there was no real rentals in order to advance its case that the properties were bought and held for investment. For the reasons that we have just stated, this stance of the appellant was correctly found by the SCIT, as affirmed by the High Court to be untenable. [173] As discussed earlier in relation to the badge of trade concerning changes made to the asset, it is not always a simple exercise to distinguish between work which merely adds to the value and S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 63 marketability of the asset (investment) and work which alters the nature and identity of the subject matter (trading). [174] Thus, a landowner would not necessarily be embarking on an adventure in the nature of trade every time he enters into a transaction with a housing developer. A. taxpayer may also be said to be merely enhancing the value of its land although it has carried out wholesale works on its land to make the land more saleable, and this would still not be considered as trading. This is because it is also common sense that a case cannot be viewed from only a single perspective, such as focusing only on one particular badge of trade. We have stated that the SCIT must consider all that was before it and arrive at a reasoned decision. [175] This is also consistent with the case of HCM v Director General of Inland Revenue (supra) which explained the point in the following terms: “The subject matter before us is land. By itself it is a neutral commodity. The test remains what does the owner or purchaser intends to do with it. For example if he keeps it and does nothing to it except to keep it in a good tenantable condition and awaits for a right time to dispose of it then it should fall within the category of investment, but if it should be developed, for example, if the owner had applied for a conversion of its use from agriculture to housing or subdividing it in smaller lots for sale then it is trading.” [176] In the instant appeal before us the SCIT found that nothing was done to the Shop Lots. There was no evidence to show that attempts were made by the appellant to improve or increase the value of the Shop Lots (such as by renovating them) before they were sold. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 64 [177] Reference was then made to the case of ALF Properties (supra) in support of the proposition - also mentioned above - that even for sale after a short period of time cannot amount to trading. [178] But again we must point out that the passage in ALF (supra) relied on by the appellant clearly stated not just that a sale after a short period cannot amount to trading (as submitted by the appellant) but the entire sentence actually reads “a property purchased and sold soon after would not be considered as dealing in land when there is no evidence to show that preparation being made for the sale”. [179] The appellant also argued there was in this case no maturing of the assets as is required for trading. However even the authorities referred to the appellant as supporting this argument show that the factor of maturing of asset is merely one that must be examined in conjunction with the other circumstances of the particular case. The appellant cited two cases. [180] The first is the following passage from the judgment of Viscount Simonds in Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow (supra): “I find ‘activities’ which led to the maturing of the asset ‘to be sold’ and the search for opportunities for its sale, and, conspicuously, I find that the nature of the asset lent itself to commercial transactions. And by that, I mean, what I think Rowlatt J meant in Lemming v Jones [1930] 1 KB 279, that a complete spinning plant is an asset which, unlike stocks or shares, by itself produces no income and, unlike a picture does not serve to adorn the drawing of the room of its owner. It is a commercial asset and nothing else.” S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 65 [181] We think that the key essence of the above passage is the point that certain assets are by their very nature and features are commercial and trading in nature. The passage is less about the importance of showing maturing of asset in all situations. [182] The other passage referred by the appellant is from the decision in Sekong Rubber Co Ltd v Director General of Inland Revenue [1980] 2 MLJ 198, which stated: “Having regard to the appellant’ memorandum and articles, and to what they did from the moment they acquired the estate to the time when they sold the standing timber on the estate, their activities to use the words of Viscount Simonds (in Edwards v Bairstow [1956] 14 AC 14) can be said to be leading “to maturing of the asset” and the sale must be an adventure in the nature of trade, and once the transaction has the badge of trade, the fact that it is an isolated case does not prevent the transaction from being in truth an adventure in the nature of trade (see Lord Radcliffe in the same case at page 230).” [183] The appellant also did not advertise or appoint any agent to sell the Shop Lots. This according to the appellant shows that the appellant was not trading when it disposed of the Shop Lots. Coupled with the finding that there was no maturing or improvements to Block A and B, the conclusion of the SCIT, as affirmed by the High Court is an error of law. [184] We have earlier summarised that if the supplementary work on the property merely makes it more marketable, any gains from its sale should not be taxable under Section 4 of the ITA. Conversely if the work converts a house into a hotel or into self-contained flats which are then S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 66 sold, the nature of the property has completely changed and the disposal gains should be taxable as trading income. [185] At the same time we have also stated that if no steps at all (such as rentals and advertising, not necessarily physical work) are made vis-à-vis the property to increase its value, this may not always be consistent with the contention that the property is held for investment. We stress that the relevant badge of trade speaks of changes made to the property. Thus, the aspects to be examined are twofold. The first is the extent of the changes to the property, as just described. Secondly if there is no change, greater consideration on the circumstances of the case is imperative. [186] We do not disagree that, as mentioned earlier, in situations where nothing is done to the asset, with other things being equal, it may be argued that the asset is held for investment (as stated in HCM v Director General of Inland Revenue (supra)). This is essentially the position of the appellant here. However, much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature of the asset. Here, the properties are shop lots. It is commercially fair to say that if they are intended for investment, renovation could make it more tenantable, commanding a higher rental. But if they are meant for resale, it would probably make little sense to renovate lest they not be to the intended purchaser’s liking. In this specific context, work done on the property is only to be expected for investment assets, but not for trading asset, departing from the general view that where nothing is done, the asset is held for investment. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 67 [187] Accordingly, we do not therefore find the approach taken by the SCIT in the instant case to be flawed, given that the SCIT in paragraph 7 (xl) stated that in general circumstances, steps are taken by owners of investment assets to improve or increase the market value of the said investment, but evidently nothing was done by the appellant in this case. We therefore find no substance in this ground of appeal. Conclusions & Decision [188] It needs no reminding that it is within the remit of the SCIT to determine whether a trade is being carried on, which is manifestly a question of fact. The High Court however may only intervene and set aside the said decision of the SCIT in situations as set out by the House of Lords in Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow (supra). At the clear risk of repetition these are first, if the SCIT, in arriving at its decision, fails to take a properly balanced view of the facts or secondly, if the said decision is one which could not be reached by properly constituted commissioners acting reasonably, such as by inferring a perverse conclusion from the facts. [189] Additionally we should reiterate, as we have discussed earlier, that Malaysian tax jurisprudence has also established related principles for appellate intervention whereby an appeal against the decision of the SCIT is only justified on a question of law, that there ought to be no interference on the findings of primary facts, or in situations where the appellate court would not have come to the same conclusion and neither should it interfere if the primary facts are capable of two alternative inferences. S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 68 [190] We must add to mention our caution against the findings of specialised statutory entity such as SCIT being challenged on the flimsiest of arguments. We have earlier stated the key principles governing appeals against decisions of SCIT. We should refer to the decision in Leeming v Jones [1930] 1 KBD 279, an English case referred to by the respondent. There, the issue was whether there was an adventure or concern in the nature or trade in respect of a transaction involving the sale of rubber estate. The tax commissioners decided in the negative. [191] But even though the High Court and the Court of Appeal in that case determined on the facts that there should have been a contrary finding that there was in fact and law an adventure in the nature of trade, they decided not to interfere with the finding of facts made by the commissioners. Lord Hanworth MR observed: "… for however strongly one may feel as to the facts, the facts are for the decision of the Commissioners. It would make an inroad upon their sphere if one were to say in a case such as the present that there could only be one conclusion. The Commissioners are far better judges of these commercial transactions than the courts, and although their attention has been drawn to what happened, they have in their final case negatived anything in the nature of an adventure or trade." [192] Cases have also more than amply demonstrated the proposition that no badge in itself is usually decisive and a final determination and conclusion can only be arrived at after a mature evaluation of the facts vis-à-vis the various badges of trade. [193] Having considered the record of appeal and submissions of parties, we are in full agreement that the appellant, who bears the burden S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 69 of proving any such infirmities and defects in the decision of the SCIT to justify appellate intervention has plainly not succeeded in accomplishing the same. It is our judgment that the findings of SCIT are based on the totality of the evidence adduced before it. The SCIT had properly examined the evidence made available by both parties and correctly applied the law to the facts which concluded that the appellant had failed to discharge its burden to show that the assessments raised by the respondent was erroneous or excessive. SCIT had as such correctly held that the assessment was correct. [194] We accordingly unanimously hold that the High Court was correct in deciding that the findings of the SCIT are consistent with the evidence produced before it. The High Court was clearly not in error when it determined that there were no grounds to disturb the findings of fact made by the SCIT. [195] The decision of the High Court is therefore affirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent. 30 November 2023 MOHD NAZLAN MOHD GHAZALI Judge Court of Appeal Putrajaya, Malaysia S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 70 For the Appellant Dr Arjunan Subramaniam (Messrs Shanker, Arjunan & Chua) For the Respondent Normareza Mat Rejab, Syazana Safiah Rozman and Muhammad Danial Izzat bin Zulbahari (Senior Revenue Counsel/Revenue Counsel) S/N Z9Z2WBoGqkyMoa3c73tq4A **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

DA-22NCvC-44-08/2019

PLAINTIF 1. ) MOHD SYAMSUL AKMAR BIN MOHD SUKERI 2. ) MOHD SUKERI BIN ABDUL HAMID DEFENDAN 1. ) MOHD NOOR DIN BIN MOHD NOOR 2. ) NORIZAM BINTI MOHAMED NOR

“Perjanjian pembelian hartanah – sama ada Plaintif-plaintif adalah pemilik benifisiari apabila telah membayar sebahagian dari harga jualan – sama ada Plaintif-plaintif berhak mendiami hartanah tersebut – sama ada terdapat kerugian di pihak Plaintif yang perlu dipampas”

06/12/2023

YA Datuk Mohamad Abazafree bin Mohd Abbas

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=3191bd6d-70d3-45af-bcee-b6d410b6c449&Inline=true

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO: DA-2NCvC-44-08/2019 ANTARA 1. MOHD SYAMSUL AKMAR BIN MOHD SUKERI (NO. K/P: 821208-03-5367) (Wakil diri kepada Kamariah Binti Mohamad (No. K/P: 610101-03-6458), Si Mati melalui Perintah bertarikh 30/9/2018) 2. MOHD SUKERI BIN ABDUL HAMID (NO. K/P: 570608-03-5813) … PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN 1. MOHD NOOR DIN BIN MOHD NOOR (NO. K/P: 611104-03-5551) (berniaga atas nama dan Gaya Pembenaan Sak Sama (No. Pendaftaran Syarikat: KT0098833-X) 2 NORIZAM BINTI MOHAMED NOR (NO. K/P: 660708-03-5780) … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 06/12/2023 09:33:22 DA-22NCvC-44-08/2019 Kand. 59 S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN Pendahuluan [1] Kes ini melibatkan tuntutan oleh Plaintif berdasarkan satu perjanjian lisan di antara Plaintif-plaintif dan Defendan bagi pembelian sebuah rumah yang berada di atas tanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 1835, GM 1042, Mukim Ketereh Barat, Jajahan Kota Bharu, Kelantan (‘hartanah tersebut”). [2] Relif-relif yang dipohon adalah seperti berikut: (a) suatu Penghakiman bahawa Defendan-defendan menyempurnakan pindahmilik hartanah Lot 1835, GM 1042 (dahulunya dikenali sebagai PT 974, H.S.(M) 690), Mukim Ketereh Barat, Jajahan Kota Bharu, Negeri Kelantan kepada Plaintif di atas pembelian hartanah tersebut berserta sebuah rumah banglo setingkat yang siap didirikan di atasnya daripada Defendan-defendan; (b) Penghakiman bahawa Defendan-defendan membayar kepada Plaintif-plaintif jumlah sebanyak RM160,000.00 sebagai bayaran balik harga belian rumah banglo setingkat yang siap didirikan di atas Lot PT 974, H.S.(M) 690, Mukim Ketereh Barat, Jajahan Kota Bharu, Negeri Kelantan; S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (c) Penghakiman bahawa Defendan-defendan membayar balik jumlah sebanyak RM25,000.00 yang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif-plaintif untuk menangkap lelong rumah tersebut yang telah dikreditkan ke akaun pinjaman Defendan-defendan; (d) Penghakiman bahawa Defendan-defendan membayar balik bayaran deposit penyambungan elektrik dengan TNB yang telah ditutup tanpa pengetahuan dan kebenaran Plaintif- plaintif; (e) Penghakiman bahawa Defendan-defendan membayar ganti rugi ke atas kerosakan rumah tersebut yang telah dimusnahkan, diketuk dan dirosakkan melalui perbuatan khianat Defendan-defendan dan/atau ejennya dan/atau pekerjanya dengan jumlah yang akan ditaksirkan; (f) Ganti rugi am di atas kesusahan dan kepayahan yang dialami Plaintif-plaintif dalam mendapatkan rumah tersebut yang telah dibeli daripada Defendan-defendan tetapi gagal menyempurnakan pindahmilik atas nama Plaintif-plaintif serta ke atas maruahnya yang telah tercalar dan terpaksa menanggung malu dengan jirannya serta masyarakat akibat diugut dan dihalau oleh Defendan-defendan dan/atau ejennya dan/atau pekerjanya daripada mendiami rumah tersebut dengan jumlah yang akan ditaksirkan; dan S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (g) Ganti rugi teladan sebanyak RM200,000.00. Fakta kes [3] Secara amnya, berdasarkan fakta yang dipersetujui, Defendan 1 adalah merupakan seorang kontraktor manakala Defendan 2 adalah merupakan isteri Defendan 1 yang merupakan pemilik berdaftar ke atas tanah tersebut. Defendan 1 telah membina sebuah rumah dan telah menjualkannya kepada Kamariah bt Mohamed (“arwah”) (yang kini diwakil diri oleh Plaintif 1) dan Plaintif 2 yang merupakan suami kepada arwah. [4] Penjualan tersebut adalah secara tunai di mana arwah dan Plaintif 2 telah membuat pembayaran secara beransur-ansur sepertimana yang ditunjukkan di dalam ekshibit P4. Terdapat pertikaian berkaitan harga sebenar rumah tersebut sepertimana yang dipersetujui dan Plaintif mengakui bahawa masih terdapat jumlah yang belum dilunaskan sepenuhnya. [5] Walaupun rumah tersebut masih belum siap, Plaintif telah berpindah masuk ke rumah tersebut dan mendakwa bahawa ianya adalah di atas persetujuan Defendan 1 namun ia dipertikaikan oleh Defendan 1. Plaintif telah membuat sambungan bekalan elektrik pada awalnya dari rumah Defendan dan kemudiannya dari TNB. [6] Apabila Plaintif tidak membayar baki harga jualan yang didakwa oleh Plaintif kerana meminta Defendan menukarkan hakmilik tanah S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 tersebut kepada mereka, Defendan telah melalui peguamnya telah mengeluarkan Notis-notis bagi menuntut baki dan kos ubahsuai serta menuntut Plaintif-plaintif mengosongkan rumah tersebut. [7] Di dalam masa yang sama, Defendan-defendan telah mengambil tindakan menggadaikan rumah tersebut kepada RHB Islamic Bank tanpa pengetahuan Plaintif-plaintif. Apabila Defendan-defendan gagal membayar ansuran pajakan tersebut, pihak RHB Islamic Bank telah mengambil tindakan untuk lelongan awam. [8] Plaintif turut mendakwa bahawa terdapat beberapa siri gangguan yang telah dilakukan oleh Defendan 1 dan pada 5/5/2019 lebih kurang jam 3.00 pagi, telah berlaku satu kebakaran di bahagian luar hadapan rumah tersebut menyebabkan bahagian hadapan rumah tersebut telah hangus terbakar. Satu laporan polis sepertimana di P18 telah dibuat dan suatu Laporan Jabatan Bomba sebagaimana P19 telah dikemukakan yang menunjukkan bahawa kebakaran tersebut adalah berpunca dari perbuatan yang disengajakan. [9] Pada 4/8/2019 jam 10.30 pagi, Defendan 1 bersama beberapa orang telah hadir di rumah tersebut dan telah mengetuk dinding, mencabut gril pintu serta merobohkan sebahagian besar dinding bahagian dalam rumah tersebut. Ia dapat dilihat melalui gambar- gambar di P21(1-7). Satu laporan polis sepertimana di P20 telah dibuat oleh Plaintif. S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [10] Pada 18/8/2019 jam 10.30 pagi, Defendan-defendan sekali lagi hadir di rumah tersebut dan telah mengetuk keseluruhan bumbung rumah semasa Plaintif 2 dan keluarga masih berada di dalam rumah dan satu laporan polis sepertimana P22 telah dibuat oleh Plaintif. Sekali lagi pada 20/8/2019, Defendan-defendan telah hadir ke rumah tersebut bersama jentolak untuk merobohkan rumah tersebut yang menyebabkan bekalan elektrik terputus. Ini menyebabkan Plaintif telah berpindah dari rumah tersebut. Isu-isu yang perlu diputuskan [11] Kedua-dua pihak semasa pengurusan kes sebelum perbicaraan telah bersetuju bahawa isu-isu yang perlu diputuskan oleh Mahkamah ini di dalam menentukan tuntutan-tuntutan Plaintif- plaintif adalah seperti berikut: (a) sama ada Plaintif-plaintif adalah merupakan pemilik benefisiari secara ekuiti ke atas tanah tersebut; (b) sama ada Plaintif berhak untuk tinggal di atas hartanah tersebut; dan (c) sama ada terdapat kerugian di pihak Plaintif yang perlu dipampas. S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 Analisis dan dapatan Mahkamah (Isu (a); sama ada Plaintif-plaintif adalah merupakan pemilik benefisiari secara ekuiti ke atas tanah tersebut) [12] Mahkamah perlu menegaskan bahawa punca segala masalah di dalam kes ini adalah apabila kedua-dua pihak tidak membuat sebarang perjanjian bertulis. Ini menjadikan kedua-dua pihak mempunyai pemahaman serta tafsiran sendiri ke atas persetujuan yang telah mereka masuki secara lisan. [13] Namun fakta yang tidak dipertikaikan adalah memang wujud persetujuan secara lisan berkaitan penjualan hartanah tersebut dan Plaintif telah membuat bayaran sebahagian dari jumlah penuh harga hartanah tersebut. Pertikaian berbangkit berkaitan jumlah sebenar dan baki yang masih lagi belum dilunaskan. [14] Premis hujahan Plaintif-plaintif adalah, memandangkan mereka telah membayar sebahagian dari harga belian rumah tersebut dan telahpun menduduki rumah tersebut, maka mereka adalah merupakan pemilik benefisial ke atas rumah tersebut dan Defendan-defendan hanyalah merupakan pemegang amanah kosong. Dengan kata yang lain, Defendan-defendan dihujahkan sebagai tidak berkuasa untuk melaksanakan apa-apa urusniaga ke atas tanah tersebut termasuk mencagarkannya ke RHB Islamic Bank. S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [15] Defendan-defendan sebaliknya mendakwa bahawa terdapat kemungkiran oleh Plaintif-plaintif apabila gagal untuk membuat pembayaran baki jualan. Oleh itu, Defendan-defendan berhak untuk menamatkan perjanjian di antara kedua mereka dan dengan sendirinya perjanjian jualbeli tersebut adalah terhenti. Hartanah tersebut bagi pandangan Defendan-defendan adalah di dalam milikan mereka dan ianya tidak boleh disangkal sepertimana yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 340 KanunTanah Negara (KTN). [16] Sehubungan dengan itu, Defendan-defendan berhak menggadai hartanah tersebut dan ianya dihujahkan sebagai tidak menyalahi mana-mana peruntukan perjanjian dan tidak juga melanggar mana- mana undang-undang memandangkan Defendan 2 masih lagi merupakan pemilik berdaftar tanah tersebut. Defendan-defendan adalah dihujahkan tidak boleh disimpulkan sebagai pemegang amanah kosong. [17] Apa yang dimaksudkan sebagai pemegang amanah yang kosong telah dibincangkan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Borneo Housing Mortgage Finance Berhad v Time Engineering Berhad [1996] 2 CLJ 561. Kes ini melibatkan satu pertikaian di antara pemegang gadaian (Perayu) di bawah satu gadaian yang didaftarkan selaras dengan seksyen 104 Ordinan Tanah Sabah (Cap. 68), dan pembeli (Responden) di bawah satu perjanjian jualbeli berhubung dengan satu unit bangunan perindustrian yang akan dibina di atas tanah yang merupakan menjdi sabjek gadaian tersebut. Responden telah memulakan prosiding di Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap Perayu dan telah mendapatkan relief satu S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 pengisytiharan bahawa penggadai adalah pemegang amanah kosong bagi pihak Responden berhubung dengan tanah dan bangunan yang didirikan. [18] Isu yang perlu diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan adalah berkaitan konsep amanah kosong (bare trust). Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam penghakimannya menyatakan dengan panjang lebar seperti berikut: “The question: when the vendor of land becomes a bare trustee for the purchaser in Malaysia, has not been uniformly answered by the old Federal Court, in the days when our Apex Court was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and this is reflected in a number of its decisions, to some of which we should now like to refer. In Peninsular Land Development v. Ahmad [1970] 1 MLJ 149 FC, Suffian FJ (as he then was) said (at p. 151): In my judgment the company (the vendor) becomes in equity a trustee for the plaintiff (the purchaser) and the beneficial ownership passes to the plaintiff as soon as the purchase price has been paid. In Temenggong Securities Ltd. & Anor. V. Registrar Of Titles, Johore & Ors [1974] 1 LNS 175: S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 The law is clear that the vendors, after receipt of the full purchase price and surrender of possession of the lands to the appellants (the purchasers) are bare trustee for the appellants of the said land. This view was not dissented from by the Privy Council when their Lordships dealt with the matter on appeal. (See [1976] 2 MLJ 44). But, in the earlier case of Ong Chat Pang & Anor. V. Valliappa Chettiar [1971] 1 LNS 96FC Gill FJ took a somewhat different view, when he said (at p. 229): ... the point at which the vendor becomes constructively a trustee for the purchaser is reached only when he has done all that is necessary to divest himself of the legal estate by executing a valid transfer of the land in favour of the purchasers. (Emphasis provided) J. Sihombing in her book National Land Code A commentary (2nd Edn.) at p. 801 says that the proprietor has done all that is necessary when he has given the donee a transfer in registrable form and the issue document of title. S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 In Karuppiah Chettiar V. Subramaniam [1971] 1 LNS 43, it was held (at p. 119) that a vendor is regarded as having divested himself of all the beneficial interest in his land and vested it in the purchaser only at the time when the memorandum of transfer is executed and the purchase money is paid in full. In our view, the contractual events, which result in the vendor becoming a bare trustee of the land the subject matter of the agreement of sale and purchase for the purchaser, is on completion, that is to say, upon receipt by the vendor of the full purchase price, timeously paid and when the vendor has given the purchaser a duly executed, valid and registrable transfer of the land in due form, in favour of the purchaser, for it is then that the vendor divests himself of his interest in the land.” [19] Selanjutnya, Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Malayan Produce Company Sdn Bhd V. Landbanq Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi) & Anor [2023] 8 CLJ 876 telah menekankan bahawa beban yang tinggi ke atas pembeli untuk membuktikan pemegang amanah kosong dengan menegaskan pembeli perlu membuktikan bahawa pemilik tanah telah memberikan pembeli pindahan tanah yang sah dan boleh didaftarkan dengan sewajarnya untuk mewujudkan ikatan amanah kosong antara pemilik tanah dan pembeli. S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [20] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam keputusannya menyatakan; “In dealing with this issue, we would like to reiterate our findings that the plaintiff had sufficiently proven that it had legally acquired the said properties from D1 via SPA-1976 and thereafter, D1 stood as a bare trustee to the plaintiff. The concept of a bare trustee in Malaysian land law is trite. The Federal Court in Temenggong Securities Ltd & Anor v. Registrar Of Titles, Johore & Ors [1974] 1 LNS 175; [1974] 2 MLJ 45 held that: The law is clear that the vendors, after receipt of the full purchase price and surrender of possession of the lands to the appellants are bare trustees for the Appellants of the said land and it must consequently follow, as night must day, that the vendors have no interest in the lands which can be the subject matter of a caveat. Then, the Supreme Court in the case of Yeong Ah Chee v. Lee Chong Hai & Anor And Other Appeals [1994] 3 CLJ 20 had occasion to hold, inter alia, as follows: [1] It is an old and well settled rule of equity that under a valid contract for sale of land, the S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 beneficial ownership of the land passes to the purchaser who becomes the equitable owner, the vendor having a right to the purchase money for which he has a lien on the land. When the full purchase price is paid, the vendor becomes a bare trustee for the purchaser. Later, the Federal Court in Borneo Housing Mortgage Finance Berhad v. Time Engineering Berhad [1996] 2 CLJ 561 (Borneo Housing's case), Edgar Joseph Jr FCJ said as follows: In our view, the contractual events, which result in the vendor becoming a bare trustee of the land the subject matter of the agreement of sale and purchase for the purchaser, is on completion, that is to say, upon receipt by the vendor of the full purchase price, timeously paid and when the vendor has given the purchaser a duly executed, valid and registrable transfer of the land in due form, in favour of the purchaser, for it is then that the vendor divests himself of his interest in the land. It seems that the Federal Court in Borneo Housing's case put extra burden on the claimant to prove the bare trusteeship claim. Besides the full payment of the purchase price S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 timely paid, the purchaser had to prove that the landowner has given the purchaser a duly executed, valid and registrable transfer of the land in due form, in favour of the purchaser in order to create a bare trusteeship bond between the landowner and the purchaser.” [21] Mengaplikasikan pendekatan-pendekatan yang dinyatakan di dalam kedua-dua penghakiman di atas, Mahkamah mendapati di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah, bukan sahaja tidak wujud satu perjanjian secara bertulis malahan tidak terdapat sebarang akujanji yang jelas bagaimana pemilikan hartanah tersebut akan dipindahkan kepada Plaintif. Tidak terdapat sebarang instrument di dalam Kanun Tanah Negara yang telah dimasuki untuk memastikan hartanah tersebut akan dipindahmilik kepada Plaintif-plaintif. [22] Di dalam masa yang sama, Plaintif-plaintif sendiri mengakui bahawa pembayaran penuh ke atas tanah tersebut masih belum dilunaskan sepenuhnya. Oleh itu, Plaintif-plaintif masih belum layak untuk menerima pindah milik hartanah tersebut. [23] Sehubungan dengan itu, Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Plaintif- plaintif, di atas imbangan keberangkalian telah gagal untuk membuktikan bahawa telah wujud satu persetujuan jelas berkaitan pemilikan tanah tersebut. Defendan-defendan bukanlah merupakan pemegang amanah kosong ke atas tanah tersebut bagi pihak Plaintif-plaintif dan oleh itu, tindakan Defendan-defendan S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 memajakkan hartanah tersebut kepada RHB Islamic Bank adalah tidak terhalang oleh apa-apa perjanjian ataupun undang-undang. Isu (b); sama ada Plaintif berhak untuk tinggal di atas hartanah tersebut [24] Persoalan selanjutnya yang perlu dipertimbang oleh Mahkamah ini adalah sama ada Plaintif-plaintif adalah berhak untuk mendiami rumah tersebut. Ini kerana ia melibatkan wang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif-plaintif sebanyak RM160,000.00 kepada Defendan- defendan. Sekiranya mereka tidak berhak, maka sama ada pendirian Defendan-defendan bahawa wang tersebut adalah merupakan milik Defendan-defendan yang telah kehilangan peluang utnuk mendapat keuntungan ke atas tanah tersebut. [25] Pertikaian teras yang perlu dipertimbangkan adalah sama ada terdapat kebenaran oleh Defendan 1 untuk Plaintif-plaintif berpindah masuk ke rumah tersebut sebelum pembayaran penuh telah dibayar oleh Plaintif-plaintif. [26] Menurut Plaintif-plaintif iaitu menerusi keterangan SP1, Defendan 1 telah memberi kebenaran apabila Defendan 1 sendiri hadir ke kedai Plaintif 2 menempah jamuan makan dan memaklumkan Plaintif- plaintif untuk menduduki rumah tersebut bersempena Maulid Nabi. S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [27] Di pihak Defendan-defendan, ditegaskan bahawa tidak pernah ada kebenaran yang sah sama ada secara lisan maupun bertulis yang membenarkan Plaintif-plaintif tersebut mendiami rumah tersebut. Tambahan pula pembayaran penuh belum dilunaskan oleh Plaintif- plaintif dan Defendan-defendan telahpun melalui peguam mereka mengeluarkan Notis-notis bagi pengosongan hartanah tersebut. [28] Apabila berhadapan dengan 2 versi yang berbeza, Mahkamah ini perlu berhati-hati menimbang setiap keterangan yang telah dikemukakan bagi menentukan versi yang munasabah dan boleh diterima. Mahkamah memetik apa yang dinyatakan oleh Hakim Abdul Malik Ishak HMT (pada ketika itu) di dalam kes Tabarani Mohd Arsad & anor v Chan Tenn Yeu [1999] 3 CLJ 188 seperti berikut; “When confronted with two conflicting versions, the duty of the trial court was to consider which version was inherently probable or improbable. The trial court should have been more meticulous and considered other probable versions provided they were within the scope and ambit of the pleadings and supportable by admissible evidence including the neutral ones. This approach provides a wide leverage for the trial court to manoeuvre bearing in mind, always, the testimony of the credible witnesses.” (sila rujuk; Noorianti Bt Zainol Abidin (F) & 8 Others v Tang Lei Nge & Tang Lye Chang [1990] 2 CLJ Rep 545). [29] Di atas analisis ke atas keterangan-keterangan yang diberikan, Mahkamah mendapati keterangan SP1 berkaitan Defendan 1 hadir S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 ke kedai ibunya memaklumkan Plaintif-plaintif untuk menduduki rumah tersebut adalah tidak dicabar oeh peguam Defendan- defendan semasa pemeriksaan balas. Sedangkan semasa Defendan 1 iaitu SD1 memberi keterangan, perkara yang sama telah disoalbalas oleh peguam Plaintif-plaintif kepadanya dan dinafikan oleh SD1. [30] Prinsip undang-undang berkaitan kegagalan untuk memeriksa balas adalah mantap iaitu apabila sesuatu pihak gagal untuk mempertikaikan sesuatu fakta semasa pemeriksaan balas, maka ia dianggap sebagai diterima olehnya. [31] Selanjutnya Mahkamah turut membuat pertimbangan bahawa Plaintif-plaintif telah berpindah masuk ke rumah tersebut dan tiada bantahan secara serta merta oleh Defendan-defendan. Dengan kata yang lain, tiada apa-apa tindakan salah dilakukan oleh mereka. Alasan tiada tindakan sempat diambil kerana Defendan 2 bersalin pada pandangan Mahkamah adalah janggal kerana Defendan 1 langsung tidak membuat tindakan-tindakan lain seperti membuat laporan polis atau berhubungan dengan peguam bagi mengambil tindakan undang-undang. [32] Apatah lagi di dalam kes ini, Defendan-defendan sebaliknya telah menyediakan dokumen-dokumen yang perlu bagi memohon penyambungan elektrik dengan TNB termasuk mengemukakan geran tanah. Malahan akaun TNB dikeluarkan di atas nama Plaintif 1. S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [33] Di samping itu, Defendan-defendan juga telah menerima bayaran- bayaran berperingkat yang keseluruhannya berjumlah RM160,000.00 dan ini diakui sendiri oleh Defendan 1 di dalam keterangannya di Mahkamah. Walaupun Defendan 1 menegaskan bahawa bayaran penuh masih belum diterima, namun Defendan sewajarnya mengambil tindakan secara perundangan bagi menamatkan perjanjian lisan tersebut terlebih dahulu. [34] Peguam Defendan-defendan di dalam hujahannya telah menegaskan bahawa Plaintif-plaintif telah gagal untuk memanggil Plaintif 2 untuk memberi keterangan sedangkan Plaintif 2 berada di dalam kedudukan yang lebih baik untuk memberi keterangan berbanding Plaintif 1 yang hanya merupakan wakil diri. Peguam telah cuba membangkitkan misalan (g) bagi seksyen 117 Akta Keterangan 1950. [35] Mahkamah walaubagaimanapun tidak dapat bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam Defendan berkaitan isu ini. Keterangan SP1 adalah memadai bagi menujukkan fakta-fakta sepertimana yang telah Mahkamah ini ulas di atas. Keterangan Plaintif 2 mungkin relevan di dalam membuktikan sama ada Defendan 1 telah meminta Plaintif-plaintif berpindah masuk ke rumah tersebut. [36] Namun jika diperhalusi keterangan SP1, permintaan tersebut adalah dibuat oleh Defendan 1 kepada Plaintif 1 yang kini telah meninggal dunia. Oleh itu, keterangan Plaintif 2 jika dipanggil sekalipun adalah bersamaan dengan keterangan SP1 yang turut S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 mendapat maklum berkenaan perkara ini daripada Plaintif 1. Oleh itu, tiada alasan untuk Mahkamah ini merumuskan bahawa anggapan di bawah misalan (g) seksyen 117 Akta Keterangan 1050 terpakai. [37] Di atas penilaian-penilaian ini, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa Plaintif-plaintif adalah berhak untuk mendiami rumah tersebut. Oleh itu, Defendan-defendan kini adalah terhalang dari membuat tuntutan bahawa Defendan-defendan berhak dipampas apabila Plaintif-plaintif mendiami hartanah miliknya tanpa kebenaran. Isu (c); sama ada terdapat kerugian di pihak Plaintif yang perlu dipampas [38] Bagi isu ini, terdapat beberapa tuntutan Plaintif-plaintif yang perlu dipertimbangkan oleh Mahkamah. Pertamanya adalah berkaitan wang bayaran secara berperingkat sebanyak RM160,000.00. Ianya adalah satu jumlah yang tidak pernah dipertikaikan. [39] Mahkamah telah terdahulu memutuskan bahawa Plaintif-plaintif berhak untuk mendiami rumah tersebut dan sewajarnya apabila kini rumah tersebut sudah tidak lagi boleh didiami kerana kerosakan yang teruk, maka sewajarnya wang tersebut dikembalikan. [40] Peguam Defendan-defendan sebaliknya menghujahkan ianya adalah tidak wajar dikembalikan kerana ia akan menjadikan satu tuntutan bertindan dengan relif untuk mengembalikan hartanah S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 tersebut kepada Plaintif-plaintif. Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa perjanjian tersebut telah dibatalkan sebaik Plaintif-plaintif dipaksa keluar dari rumah tersebut. [41] Ia berlaku apabila rumah tersebut telah dirosakkan oleh Plaintif- plaintif melalui beberapa siri tindakan sperti berikut: (a) pada 6/1/2028, Defendan-defendan telah mengarahkan TNB untuk mencabut meter dan menukar akaun TNB rumah tersebut; (b) Defendan-defendan telah dikatakan menjual rumah tersebut kepada Tengku Azam Shah pada 1/2/2018 di mana penama tersebut telah datang ke rumah tersebut serta meminta Plaintif-plaintif untuk keluar dari rumah tersebut; (c) pada 20/7/2019, Defendan 1 telah datang ke rumah tersebut bersama-sama beberapa orang anggota polis untuk meminta Plaintif-plaintif keluar dari rumah tersebut; (d) pada 4/8/2019 Defendan 1 bersama-sama beberapa orang lain termasuk Tengku Azam Shah telah mengetuk dinding, mencabut gril pintu dan pintu serta merobohkan sebahagian besar dinding bahagian dalam rumah; (e) pada 18/8/2019 Plaintif 2 didatangi Defendan-defendan dan 6 orang pekerjanya mengarahkan Plaintif keluar. Mereka telah mengetuk keseluruhan bumbung rumah sehingga musnah sepenuhnya; dan S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 (f) pada 20/8/2019 Defendan-defendan sekali lagi datang ke rumah dan mengugut menggunakan jentolak. Mereka juga telah bertindak memecahkan meter bekalan elektrik sehingga menyebabkan litar pintas di rumah jiran. [42] Selain itu, selepas Plaintif-plaintif keluar dari rumah tersebut, Defendan-defendan telah bertindak memagar rumah tersebut dengan kawat duri. Ia bagi mengelak orang ramai termasuk Plaintif- plaintif dari memasuki rumah tersebut. [43] Berkaitan dakwaan kebakaran, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan peguam Defendan-defendan bahawa ianya tidak dibuktikan telah dilakukan oleh mana-mana orang termasuk Defendan-defendan. Walaubagaimanapun pada ketika itu, Plaintif-plaintif telahpun berpindah keluar dari rumah tersebut. [44] Selain itu, tindakan Defendan-defendan untuk mencagarkan rumah tersebut kepada RHB Islamic Bank sehingga menyebabkan rumah tersebut diambil tindakan untuk dilelong menyebabkan kuasa pegangan hartanah tersebut kini adalah tertakluk kepada RHB Islamic Bank. Plaintif-plaintif tidak lagi boleh meneruskan pemilikan ke atas hartanah tersebut dan Defendan-defendan kini tidak lagi berupaya untuk memindahmilik hartanah tersebut kepada Plaintif- plaintif. [45] Sehubungan dengan itu, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa dengan sendirinya perjanjian di antara Plaintif-plaintif dan S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 Defendan-defendan kini tidak dapat diteruskan. Oleh itu, satu relif yang adil adalah untuk mengembalikan pihak-pihak ke status asal iaitu Defendan-defendan mendapat kembali hartanahnya dan Plaintif-plaintif dikembalikan kesemua wang yang telah dibayar iaitu sebanyak RM160,000.00. [46] Tuntutan kedua adalah berkaitan wang sebanyak RM25,000.00 yang dikatakan oleh Plaintif-plaintif digunakan untuk mendapatkan lelongan rumah tersebut. Ini dilakukan oleh Plaintif-plaintif bagi memastikan rumah tersebut tidak terlepas kepada orang lain. Plaintif-plaintif turut menuntut agar Defendan-defendan membayar balik deposit penyambungan elektrik. [47] Namun Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan peguam Defendan- defendan bahawa tuntutan-tuntutan ini tidak dapat dibuktikan oleh Plaintif-plaintif. Jika benar ianya dibayar, Plaintif-plaintif sepatutnya dapat membayar harga bidaan sepenuhnya bagi memperolehi hartanah tersebut. [48] Apabila ianya gagal dibuktikan, maka Mahkamah ini tiada pilihan selain menolak tuntutan ini sepertimana panduan yang dikemukakan oleh Hakim Edgar Joseph Jr HMA di dalam kes Cheng Hang Guan& 2 ors v Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 CLJ 19 seperti berikut; “Before I proceed to assess the quantum of damages, I would remind myself of certain other well-established principles S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 which I should keep in the forefront of my mind in considering this part of the case. First, when a plaintiff claims damages from a defendant, he has to show that the loss in respect of which he claims damages was caused by the defendant's wrong and also that the damages are not too remote to be recoverable. Secondly, I would refer to what Lord Goddard said in Bonham- Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel Ltd 84, at p 178: Plaintiffs must understand that if they bring actions for damages it is for them to prove their damage; it is not enough to write down the particulars, and, so to speak, throw them at the head of the court, saying: 'This is what I have lost; I ask you to give me these damages.' They have to prove it. Thirdly, on the quality of evidence expected of a plaintiff, it is necessary to remember what Devlin J (as he then was) said in Biggin & Co v. Permanite 85, at p 438, namely, that where precise evidence is obtainable, the court naturally expects to have it; where it is not, the court must do the best it can. Nevertheless, it remains true to say that that generally, difficulty of proof does not dispense with the necessity for proof. (See Aerial Advertising Co v. Batchelors Peas (Manchester) 86 at p 796 per Atkinson J.) The case of Ashcroft v. Curtin 87 illustrates this point, for there the plaintiff, claiming for diminution of profits of his one-man business, failed in his claim despite the evidence pointing to a decrease in the company's profitability due to the injury, the records relied on being too rudimentary and the accounts too unreliable to quantify the loss.” S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [49] Tuntutan terakhir adalah ganti rugi am di atas kesusahan dan kepayahan yang dialami oleh Plaintif. Secara amnya, ganti rugi seperti ini bukan merupakan relif yang sesuai di dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan perjanjian. Ini telah disentuh oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v Public Bank Berhad [2023] 1 LNS 1802. [50] Namun apa yang dituntut oleh Plaintif-plaintif kini bukan berbangkit dari perjanjian tersebut namun ke atas tindakan-tindakan Defendan- defendan yang keterlaluan. Jika dilihat, Defendan-defendan telah mengambil tindakan menggunakan cara mereka sendiri sehingga membelakangkan undang-undang dan prosedur. Ia ternyata meninggalkan kesan kepada Plaintif-plaintif. [51] Oleh itu, persoalannya adakah wajar Mahkamah ini membenarkan satu gantirugi teladan ke atas Defendan-defendan. Apa yang dimaksudkan sebagai ganti rugi teladan telah dibincangkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes Sambaga Valli K R Ponnusamy v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & 2 ors [2017] 1 LNS 500 seperti berikut; “The exemplary damages or punitive damages - the two terms now regarded as interchangeable - are additional damages awarded with reference to the conduct of the defendant, to signify disapproval, condemnation or denunciation of the defendant's tortious act, and to punish the defendant. Exemplary damages may be awarded where the defendant has acted with vindictiveness or malice, or where he has acted with a 'contumelious disregard' for the right to the plaintiff. The S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 primary purpose of an award of exemplary damages may be deterrent, or punitive and retributory, and the award may also have an important function in vindicating the rights of the plaintiff.” [52] Di dalam kes Big Junkyard Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Chan Kah Wai (berniaga dibawah nama Ytwo Coffee House) [2023] 1 CLJ 564; [2022] MLJU 2923 telah dinyatakan; “"[43] The next issue is whether a case for exemplary damages has been made out. The purpose of exemplary damages is to show the court's abhorrence to 'outrageous' conduct which conduct or behaviour is punishable. The purpose is to punish the defendant. There are two parts in granting exemplary damages. The first part is to clear the threshold. The plaintiff has to first show that he falls within one of the three categories enunciated in Rookes v. Barnard (recently reiterated by the Federal Court in Koperal Zainal bin Mohd Ali & Ors v. Selvi a/p Narayan (joint administrator and dependant of Chandran a/l Perumal, deceased) & Anor [2021] 3 MLJ 365 andTenaga Nasional Bhd v. Evergrowth Aquaculture Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2021] 9 CLJ 179). [44] The failure to cross this threshold is fatal for a claim for exemplary damages. The three categories are: (i) oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servant of the government; or S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 (ii) where the defendant's conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff; or (iii) where exemplary damages is expressly authorised by statute. [45] Once the plaintiff has cleared this threshold the plaintiff must show 'outrageous' conduct. The principle is stated by Lord Devlin in Rookes v. Barnard as follows: In a case in which exemplary damages are appropriate, a jury should be directed that if, but only if, the sum which they have in mind to award as compensation (which may, of course, be a sum aggravated by the way in which the defendant has behaved to the plaintiff) is inadequate to punish him for his outrageous conduct and to deter him from repeating it, then it can award some larger sum. (Emphasis added.) [46] The Court of Appeal in Sambaga Valli gave a description of what may amount to 'outrageous' punishable conduct: [33] The exemplary damages or punitive damages - the two terms now regarded as interchangeable -are additional damages awarded with reference to the conduct of the defendant, to signify disapproval, condemnation or denunciation of the defendant's tortious act, and to punish the defendant. Exemplary damages may be awarded where the defendant has acted S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 with vindictiveness or malice, or where he has acted with a 'contumelious disregard' for the right to the plaintiff. The primary purpose of an award of exemplary damages may be deterrent, or punitive and retributory, and the award may aiso [sic] have an important function in vindicating the rights of the plaintiff. [47] If this part is cleared, only then the court goes into the question of assessing the measure of exemplary damages to be awarded... “ [53] Bagi Mahkamah tindakan-tindakan Defendan-defendan terutamanya Defendan 1 dengan nyata adalah tindakan dengan niat dendam atau niat jahat. Defendan-defendan telah bertindak dengan tidak menghiraukan hak Plaintif-plaintif untuk mendiami rumah tersebut. Defendan-defendan telah membelakangi undang-undang dan memaksa Plaintif-plaintif untuk menurut kehendak mereka. [54] Sehubungan dengan itu Mahkamah berpandangan tuntutan Plaintif- plaintif untuk Mahkamah mengenakan ganti rugi teladan adalah wajar. Kesimpulan [55] Di atas perimbangan-pertimbangan di atas, Mahkamah dengan ini membenarkan sebahagian tuntutan Plaintif-plaintif seperti berikut: S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 (a) Defendan-defendan membayar kembali wang sejumlah RM160,000.00 yang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif kepadanya; (b) Defendan-defendan membayar sejumlah RM100,000.00 sebagai ganti rugi teladan; dan (c) kos sebanyak RM40,000.00 tertakluk kepada fi alokatur. Bertarikh: 6hb. Disember, 2023 (DATUK MOHAMAD ABAZAFREE BIN MOHD ABBAS) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi (2) Kota Bharu, Kelantan S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 Pihak-pihak: Bagi Pihak Plaintif- Plaintif : Shamsul Baharin bin Abdullah Tetuan Rozma Baharin & Samila Awang Peguambela & Peguamcara Lot 828, Tingkat 1 Jalan Sri Cemerlang, Seksyen 27 15300 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Bagi Pihak Defendan- Defendan : Wan Shazlina binti Wan Hanafi Tetuan Abqary Aziz & Co. Peguambela & Peguamcara PT8308, Tingkat 2 Bandar Satelit Pasir Tumboh 16150 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Bicara Pada : 26hb. Jun, 2023 Keputusan Pada : 25hb. September, 2023 S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 Kes-kes yang dirujuk: ➢ Borneo Housing Mortgage Finance Berhad v Time Engineering Berhad [1996] 2 CLJ 561 ➢ Malayan Produce Company Sdn Bhd V. Landbanq Sdn Bhd (Dalam Likuidasi) & Anor [2023] 8 CLJ 876 ➢ Tabarani Mohd Arsad & anor v Chan Tenn Yeu [1999] 3 CLJ 188 ➢ Noorianti Bt Zainol Abidin (F) & 8 Others v Tang Lei Nge & Tang Lye Chang [1990] 2 CLJ Rep 545 ➢ Cheng Hang Guan& 2 ors v Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 CLJ 19 ➢ National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v Public Bank Berhad [2023] 1 LNS 1802 ➢ Sambaga Valli K R Ponnusamy v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & 2 ors [2017] 1 LNS 500 ➢ Big Junkyard Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Chan Kah Wai (berniaga dibawah nama Ytwo Coffee House) [2023] 1 CLJ 564; [2022] MLJU 2923 Undang-Undang yang dirujuk: ➢ Kanun Tanah Negara ➢ Akta Keterangan 1950 S/N bb2RMdNwr0W87rbUELbESQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JA-22NCvC-8-01/2020

PLAINTIF SOFIA BINTI YUSOF DEFENDAN PV POWER ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Full trial — whether the written agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is illegal for being opposed to public policy pursuant to paragraph 24(e) of the Contract Act 1950 — whether the sum of RM2,424,687.00 received by the Plaintiff from the Defendant is a consideration for the service rendered — whether the Defendant is entitled to restitution of the said sum as the agreement is opposed to the public policy.

06/12/2023

YA Puan Wong Mee Ling

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=590ba336-bd9a-47b8-a500-2a10c3780fe6&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN JOHOR BAHRU IN THE STATE OF JOHOR DARUL TAKZIM, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO.: JA-22NCVC-8-01/2020 BETWEEN SOFIA BINTI YUSOF (NRIC No.: 841017-11-5442) (trading under the name and style of Warisan Prestasi Resources) [002709494-T] …PLAINTIFF AND PV POWER ENGINEERING SDN BHD (Company No.: 567008-K) …DEFENDANT  GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT  06/12/2023 16:39:16 JA-22NCvC-8-01/2020 Kand. 294 S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 INTRODUCTION [1] The Plaintiff filed her Writ and Statement of Claim (Enclosure 1) against the Defendant claiming the balance payment for services rendered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. [2] The Defendant filed its Defence and Counter Claim (Enclosure 120) against the Plaintiff on the grounds of illegality of the agreement against public policy and/or that the Plaintiff did not provide her services in full. [3] On 14.2.2022, the Plaintiff’s claim was struck off with costs upon failure to deposit security of RM30,000.00 in Court or to the Plaintiff’s counsel client’s account within twenty-one (21) days from the Order dated 14.2.2022. (see Enclosure 169). [4] The trial was conducted from 29-30.1.2023 pertaining to the counter claim filed by the Defendant. [5] After full trial and after considering all the evidence, exhibits presented during the trial and submissions by the Parties, the court allowed the counter claim of the Defendant as in Enclosure 120 as follows: (a) the written agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant dated 21.11.2017 is declared invalid and/or void and/or illegal for being opposed to public policy and cannot be enforced; (b) the sum of RM 2,424,687.00 received by the Plaintiff from the Defendant in relation to the illegal contract, to be returned to the Defendant within thirty (30) days from the date of the Judgment dated 7.5.2023; S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (c) interest at 5% per annum to accrue on the said amount of RM2,424,687.00 until full settlement of the debt; and (d) costs of RM5,000.00 subjected to allocator fee, to be paid by Plaintiff to the Defendant. [6] The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the decision of this Court, have filed an appeal against the decision. [7] My reasons are as below. BACKGROUND FACTS [8] The Plaintiff (t/a Warisan Prestasi Resources) and the Defendant entered into the Agreement on 21.11.2017 whereby the Plaintiff shall provide to the Defendant her services “in securing from the Education Minister a contract from Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia for a project to "menaiktaraf dan membaikpulih makmal sains Sekolah Menengah sebagai persediaan perlaksanaan peperiksaan amali sains untuk calon peperiksaan SPM Sekolah-Sekolah Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia” at Johor Darul Takzim” (the “said Agreement”). [9] Under the said Agreement, the Parties have agreed as follows: (i) 50% of the remaining balance shall be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff upon the former receiving the first payment (see clause 2b(i)); (ii) the other 50% remaining balance shall be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff upon the former receiving the second payment (see clause 2b(ii)); S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (iii) if the Plaintiff is unable to secure the award of that contract by the Education Minister, the Defendant shall not be liable to the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever (see clause 5); (iv) neither party shall assign their respective rights under it without the prior written consent of the other (see clause 10); (v) any demand under it shall be in writing (see clause 11); (vi) it shall be governed by the laws of Malaysia (see clause 13); and (vii) it shall take effect from 21.11.2017 (see clause 14). [10] The Defendant has paid the Plaintiff 15% of the total value of the said Agreement by first depositing with the Defendant's solicitors RM1,000,000.00 being part payment of that 15% in two (2) equal instalments pursuant to clause 2(a) of the said Agreement. [11] The Plaintiff has issued two (2) other invoices pursuant to clauses 2(b)(i) and (ii) for the sum of RM750,000.00 and RM674,687.00 on 15.8.2018 and on 26.10.2018 respectively, which the Defendant also went on to pay. [12] The Defendant now claims that the said Agreement is illegal for contravening public policy and sought restitution for the sums of RM1,000,000.00, RM 750,000.00 and RM 674,687.00 respectively, which comes to the total of RM2,424,687.00 the total sum the Defendant had paid the Plaintiff. [13] To avoid confusion, for the purpose of this counter claim, the Court referred the Plaintiff’s witnesses as DW1 and DW2 whereas the Defendant’s witness as PW1. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Court Analysis and Findings Issues [14] The Defendant has put in four (4) issues for the Court to determine. However, based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that only two (2) issues need the determination of the Court as follows: (a) whether the said Agreement is illegal as it opposed the public policy and cannot be enforced; and (b) consequently, whether the sum of RM 2,424,687.00 received by the Plaintiff from the Defendant in relation to the illegal contract, to be returned to the Defendant. (a) whether the said Agreement is illegal as it opposed the public policy and cannot be enforced [15] In order for the Court to determine the issue, the Court needs to examine the evidence presented during the trial and the submission made by the Parties. Summary of Evidence of Witnesses Defendant’s version [16] During the trial, Mr. Yusof Bin Ali (PW 1), Managing Director of the Defendant has testified that his company had participated in the tender for the project “menaiktaraf dan membaik pulih makmal sains at Sekolah Menengah sebagai persediaan peperiksaan” (the “said Project”) and had successfully bid for the said project from Ministry of Education (“KPM”). His company was previously awarded the project to carry out maintenance works for all the schools at Kulai district by KPM. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [17] PW1 also informed that the representative of the Plaintiff, Madam Nor’Iman (DW2) has informed him that there was tender for the said Project by KPM and the said tender also published in the newspaper. PW1 said his employee, Mr. Mohamad Khalid who is an engineer, has assisted him to fill up the tender form and prepare the Bill of Quantities (“BQ”) before the Defendant submitted the tender to KPM. PW1 denied that DW2 has assisted him in preparing the BQ. [18] PW1 has executed the said Agreement with the Plaintiff on 27.11.2017 (see pages 7-13 of Bundle A1) and the said Agreement was prepared by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff never sought his view or opinion on the content of the said Agreement before the Parties executed the said Agreement. However, during the cross examination, PW1 informed that he has negotiated only the terms of payment with the Plaintiff. PW1 informed that he has bidden for the said Project before he signed the said Agreement. [19] PW1 informed that under the said Agreement, he has paid the Plaintiff RM1,000,000.00 through Invoice No. 1002/18 on 21.3.2018, the sum of RM750,000.00 vide Invoice No. 1002/18 on 15.8.2018 and the sum of RM674,687.00 paid vide the Invoice No. 1002/18-B on 26.10.2018. The total sum paid by the Defendant’s company is RM2,424,687.00. All the payments were paid in cash to the Plaintiff and was paid after he has received the letter of award from KPM. [20] PW1 explained that he has misconceived and thought he was obliged to pay the Plaintiff under the said Agreement. He also thought the award of the said Project by KPM to his company was what Plaintiff promised him under the said Agreement. However, after he was summoned by the Plaintiff and upon the advice of his counsel, he realized S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 that the said Agreement is illegal and not enforceable. It was wrong for the Plaintiff to receive payment by using her influence to secure the said Agreement from the Minister of Education. [21] PW1 informed that he has participated the tender and complied with the procedure, requirements and conditions set by KPM. Plaintiff did not contribute nor submit anything pertaining to the tender. PW1 said the Plaintiff is not a consultant and does not have any expertise. [22] PW1 further informed that KPM vide letter of offer dated 13.2.2018 (see pages 34A -34C) offer the tender for the said the Project for the sum of RM17,134,455.00. Subsequently, a letter issued by KPM dated 15.2.2018 (see pages 13-28 of A1) where the sum of the said Project has been reduced to RM16,106,387.70. PW1 explained that the difference is due to the Goods and Service Tax (“GST”) of 6%. PW1 has attended all the meetings held by KPM when the said Project was carried out and DW2 only followed and attended the meetings with KPM at the initial stage. Most of the meetings were held on site and only one or two meetings were held at Putrajaya. Plaintiff’s version [23] The Plaintiff has called two witnesses, Ms. Sofia Binti Yusof (DW1) and Ms. Nor’Iman bin Omar (DW2) to testify. [24] DW1 informed that she is the owner of the Plaintiff’s company since 28.9.2017 till 14.1.2019. DW1 further informed that she has represented the Plaintiff to enter into the said Agreement with PW1, as the representative of the Defendant. The purpose of the said Agreement was S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 to assist the Defendant to secure the said Project. The Plaintiff has secured the said Project through the service provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. [25] DW1 further informed that the Plaintiff has provided various service prior to the said Project awarded till one year after the said Project being implemented. All the dealings between the Defendant and KPM was handled by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has appointed DW2 as the Project Manager to assist the Plaintiff and the Defendant to manage the said Project. [26] DW1 informed that the Plaintiff has carried out all the obligations under the said Agreement and the Plaintiff has received the RM2,424,687.00 from the Defendant. The first payment of RM500,000.00 was received upon the letter of offer for the said Project was issued and the another RM500,000.00 was paid within thirty (30) days from the first payment. The subsequent payment was made on 15.8.2018 for the sum of RM750,000.00 and the fourth payment was made on 26.10.2018 for the sum of RM674,687.00. There was balance of RM35,084.00 from the third payment and the balance of RM110,397.00 from the fourth payment. Both payments were not paid by the Defendant. [27] The Plaintiff has instructed her former solicitor to send notice of demand to the Defendant to demand the balance payment and then filed the case in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court. DW1 informed the said Agreement is valid and if there is element of corruption or if it is opposed the public policy, she will report the case to the Anti-Corruption Commission or to KPM and the Government of Malaysia. The Defendant never dispute the validity of the said Agreement. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 [28] DW1 informed that the Plaintiff received 15% of the contract sum awarded by KPM as the considerations for the service rendered by the Plaintiff. When DW1 was questioned by the Defendant’s counsel, she informed that the service provided by the Plaintiff was to secure the said Agreement from KPM, prepared BQ, visit all the schools and dealings with the State Education Department (“Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri/JPN”). However, when DW1 was referred to the Recital of the said Agreement by the Defendant’s counsel, DW1 agreed that the only obligation of the Plaintiff under the said Agreement was to secure the said Project from the Minister of Education. There is no obligation on the Plaintiff to prepare BQ, to visit all the schools at Johor and to deal with the officers of JPN. DW1 agreed that under clause 5 of the said Agreement, the Defendant is not liable to pay the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff is unable to secure the said Project from the Minister of Education. [29] DW1 informed the Minister of Education at that time was Dato’ Mahdzir Khalid and she did not know the said Minister. DW1 when asked to explain on how the Plaintiff secure the said Agreement when the Plaintiff did not know the said Minister, DW1 said the said Agreement was to secure the said Project from KPM and not from the Minister of Education. She further explained the Plaintiff secure the said Project through DW2’s contact. [30] During the cross-examination, the Plaintiff admits that she does not have any and/or much technical knowledge and/or expertise with regards to construction or engineering. She works as a religious teacher and admitted that she did not have any qualification in mechanical and engineering as possessed by PW1. In fact, the Plaintiff demurred by S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 saying that her representative, one Puan Nor’Iman (DW2) was the one who had the knowledge and expertise. [31] DW1 denied that the Defendant secured the said Project through its own effort. DW1 informed that her company only operate for 15 months, from 28.9.2017 till 14.1.2019 and the company only dealt with the said Project. The Plaintiff never participate in any bidding or tender for construction project throughout the 15 months operation of the company. DW1 could not explain why the title of the said Agreement is different from the title of the letter award dated 15.2.2018 (see page 13 of A1), which stated “Pelaksanaan Projek Ubah Suai dan Naik Taraf (USNT) Serta Perolehan Peralatan/Apparatus Makmal Sains Sekolah Menengah Seluruh Malaysia (Zon Selatan B)”. [32] DW2 worked as the Project Manager for the said Project. Most of DW2’s evidence was merely repetition as to what DW1 has said earlier that – i. the Plaintiff was assisting the Defendant to secure the said Project; ii. the Parties have executed the said Agreement for that purpose; iii. the Defendant manage to secure the said Project vide the services provided by the Plaintiff. The service provided by the Plaintiff include the initial works prior to the said Project awarded till one year after the Project being implemented; iv. all the dealing between the Defendant and KPM about the said Project were handled by the Plaintiff; S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 v. the Plaintiff has assisted the Defendant to fill up the tender forms or documents required for the tender and ensure all the documents are complete and in order; vi. she and her team had visited the schools at Johor to records the defects at the laboratories; vii. she has attended all the briefings or meetings organized by KPM together with the Defendant’s representative; viii. the Plaintiff has carried out all the obligations under the said Agreement; and ix. she has 10 years’ experience in handling project of KPM. [33] When DW2 was questioned by the Plaintiff’s counsel, she said she has informed DW1 regarding the tender of the said Project and she was employed by the Plaintiff to handle the said Project. She was not paid any salary but she was given incentive and commission for the said Project. She was working with the Plaintiff from end of October 2017 till May 2019, for the period of 19 months which was the period of implementing the said Project. Court Analysis and Findings [34] In brief, PW1 has testified on behalf of the Defendant and admitted that the company caught wind of the Ministry of Education’s project from DW2 whereinafter the Defendant had submitted their tender for the project based on the information and representation made by the Plaintiff. PW1 was subsequently awarded the said Project from KPM for the sum of RM16,106,387.70. PW1 informed that the company had made three (3) separate payments altogether amounting to the sum of RM2,424,687.00 S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 to the Plaintiff after received the letter of offer from KPM based on the said Agreement. [35] The Plaintiff on the other hand, argued that they have assisted the Defendant to secure the said Project from KPM. They have not denied receipt the sum of RM2,424,687.00 from the Defendant and argued that the said payment was a consideration for the service provided under the said Agreement. [36] From the evidence gathered from the Parties, the Court finds that it is not disputed by the Parties that the said Agreement was executed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the purpose to secure the said Project from KPM and/or Minister of Education. The Parties have not denied that the sum of RM2,424,687.00 has been paid to the Plaintiff pursuant to the service provided to the Defendant under the said Agreement. The dispute between the Parties is whether the said Agreement is illegal as it opposed the public policy as stipulated under paragraph 24(e) of Contract Act 1950 [Act 136] or it is a consideration for the service render by the Plaintiff under the said Agreement. [37] The said Agreement provided that the Plaintiff will assist the Defendant to secure the said Project from the Minister of Education. The material provision is reproduced below from the said Agreement: S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [38] DW1 admitted during cross-examination that the sole purpose of the said Agreement is to secure the said Project from KPM and not Minister of Education. The said Agreement did not request the Plaintiff, inter alia, to visit the laboratories of all schools at Johor and to records all the defects at the laboratories. [39] The Court refers to the DW1’s witness statement in particular Q&A no. 7 where DW1 said that all correspondences between the Defendant and the Ministry of Education regarding the said Project was handled by the Plaintiff. DW1 testified that the Plaintiff corresponded with representatives from the JPN and with KPM. DW1 admitted that she did not know the Minister of Education. [40] Based on the information provided by the Plaintiff, the Defendant has participated the tender and finally the Defendant was awarded with the said Project. This made the Defendant believed that the company was awarded the said Project due to effort made by the Plaintiff. He then made the payment based on the said Agreement. [41] The counsel for the Plaintiff contends that the burden of proof lies on the Defendant to prove that the said Agreement is illegal, and referred to the section 103 of the Evidence Act 1950 [Act 56] as below: “Burden of proof 101. … On whom burden of proof lies 102. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Burden of proof as to particular fact 103. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.”. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [Emphasis added] [42] The counsel for the Plaintiff further contends that the burden lies on the Defendant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that there was no consideration furnished by the Plaintiff under the said Agreement and also to prove their allegations that the said Agreement is invalid and/or void and/or illegal for being opposed to public policy. [43] The Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the Plaintiff’s witness, DW2 has carried out various works to assist the Defendant to secure the Project, including to assist the Defendant to fill up the tender forms, to ensure the documents were complete and in order, and also to visit the laboratory in the Johor schools and to record all the defects in the laboratory so she could prepare the BQ. The Plaintiff further submitted that the evidence of DW2 was not challenged and the Defendant has admitted that DW2 did attend the meetings with KPM at the initial stage. [44] The Plaintiff’s counsel further contend that based on the services provided by the Plaintiff, the Defendant has been awarded for the said Project and enriched himself from the said Project. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the Plaintiff had provided and completed its services to the Defendant in securing the said Project and thus is justified in receiving payment for its services under the said Agreement. [45] The Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the payment made by the Defendant was for the consultant fees as described in the payment voucher of the Defendant. This evidence is against the Defendant’s pleadings and the statement of PW1 that no consideration given by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was not consultant for the said Project. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [46] Further, the Plaintiff’s counsel submitted the payment of RM2,424,687.00 by way of cash and made in stages until approximately 8 months after receiving the letter of award and during the implementation of the said Project, showed that the Defendant was satisfied that the Plaintiff has provided the service or has performed its obligations under the said Agreement. The service was to provide information to the Defendant regarding the open tender for the said Project. This fact has been admitted by the Defendant. [47] The Plaintiff’s counsel contends that PW1 was fully aware that the said Project was awarded by KPM vide tender and not the Minister of Education. The Defendant has made the payment to the Plaintiff based on the said award and the said Agreement. Therefore, there is considerations for the service provided by the Plaintiff and hence the Defendant has failed to prove its case under section 101, 102, 103 of Act 50. [48] Further, the Plaintiff counsel contends that the said Agreement is valid based on the following reasons: (a) DW1 has admitted that he has entered into the said Agreement with the Plaintiff voluntarily and without any force; and (b) DW1 has negotiated the terms of payment with the Plaintiff. [49] Therefore, based on the case of Subramaniam v Retnam [1966] 1 MLJ 172, the said Agreement is valid and enforceable against the Defendant. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [50] The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s argument devoid of merits. The evidence from DW1 and DW2 proven DW1 does not have any technical expertise or any qualification in mechanical and engineering as possessed by PW1 and was admitted by DW1 during cross-examination. DW1 informed that Puan Nor’Iman (DW2) was the one who had the knowledge and expertise. However, the Plaintiff was not providing even an iota of technical expertise and the company was never involve in any other project except the said Project. Below is the evidence of DW1 and DW2 under cross-examination: (i) Page 69-71 notes of proceedings Defendant’s counsel: Adakah Puan setuju dengan saya bahawa tanggungjawab Puan di bawah perjanjian ini cuma satu sahaja iaitu mendapatkan kontrak dari Menteri Pendidikan. Kontrak itu adalah untuk menaiktaraf dan membaik pulih makmal sains sekolah menengah di Johor? Setuju atau tidak? Boleh dapat jawapan daripada Puan? ltu tanggungjawab tunggal Puan di bawah perjanjian. DW1: Setuju. Defendant’s counsel: Di bawah perjanjian sama ini, Puan tidak perlu, tidak dipertanggungjawabkan untuk menyediakan BQ,betul? DW1: Betul. Defendant’s counsel: Puan juga tidak perlu melawat makmal-makmal sekolah-sekolah di Johar, betul? DW1: Betul. Defendant’s counsel: Puan juga tidak perlu mencatat kerosakan-kerosakan sama ada di makmal-makmal atau sekolah-sekolah di Johar, betul? DW1: Betul. Defendant’s counsel: Puan tidak perlu berurusan dengan wakil Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri Johar, betul? DW1: Betul. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Judge: Ada atau tidak dalam perjanjian ini ada sebut tak tanggungjawab kamu untuk berurusan dengan KPM? DW1: Tiada. Judge: Tiada. Defendant’s counsel: Bagi pihak Warisan. Jadi, saya tanya kamu, adakah kamu setuju yang kamu tak ada kepakaran yang tidak dimiliki oleh Defendan? Setuju tak? DW1: Setuju Defendant’s counsel: Now, saya nak rujuk puan kepada kenyataan saksi puan, ya. Tengok soalan 5. Saya bacakan soalan 5, ya. "Sila beritahu Mahkamah apakah tujuan perjanjian tersebut dimasuki oleh Warisan Prestasi Resources dan PV Power Engineering?" Jawapan puan, pihak- pihak memasuki perjanjian tersebut untuk Warisan Prestasi Resources memberikan khidmat atau servis dalam membantu PV Power Engineering mendapatkan tender." Puan faham tak maksud tender ini apa? DW1: Projek. Defendant’s counsel: Bukankah tender itu merujuk kepada satu set borang? DW1: Tidak pasti. Defendant’s counsel: Just to check my notes. Puan, saya nak tahu, adakah Plaintif pernah sepanjang 15 bulan yang ia beroperasi, adakah ia pernah membuat sebarang bida atau masukkan sebarang tender untuk kontrak pembinaan, projek pembinaan? DW1: Tidak. Defendant’s counsel: Saya nak pastikan satu lagi. Perjanjian yang kamu masuk dengan Defendan ini pada bulan November 2017? DW1: Ya. Defendant’s counsel: Kamu masuk perjanjian ini selepas tender dah masuk, kan? Setelah Defendan masukkan tender, betul? DW1: Tidak pasti. (ii) Page 78-79 notes of proceedings Defendant counsel: Now, dalam kenyataan saksi kamu, kamu describe pekerjaan kamu sebagai guru KAFA. KAFA ini apa maksud dia? S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 DW1: Kelas Asas Fardu Ain. Judge: Apa? DW1: Kelas Asas Fardu Ain. Judge: Kelas Asas Fardu Ain. Defendant counsel: Guru sekolah agamalah, ya? Betul ke? DW1: Betul. Defendant counsel: Dalam kenyataan saksi kamu, ada kamu sebut atau huraikan kelayakan kamu dalam bidang pembinaan? DW1: Tidak. Defendant counsel: Bagaimana pula dalam bidang M&E? DW1: Tidak. Defendant counsel: Mechanical electrical engineering, tak ada? DW1: Tidak. Defendant counsel: Bagaimana pula dalam bidang M&E? DW1: Tidak. Defendant counsel: Mechanical electrical engineering, tak ada? DW1: Tiada. Defendant counsel: Ada kamu nyatakan dalam kenyataan saksi kamu apa apa kepakaran yang kamu ada? Yang tidak dimiliki oleh Defendan khususnya dalam bidang pembinaan dan M&E? DW1: Saya tidak memiliki kepakaran dalam bidang itu. Tetapi yang mewakili saya mempunyai kepakaran dalam bidang tersebut. Defendant counsel: Jadi, kamu setuju dengan saya bahawa kamu tidak mempunyai sebarang kepakaran yang tidak dimiliki oleh Defendan khususnya bidang pembinaan dan M&E? DW1: Wakil saya mempunyai kepakaran. Defendant counsel: Saya tanya kamu. Saya tak tanya orang lain. Sebab sekarang ini, perjanjian masuk, perjanjian yang saya tunjuk tadi itu, kamu, kan? DW1: Betul. Defendant’s counsel: Bagi pihak Warisan. Jadi, saya tanya kamu, adakah kamu setuju yang kamu tak ada kepakaran yang tidak dimiliki oleh Defendan? Setuju tak? DW1: Setuju. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 (iii) Page 105-106 notes of proceedings Defendant’s counsel: Adakah kamu kemukakan sebarang keterangan berhubung pendedahan kamu dalam bidang pembinaan ataupun M&E, mechanical, sorry, mechanical and electrical works? DW2: Adakah itu bermaksud tentang experience saya? Pengalaman? Defendant’s counsel: Pendedahan, ya, pengalaman DW2: Ok. Defendant’s counsel: Kelayakan, ada tulis dalam itu? DW2: Tidak. Dalam ini tidak tulis. Defendant’s counsel: Ok. DW2: Tapi ada. Saya ada kelayakan. Defendant’s counsel: "Dalam kenyataan saksi, saya tak beri keterangan tentang pendedahan saya", ya, dalam bidang pembinaan mahupun M&E, tak ada, ya? DW2: Tidak. Bukan secara ini, tapi banyak experience buat projek di KPM [51] From the evidence of DW1, it is clear that the purpose of the establishment of the Plaintiff’s company is to secure the said Project from Minister of Education and the said Project was the only project handled by the company during the operation of the company for 15 months. The Plaintiff knew about the said Project through DW2’s contact. The Plaintiff has represented to PW1 that it is the sale of influence that is the clincher for a Government contract and only the Plaintiff can deliver it. [52] Section 24 Act 136 provides that— “What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not 24. The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless— (a) it is forbidden by a law; (b) it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat any law; (c) it is fraudulent; S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 (d) it involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or (e) the court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of the above cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.”. [Emphasis added] [53] The Court agrees with the Defendant’s counsel contention that the said Agreement is illegal and void pursuant to paragraph 24(e) of Act 136 due to the following reasons: (i) it involved affairs of the Government; (ii) it would seem to appear that the Plaintiff secured and procured the said contract from the Education Minister and/or Ministry of Education by way of influence-peddling; and (iii) it awarded the Plaintiff a hefty percentage of the said contract as a sort of commission as pay-off for purportedly exploiting her personal relationship with the Education Minister. [54] The said Agreement called for influence-peddling on the part of the Plaintiff with the Minister of Education as consideration for the Parties’ bargain. The Plaintiff was portraying that the mere submissions of a tender for a Government contract was insufficient without the influence of the Plaintiff and touting by the Plaintiff with the then Minister of Education. The Plaintiff has brazenly representing that it is the sale of influence that is the clincher for a Government contract and only the Plaintiff can deliver it. Hence, it is contrary to the public policy if an individual caused himself to be hired for money and to use his position to secure or procure Government contract. Such actions are inimical to public interest and therefore it is prohibited under paragraph 24(e) of Act 136. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [55] The Court further find that by recognizing and accepting the said Agreement is injurious to good governance and economically inimical to public interest. In this regard, the Court refers to the case of Merong Mahawangsa v Dato Shazryl Eskay [2015] 5 MLJ 61 and opines that this case bears similarities to the present facts. [56] In Merong Mahawangsa (supra), the Government of Malaysia had planned for a bridge to replace the Johore-Singapore causeway (“the bridge project”). The appellants had requested the respondent “to render his services to procure and secure the award” of the execution of the project from the Government of Malaysia, for which services the appellants had agreed to pay RM20 million to the respondent. This was stated in a letter of undertaking from the first appellant to the respondent. The appellants failed to pay under the letter of undertaking and the respondent commenced an action claiming for payment of the RM20 million, inter alia, on the grounds that he had rendered the services to the appellants by obtaining the tender and securing the bridge project from the Government of Malaysia. The appellants claimed that procurement of the bridge project on account of the respondent’s close relationship with the Government of Malaysia and Dato’ Seri Megat Junid was against public policy and that the said letter of undertaking was illegal and void. The appellants also pleaded that the respondent had not secured any project from the Government of Malaysia since the bridge project was subsequently wholly scrapped by the Government. [57] The question of law raised in the Federal Court was— “Whether an agreement to provide services to influence the decision of a public decision maker to award a contract is a contract opposed to public policy as defined under s 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950 (‘the Act’) and is therefore void?” S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [58] His Lordships Justice Richard Malanjum, Justice Ahmad Maarop, Justice Jeffrey Tan, Justice Apandi Ali and Justice Abu Samah Nordin unanimously held that— “..[35] Clearly, therefore, courts are bound at all stages to take notice of illegality, whether ex facie or which later appears, even though not pleaded, and to refuse to enforce the contract. In that regard, we endorse the following statement of law by the Court of Appeal per Hamid Sultan JCA, delivering the judgment of the court, in China Road & Bridge Corp & Anor v DCX Technologies Sdn. Bhd. and another appeal [2014] 5 MLJ 1: At the outset we must say that the trial courts must be vigilant not to provide any relief on contracts which is void on the grounds of public policy, or illegality. … [69] But with the utmost of respect to both courts, it was entirely wrong to deal with the allegation of illegality by reference to s 2 of the Act. A contract may be good under s 2 of the Act of the Act but yet bad under s 24 of the Act. It was entirely wrong in law to uphold an illegal contract from the aspect and on the basis of s 2 of the Act. If it were to be decided under s 2 of the Act, then s 24 of the Act and its purpose to render void the stated unlawful consideration and unlawful objects, would be rendered effete and meaningless, such as if had no use at all. [70] As said, whenever the illegality of a contract is raised or become apparent, it is the duty of the court to take it up, by reference to s 24 of the Act. … [74] Section 24 is a codification of the English common law. Therefore, it is contrary to Malaysian public policy that a person be hired for money or valuable consideration, to use his position and interest to procure a benefit from the Government, as the sale of influence engenders corruption and undermines public confidence in the Government, which is inimical to public interest. … [77] There could be no mistake about it, the RM20 million was intended as payment for service rendered by the respondent to secure the bridge project for the Consortium. But what sort of service was rendered by the respondent? In the instant case, the answer was provided by the respondent. The respondent pleaded that he ‘used his influence and good relationship with the Government of Malaysia to procure the original bridge project (‘SIG project’) for the benefit and interest of the (first appellant)’. In his amended statement of claim at 164–166 AR, the respondent particularized his close relationship with named Federal Ministers and his dealings with Federal Ministers with respect to the bridge project. But it was not in pleadings alone that influence peddling was admitted by the respondent. In his witness statement (see 564– 580AR), the respondent affirmed his pleaded facts and even provided further details of his influence and the manner in which he exerted his influence and convinced those Federal Ministers (in particular, see 569–571AR. ‘An agreement, the object of which is S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 to use the influence with the ministers of Government to obtain a favourable decision, is destructive of sound and good administration. It showed a tendency to corrupt or influence public servants to give favourable decisions otherwise than on their own merits. Such an agreement is contrary to public policy. It is immaterial, if the persons intended to be influenced are not amenable to such recommendations’ (Mulla Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts (13th Ed Vol 1) at 702–703). On the facts and on the face of it, it was so plain and obvious that the consideration was unlawful, and that the letter of undertaking was void. On that ground, the claim should have been dismissed.”. [Emphasis added] [59] Further, the Court refer to the case of John Ambrose v Peter Anthony [2017] 4 MLJ 374 where the first defendant, who is a director of the second defendant, had asked the plaintiff to secure 2 projects, namely, the Labuan UMS and the KK UMS projects. The defendants would pay the plaintiff 10% of their total value as commission. The defendants would also pay the plaintiff RM20,000.00 per month until the projects' completion. The plaintiff successfully secured both projects. In 2010, the parties agreed to vary the commission payable, partly by transferring a house to the plaintiff in lieu of RM500,000.00. But as the house transfer was not carried out and payment was not made, the plaintiff sued for a declaration of ownership of that house and for satisfaction of the balance 10% commission. The defendants counter claimed for recovery of possession of that house. The High Court dismissed the claim and allowed the counter claim. The plaintiff appealed. [60] The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that it is unnecessary for the exact words "used position and influence" to emerge in the evidence. A consideration will still be held unlawful for being opposed to public policy under section 24(e) of Act 136 even if the plaintiff did not say he used his influence with the government. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 [61] Another pertinent example of a contract opposed to public policy is where a claimant acts as an introducer to broker deals with the govt. In this situation, according to the Court of Appeal in China Road v DCX Technologies [2014] 5 MLJ 1, the claimant does not provide any technical knowledge or skill that a defendant does not already possess. The claimant, in addition, has no official role in the government. Instead, he earns a commission by peddling his skills. It is the bounden duty of the courts to ensure that touts for government contracts are not rewarded. [62] The Federal Court in the case of Yogananthy v Idris Osman [2020] 6 CLJ 151 described the factual matrix in Merong Mahawangsa as an example of an overt dishonesty element that shall always attract public policy, where the upholding of the bargain would be tantamount to encouraging dishonesty. [63] In the present case, DW1 has admitted that the Plaintiff has the information about the said Project through DW2’s contact. The sale of the influence by the Plaintiff by using the name of the Minister of Education have convinced the Defendant that they could secure the said Project from the Minister of Education. However, DW1 has admitted that she did not know the Minister of Education and tried to explain that the said Project was awarded by KPM and not the Minister of Education. [64] Further, DW1 informed that the Plaintiff was responsible to prepare the said Agreement and they never sought the opinion of PW1 regarding the said Agreement. PW1 informed that he was only negotiated the terms of the payment. The Court finds this explanation could not justify and change the fact as the said Agreement stated it was to secure the said S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 Project from the Minister and not from KPM. The Plaintiff is not allowed to depart from their own pleadings. [65] The Court is of the view that the Plaintiff has been using their influence and insider information provided by DW2’s contact in order to assist the Defendant to secure the said Project. This is admitted by DW1 and DW2. Applying the principle enunciated in the case Merong Mahawangsa (supra), the influence peddling by the Plaintiff is contrary to public policy as the Plaintiff is to be hired for money to secure the said Project from KPM for a benefit. The sale of influence engenders corruption and undermine public confidence in the Government. It showed a tendency to corrupt or influence public servants to give favourable decisions otherwise than on their own merits. Such an agreement is contrary to public policy and a contractual consideration is inimical to public interest. (b) whether the sum of RM 2,424,687.00 received by the Plaintiff from the Defendant in relation to the illegal contract, to be returned to the Defendant [66] The next question to be determined by the Court is whether the Defendant is entitled to claim the sum of RM2,424,687.00 from the Plaintiff. The counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Defendant is entitled to restitution pursuant to an illegal contract which is void ab initio. [67] The Parties never dispute that 15% of the said contract sum was intended as payment for service rendered by the Plaintiff to secure a contract from the Education Minister and/or Ministry of Education to be awarded to the Defendant. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 [68] The Plaintiff’s counsel argued that since there the element of “consideration” on the part of the Plaintiff to assist the Defendant in securing the Project, the element of “consideration” on the part of the Defendant was to pay 15% of the contract sum to the Plaintiff. In supporting her contentions, the counsel of the Plaintiff referred to paragraph 2(d) of Act 136 which provides that— “2(d) When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.”. [Emphasis added] [69] This issue however, has been well settled in the case of Merong Mahawangsa (supra). Per Jeffrey Tan FCJ at p. 652— “.. [69] But with the utmost of respect to both courts, it was entirely wrong to deal with the allegation of illegality by reference to s 2 of the Act. A contract may be good under s 2 of the Act of the Act but yet bad under s 24 of the Act. It was entirely wrong in law to uphold an illegal contract from the aspect and on the basis of s 2 of the Act. If it were to be decided under s 2 of the Act, then s 24 of the Act and its purpose to render void the stated unlawful consideration and unlawful objects, would be rendered effete and meaningless, such as if had no use at all. … [70] As said, whenever the illegality of a contract is raised or become apparent, it is the duty of the court to take it up, by reference to s 24 of the Act. In Wong Hon Leong, the allegation of illegality should have been considered by reference to s 24(e) of the Act and · the pertinent case law. But unfortunately, not a single authority on illegality on the ground of public policy was considered in Wong Hon Leong. Instead, only Lampleigh, an authority on past consideration in assumpsit that was decided just immediately after the Middle Ages, was relied on to rule against illegality. With respect, the common law of England has so developed that it would rule against the sort of service provided by Lampleigh for a fee. … [74} Section 24 is a codification of the English common law. Therefore, it is contrary to Malaysian public policy that a person be hired for money or valuable consideration, to use his position and interest to procure a benefit from the government. as the sale of influence engenders corruption and undermines public confidence in the government, which is inimical to public S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 interest. It was preposterous to submit that 'when the government officials themselves have no qualms of the widespread practice of awarding contracts or projects to their cronies then surely this practice is acceptable in Malaysia. And hence such agreement to use a person's good contacts and or standing with certain government officials in order procure contracts or projects cannot be against public policy in Malaysia' (see respondent's further written submission dated 15 October 2014 at para 18).” [Emphasis added] [70] Based on the decision of Merong Mahawangsa (supra), it has rebutted the Plaintiff’s counsel argument and therefore the said argument devoid of merits. Further, it is noted the Plaintiff’s counsel has argued the said payment is for the consultation fees. This argument was never pleaded nor was it was put this point to PW1 during the cross-examination by the Plaintiff’s counsel. Court of Appeal in the case of Aik Ming v Chang Ching Chuen [1995] 2 MLJ 770 decided that— "It is essential that a party's case be expressly put to his opponent's material witnesses when they are under cross-examination. A failure in this respect may be treated as an abandonment of the pleaded case and if a party, in the absence of valid reasons. refrains from doing so. then he may be barred from raising it in argument. It is quite wrong to think that this rule is confined to the trial of criminal causes. It applies with equal force in the trial of civil causes as well. This rule as to cross-examination to which I have just adverted derives its name from the case in which it was expressed. It is the decision of the House of Lords in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67.” In the same case, Lord Halsbury had this to say (at p 76): ...... To my mind nothing would be more absolutely unjust than not to cross-examine witnesses upon evidence which they have given, so as to give them notice, and to give them an opportunity of explanation” . [Emphasis added] [71] Therefore, the failure of the Plaintiff’s counsel to cross-examine PW1 on the payment voucher issued by the Defendant is detrimental to the Plaintiff’s case and thus, the Plaintiff’s counsel is precluded from raising in her arguments. This has been expressed in the Singapore High S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 Court in the case of Hong Leong Singapore Finance v United Overseas Bank [2007] 1 SLR (R) 292 at page 157 as follows: "...... [W]here a submission is going to be made about a witness or the evidence given by the witness which is of such a nature and of such importance that it ought fairly to have been put to the witness to give him the opportunity to meet that submission, to counter it or to explain himself, then if it has not been so put, the party concerned will not be allowed to make that submission".. [Emphasis added] [72] The Defendant’s counsel submitted that as displaying a quintessential consideration that is ex facie unlawful, as it showcases a tendency to corrupt public servants, namely, to inveigle them to award government contracts otherwise than on merit. This is regardless of whether or not the Minister concerned accommodated or was amenable to the recommendation by the influence-peddler. The stigma or taint attaches when the influence­ peddling act is contemplated in a contract. [73] Hence, the Defendant is entitled to restitution of the RM2,424,687.00 as it is opposed the public policy and hence the said Agreement will void ab initio. Following the decision of Patel v Mirza [2017] AC 467, the Defendant is entitled to the return of the said sum. The said decision has been approved by Court of Appeal in the case of Pang Mun Chung v Cheong Huey Charn [2018] 8 CLJ 663 and Federal Court in the case of Liputan Simfoni v Pembangunan Orkid Desa [2019] 1CLJ 183. [74] Applying the principles laid down in the cases above, the Defendant’s counsel submitted that – (a) as decided by Federal Court in the case of Merong Mahawangsa (supra), it is contrary to public policy for an individual to be hired for money to secure a benefit from the Government, the sale of influence engenders corruption and S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 undermine public confidence in the Government. Such a contractual consideration is inimical to public interest; (b) a denial of the Defendant's restitution counter claim would not enhance the purpose of prohibiting the sale of influence within the realm of Government based on the following reasons: i. the Defendant has not been alleged to have been aware of the illegality. Plaintiff, in fact, sent a lawyer to receive the RM2.4 million from the Defendant (see pages 13-14 of Encl. 264); ii. PW1 testified that he was not aware of the said Agreement is illegal; iii. the decision of Merong Mahawangsa (supra) is in favour of the claimants such as the Defendant in this case; iv. DW1 was hawking her influence peddling skills and she was touting for the said Project; (c) the Plaintiff’s conduct was injurious to common welfare, it would be in the interest of public good that the Defendant be granted restitution for all the monies that has paid to the Plaintiff, monies that the Defendant rightfully and lawfully received from the Government for the works he did in having completed the said Project; and (d) the Defendant was seeking to unwind the unlawful consideration. [75] Alternatively, the Defendant’s claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff has been enriched by receiving RM2.4 million from the Defendant at the expense of Defendant which in turn came from the Government under the KPM contract. The retention is unjust as the S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 Plaintiff admitted that she does not know the Minster of Education and she does not have any expertise that PW1 possesses. The Plaintiff does not have any defence to resist the Defendant’s counter claim. The Defendant’s counsel has referred to the case of Dream Property v Atlas Housing [2015] 2MLJ 441 to support his contention. [76] The Defendant’s counsel further argue that the Defendant is entitled to recover RM2.4 million pursuant to section 66 of Act 136. The Defendant’s counsel has cited the cases of Tenaga Nasional Bhd. v Ichi- ban Plastic [2018] 3 MLJ 141, Ahmad Udoh v Ng Aik Chong [1970] 1MJL 82 and Soh Eng Keng v Lim Chin Wah [1979] 2 MLJ 91 to support his arguments. [77] The Defendant’s counsel also argues since the Plaintiff has not caused the award of the contract by the Minister of Education to the Defendant and hence the Plaintiff is not entitled to payment and a fortiori she must then return RM2.4 million that she has undeservedly pocketed from the Defendant. The Defendant’s counsel referred to the case of Wong Yee Boon v Gainvest Builders [2020] 3 MLJ 571 and Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 KB 500 to support his contention. [78] In this regard, the Court draw guidance from the UK Supreme Court Case of Patel v Mirza (supra), where the following passage was stated by Lord Neuberger: “[145] The present appeal concerns a claim for the return of money paid by the claimant to the defendant pursuant to a contract to carry out an illegal activity, and the illegal activity is not in the event proceeded with owing to matters beyond the control of either party. The specific issue on this appeal S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 [146] In such a case, the general rule should in my view be that the claimant is entitled to the return of the money which he has paid. In the first place, such a rule (“the Rule”) is consistent with the law as laid down in the 18th century by two eminent judges, one of whom is regarded as the founder of many aspects of the common law, including illegality; in addition it has support from some more modern cases. Secondly, the Rule appears to me to accord with policy, which is particularly important when illegality arises in the context of a civil claim. Thirdly, the Rule renders the outcome in cases in one area of a very difficult topic, that of contracts involving illegality, and the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio (ie that no claim can be based on an illegal or immoral arrangement), relatively clear and certain.”. [Emphasis added] [79] UKSC has unanimously dismissed Mr. Mirza’s appeal, but the judges were divided as to the reasoning. The majority were led by Lord Toulson, who went on to share the following: “[82] In his Restatement of the English Law of Contract (2016), pp 221–222, Professor Andrew Burrows explained the difficulty of attempting to state the law in relation to illegality: “Leaving aside the law on what one can loosely label 'statutory illegality' [cases where a statute makes a contract or a contract term unenforceable by either or one party] the law on the effect of illegality in contract (which one may loosely refer to as 'the common law of illegality') is in a state of flux … … [93] If a “range of factors” approach were preferred, Professor Burrows suggested, at pp 229–230, that a possible formulation would read as follows: “If the formation, purpose or performance of a contract involves conduct that is illegal (such as a crime) or contrary to public policy (such as a restraint of trade), the contract is unenforceable by one or either party if to deny enforcement would be an appropriate response to that conduct, taking into account where relevant—(a) how seriously illegal or contrary to public policy the conduct was; (b) whether the party seeking enforcement knew of, or intended, the conduct; (c) how central to the contract or its performance the conduct was; (d) how serious a sanction the denial of enforcement is for the party seeking enforcement; (e) whether denying enforcement will further the purpose of the rule which the conduct has infringed; (f) whether denying enforcement will act as a deterrent to conduct that is illegal or contrary to public policy; (g) whether denying enforcement will ensure that the party seeking enforcement does not profit from the conduct; (h) whether denying enforcement will avoid inconsistency in the law thereby maintaining the integrity of the legal system.” Professor Burrows noted that the final factor is capable of a wider or narrower approach, depending on what one understands by inconsistency. … S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 [120] The essential rationale of the illegality doctrine is that it would be contrary to the public interest to enforce a claim if to do so would be harmful to the integrity of the legal system (or, possibly, certain aspects of public morality, the boundaries of which have never been made entirely clear and which do not arise for consideration in this case). In assessing whether the public interest would be harmed in that way, it is necessary— (a) to consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by denial of the claim; (b) to consider any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact; and (c) to consider whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a matter for the criminal courts. Within that framework, various factors may be relevant, but it would be a mistake to suggest that the court is free to decide a case in an undisciplined way. The public interest is best served by a principled and transparent assessment of the considerations identified, rather by than the application of a formal approach capable of producing results which may appear arbitrary, unjust or disproportionate.” [Emphasis added] [80] In the present instance, the Court has considered the above criteria, and given the reasonings accordingly: (a) to consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by denial of the claim The case of Merong Mahawangsa clearly stated that “it is contrary to Malaysian public policy that a person be hired for money or valuable consideration, to use his position and interest to procure a benefit from the Government, as the sale of influence engenders corruption and undermines public confidence in the Government, which is inimical to public interest…”. The Court is of the view that the Defendant will be severely prejudiced should his claim for restitution be denied. S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 (b) to consider any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact The Court finds that it would only be in the public’s good interest that the Defendant be granted restitution of the monies it had paid the Plaintiff unknowing at that point of time that the said Agreement which the Plaintiff was relying on, was illegal in nature, monies that the Defendant received for work done in completing the project. (c) to consider whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a matter for the criminal courts The Court finds that denial of the claim would be a disproportionate response to the illegality at hand and upholding of the bargain would be tantamount to encouraging dishonesty. [81] On the facts and on the face of it, it is plain and obvious that the consideration was unlawful, and that the said Agreement entered by the Parties is opposed public policy under paragraph 24(e) of Act 136 and therefore the said Agreement was void. The Plaintiff’s claim should have been dismissed on that ground alone. CONCLUSION [82] On the totality of the evidence presented, the Defendant had proved their counter claim on a balance of probabilities. In fact, it was plain and S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 34 obvious that the consideration was unlawful, and the said Agreement between both parties was thus void ab initio. [83] The Court agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff had been unjustly enriched. Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to restitution. [84] In the upshot, based on the aforesaid reasons, and after careful scrutiny and judicious consideration of all the evidence before this court, both oral and documentary, and submissions of counsel for both parties, I allowed the Defendant’s counter claim as follows: (a) the written Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant dated 21.11.2017 is invalid and/or void and/or illegal for being opposed to public policy and cannot be enforced; (b) for the sum of RM 2,424,687.00 which the Plaintiff had before this received from the Defendant in relation to the illegal contract, to be returned to the Defendant within 30 days from the date of the Judgment dated 7.5.2023; (c) interest at 5% per annum to accrue on the said amount of RM 2,424,687.00 until full settlement of the debt; and (d) costs of RM5,000.00 subjected to allocator fee, to be paid by Plaintiff to the Defendant. Dated 31 October 2023 S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 35 Signed by: …………………….. Wong Mee Ling Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Johor Bahru Johor Darul Ta’zim. Counsel/Solicitor: For the Plaintiff: Nur Khairunnisa binti Mohd Rosni Messrs Ramli, Shahrir & Tajul 31-3, Jalan PJS 11/28B Bandar Sunway 47500 Subang Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan For the Defendant : Adi Radlan bin Abdul Rahman Messrs Adi Radlan & Co No. 10-02, Jalan Permas 10 Bandar Baru Permas Jayas 81750 Masai Johor Cases referred to: 1. Merong Mahawangsa v Dato Shazryl Eskay [2015] 5 MLJ 619 2. John Ambrose v Peter Anthony [2017] 4 MLJ 374 3. China Road v DCX Technologies [2014] 5 MLJ 1 4. Yogananthy v Idris Osman [2020] 6 CLJ 151 5. Aik Ming v Chang Ching Chuen [1995] 2 MLJ 770 6. Hong Leong Singapore Finance v United Overseas Bank [2007] 1 SLR (R) 292 7. Patel v Mirza [2017] AC 467 S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 36 8. Pang Mun Chung v Cheong Huey Charn [2018] 8 CLJ 663 9. Liputan Simfoni v Pembangunan Orkid Desa [2019] 1CLJ 183 10. Dream Property v Atlas Housing [2015] 2MLJ 44 11. Tenaga Nasional Bhd. v Ichi-ban Plastic [2018] 3 MLJ 141 12. Ahmad Udoh v Ng Aik Chong [1970] 1MJL 82 13. Soh Eng Keng v Lim Chin Wah [1979] 2 MLJ 91 14. Wong Yee Boon v Gainvest Builders [2020] 3 MLJ 571 15. Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 KB 500 16. Subramaniam v Retnam [1966] 1 MLJ 172 Legislation referred to: 1. Contracts Act 1950 [Act 136] 2. Evidence Act 1950 [Act 56] S/N NqMLWZq9uEelACoQw3gP5g **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

JB-41S-4-04/2022

PERAYU LIM HUAT PAH RESPONDEN Pendakwa Raya

Appeal - Magistrate’s Court – Against conviction – Offence under section 12(2) read together with Section 39A(1) DDA, 1952 – Punishable under Section 39A(1) DDA, 1952 – Grounds of appeal - Contradictions between the evidence of police witnesses – Whether defence a bare denial – Whether Section 114(g) Evidence Act, 1950 impliedly invoked against the accused – Whether Magistrate failed to state the sub-section in Section 37 DDA, 1952 when invoking the presumption – Accused proceeded his appeal against conviction only - Whether Accused abandoned his appeal against sentence.

06/12/2023

YA Tuan Suria Kumar a/l Durairaj Johnson Paul

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=aba311ca-8cff-48e9-b0c1-85354784b6ce&Inline=true

JB-41s-4-04/2022 [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI MUAR DALAM NEGERI JOHOR, MALAYSIA RAYUAN JENAYAH NO.: JB-41S-4-04/2022 LIM HUAT PAH (NO. K/P: 771119-01-6807) … PERAYU LAWAN PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN (Dalam Perkara Kes No.: JB-83D-133-07/2020 Dalam Mahkamah Majistret di Muar Dalam Negeri Johor Darul Takzim, Malaysia) ANTARA PENDAKWA RAYA LAWAN LIM HUAT PAH CORAM: SURIA KUMAR A/L DURAIRAJ JOHNSON PAUL JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER  GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT  06/12/2023 14:25:52 JB-41S-4-04/2022 Kand. 54 S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 2 INTRODUCTION [1] This is an Appeal by the Accused person against his conviction and sentence from the decision of the Muar Magistrate’s Court. [2] The Accused was charged with an offence under Section 12(2) read together with Section 39A (1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1952 and punishable under Section 39A (1) of the same Act. [3] The charge reads:- “Bahawa kamu pada 27.02.2020 jam lebih kurang 5.00 pagi bertempat di tepi jalan Kampung Tengah Sungai Abong berdekatan dengan tiang lampu PBSA 31 10/4 dalam daerah Muar, dalam Negeri Johor telah didapati dalam milikan kamu dadah jenis METHAMPHETAMINE dengan berat bersih 16.34 gram. Oleh yang demikian, kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 12() Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dibaca dengan seksyen 39A(1) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukukm di bawah seksyen 39A(1) Akta yang sama.” [4] After the trial, the Accused was found guilty and convicted of the offence. [5] He was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment from the date of conviction with 3 strokes of whipping. S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 3 BACKGROUND FACTS [6] The incident leading to the arrest of the Accused person took place at a lane in Kampung Tengah, Sungai Abong, Muar, Johor residential area. [7] After a briefing by the raiding officer (PW3) regarding the operations, the police team left in 2 cars. [8] On arrival near the scene, PW3 saw a Chinese man behaving suspiciously near a lamp post identified as “PBSA 34 10/4” (“lamp post”). Meanwhile, PW1, a member of the raiding team saw the Chinese man holding an orange colour plastic bag in his hand. [9] The car in which PW3 was seated, made its way closer to the Chinese man. PW1 then saw the Chinese man throwing the orange colour plastic bag held by him onto the road and running away. [10] This Chinese man is the Accused person in this case. [11] Subsequently, PW3 and one D/Koporal Marco, another member of the raiding team gave a chase to the Accused and successfully caught him not far from the lamp post. [12] A scuffle took place whilst the Accused was being arrested. At the same time, PW1 alighted from the car and kept a watch over the orange colour plastic bag which was thrown by the Accused. [13] Thereafter the Accused was brought to the place where he threw the orange colour plastic bag (P8). Upon examining the plastic bag, S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 4 police found a transparent plastic packet wrapped in a Chinese daily newspaper containing 2 transparent plastic packets suspected of containing drugs type syabu weighing approximately 51 grams (P11). [14] Thereafter the police brought the Accused to his house at Jalan Kampung Tengah, Sungai Abong, Muar for further investigation and found three more plastic packets containing drugs type syabu weighing approximately 16 grams. [15] After the arrest and seizure, the Accused was brought to Muar police headquarters by PW3 and his team for investigation purposes. [16] PW3 lodged a report and handed the Accused and the case exhibits over to the investigating officer (PW4). [17] Next the case exhibits were forwarded to the chemist (PW2) for analysis. PW2 confirmed the same to be a crystal-clear substance (“bahan kristal jernih”) weighing 49.68 grams and containing 16.34 Methamphetamine. [18] The charge against the Accused is based solely on the drugs which were found in the orange plastic bag that he threw to the ground. GROUNDS OF APPEAL [19] Although the Accused appealed against both conviction and sentence, from the grounds pleaded in his Petition of Appeal and submissions, the Accused makes no mention that he is proceeding with his appeal against sentence. S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 5 [20] As for his appeal against conviction, the Accused raised 4 grounds attacking the conviction by the learned Magistrate as follows:- (a) The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the contradiction in the evidence between PW1 and PW3 at the prima facie stage. (b) The learned Magistrate made an erroneous finding that the Accused defence is a bare denial. (c) The learned Magistrate impliedly invoked an adverse inference against the Accused under Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950. (d) The learned Magistrate failed to state under which subsection of Section 37 DDA 1952 she is invoking the presumption against the Accused. [21] I will deal with each of these grounds below. Contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW3 [22] Learned counsel for the Accused submits that the learned Magistrate had failed to appreciate the contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW3 and the evidence of PW3 being inconsistent with his police report (P4) lodged soon after the raid. [23] Learned counsel for the Accused highlighted these contradictions in his submissions as follows:- S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 6 “(i) ........dari pernyataan saksi (WSP3) yang disediakan oleh (SP3), beliau telah menyatakan bahawa ternampak seorang lelaki Cina (perayu) yang dicamkan telah mencampakkan satu (1) plastik yang berada di tangan kanannya ke atas jalan dan melarikan diri. (ii) Dalam soalan tambahan pemeriksaan utama pihak pendakwaan, (SP3) menyatakan bahawa “semasa saya sampai, saya nampak OKT sedang membawa ditangannya ada plastik warna oren. Semasa saya hampiri OKT dan beritahu polis, OKT telah melarikan diri.... saya bersama Kpl Marco turun dari kiri kereta kejar, saya dapati tangan OKT tiada plastik warna oren ... Lepas itu Kpl Helmi beritahu dia nampak OKT campak plastik yang dia bawa berdekatan dengan gambar E.” (iii) Semasa pemeriksaan balas bagi cadangan pihak pembelaan, (SP3) telah juga menyatakan, “Betul”:- PB : Kamu kata nampak lelaki ini pegang di tangan kanan plastik warna oren dan campakkan? SP3 : Betul. (iv) Fakta bahawa (SP3) tidak nampak Perayu campakkan beg oren dalam tangan hanya timbul semasa perbicaraan di mahkamah. Kononnya (SP1) yang nampak Perayu campakkan beg oren serta menjumpainya di atas tanah juga timbul hanya ketika di mahkamah. Malah dokumen Muar Rpt 2648/2020 (P4) S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 7 iaitu dokumen (contemporaneous) yang di sediakan sejurus selepas tangkapan juga tidak ada menyatakan bahawa (SP1) yang nampak beg plastik oren dicampakkan oleh Perayu.” [24] As for PW1’s evidence that he saw the Accused throwing the orange colour plastic bag (P8) suspected of containing drugs, counsel for the Accused submits that during examination in chief, PW1 said he saw the Accused was on the right-hand side of the car whilst he was seated at the back-passenger seat of the car on the left-hand side. [25] However, PW1 contradicted himself when the Accused counsel used a model car to challenge PW1 that if he was seated on the left- hand side and the Accused was on the right-hand side, he could not have seen the Accused throwing the orange-coloured plastic bag, PW1 changed his evidence and answered that he forgot that he was seated on the right-hand side of the passenger seat behind the driver’s seat from where he could see the Accused on his right. [26] A careful reading of PW3’s witness statement and the police report (P4) lodged by him soon after the incident does not disclose PW3 saying that he saw the Accused throwing the orange-coloured plastic bag. [27] PW3 in his report (P4) said “suspek telah mencampakkan satu (1) plastik yang berada di tangan kanan suspek ke atas jalan dan melarikan diri”. This was exactly repeated in his witness statement. S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 8 [28] Nowhere did PW3 say he saw the Accused throwing the orange- coloured plastic bag. [29] I have carefully perused PW3’s evidence in examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination. I find that PW3 has explained that he never said he saw the Accused throwing the orange-coloured plastic bag. What PW3 said was, that it was PW1 who saw the Accused throwing the orange-coloured plastic bag and informed him of this fact. [30] I have also carefully perused through PW1’s evidence in examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination. I find that PW1 has sufficiently explained that he forgot he was actually on the day of the incident seated at the right hand of the back- passenger seat and not on the left. [31] I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate had correctly analysed and evaluated PW1 and PW3’s testimony concerning the Accused holding the orange-coloured plastic bag in his hand and throwing it onto the ground and arrived at the correct finding and conclusion as to their credibility. [32] This can be seen in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the learned Magistrate’s grounds of judgement reproduced below:- “[19] Oleh kerana isu rampasan plastik oren ini dibangkitkan oleh Pembelaan, Mahkamah ini memperincikan situasi berkaitan P8 ini seperti berikut:- S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 9 BIL SAKSI NAMPAK P8 DIPEGANG OKT NAMPAK P8 DICAMPAK OKT MENGAWAL P8 SEBELUM RAMPASAN DIBUAT MEMBUAT RAMPASAN P8 MENUNJUKKAN P8KEPADA OKT SEMASA RAMPASAN / DITANGKAP 1. SP1 √ √ √ X X 2. SP3 √ X X √ √ [20] Oleh kerana hanya SP1 sahaja yang nampak P8 itu dicampak, jadi keterangan SP1 berkenaan perkara ini mestilah positif, dan keterangan SP1 dan SP3 mestilah saling menyokong bagi membuktikan rantaian barang kes tidak terputus.” [33] In the foregoing, I find the Accused has no merit in this ground of Appeal. Finding of the Accused’s defence a bare denial [34] Next, the Accused submits that the learned Magistrate in paragraph 67 of her grounds of judgment makes a finding that the Accused’s defence is a bare denial. [35] According to learned counsel for the Accused, this is contrary to the fact that the Accused had called a witness (DW2) to testify on what exactly happened on the date of the incident as stated in para 68 of her grounds of judgement. [36] In addition, the learned Magistrate had acknowledged in paragraph 69 of her grounds of judgement that a doubt had been raised by the Accused. S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 10 [37] I have carefully examined paragraphs 67, 68 and 69 of the learned Magistrate’s ground of judgement. [38] I am of the view that the word “penafian kosong” in paragraph 67 ought not to be read in isolation and must be read together with the entire analysis made by the learned Magistrate of the defence case in paragraphs 67 to 75 of her grounds of judgement. [39] The learned Magistrate’s analysis in these paragraphs will reveal that she had considered the Accused and his witness (DW2’s) testimony and the defence put forward by the Accused. [40] As such, it is not true that the learned Magistrate found the Accused defence to be a bare denial and failed to consider the evidence adduced by the Accused. [41] This is evident in paragraph 75 of her grounds of judgement when the learned Magistrate stated that the Accused had failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. [42] I find the Accused has no merit in this ground of Appeal. Impliedly invoked Section 114(g) Evidence Act, 1950 [43] Next, the Accused submits that the learned Magistrate erred when she impliedly invoked the presumption of adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act, 1950 against the Accused. [44] This is in reference to her grounds of judgement in paragraphs 71 and 72 wherein she stated as follows:- S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 11 “[71] Bermula 2020 sehingga bicara kes ini selesai, OKT dan SD2 tidak langsung menggunakan waktu yang panjang untuk membuat repot polis untuk menegaskan kes pembelaan. Sungguhpun bersifat sokongan, repot polis yang menyatakan semua fakta penting boleh menyelamatkan OKT daripada kesalahan yang dipertuduhkan. [72] Kegagalan OKT dan SD2 untuk membuat apa-apa repot polis berkenaan perkara yang amat penting ini menjadikan kes pembelaan tidak tulen dan hanyalah rekaan.” [45] In support of this submission, learned counsel for the Accused relies on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Chin Kek Shen v. PP [2013] 7 CLJ 435 wherein it was held:- “(3) On the factual matrix of the case, it was not proper for the learned judge to have invoked an adverse inference pursuant to s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 (‘the Act’) against the defence for not calling Nicole. Section 114(g) of the Act could not be invoked against an accused nor could the failure of the accused to call any witness be made the subject of comment at a criminal trial. (Illian & Anor v. PP; refd) (paras 10 & 12)” [46] The Accused also relies on another Court of Appeal’s decision in Davender Singh Sher Singh v. PP [2012] 1 LNS 261 wherein it was held as follows:- S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 12 “[22] The learned trial judge had misdirected himself as regards the burden of proof on the defence. There is no requirement in law for an accused person to explain with “credible evidence”. All that an accused person needs to do is to raise a reasonable doubt. There is no duty cast upon the defence in a criminal case to call any evidence. The learned trial judge failed to recognise that the appellant cannot be convicted even though the court finds his version not true or credible as the court is obliged to ask further itself whether his evidence has raised a reasonable doubt (see: PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457; [2005] 6 AMR 203 and Mohamad Radhi Yaakob v. PP [1991] 3 CLJ 2073; [1991] 1 CLJ (Rep) 311). In PP v. Datuk Haji Harun Haji Idris & Ors [1977] 1 LNS 92; [1977] 1 MLJ 180, at p. 216 Abdoolcader J (as he then was) said this: It is not necessary for the defence to prove anything and all that is necessary for the accused to do is to give an explanation that is reasonable and throws a reasonable doubt on the case made out for the prosecution.” [47] The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor in turn submits that nowhere in paragraphs 71 and 72 did the learned Magistrate say that she is invoking the presumption under Section 114(g) Evidence Act, 1950 and that the learned Magistrate is only giving her reasons upon analysing the evidence of SD1 and SD2. S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 13 [48] I agree with the submissions of the Prosecution that the learned Magistrate made no mention of invoking Section 114(g) Evidence Act, 1950 in those paragraphs. [49] In my judgement, what the learned Magistrate was referring to is the existence of a police report on what happened that could be of some corroborative evidence and she was not referring to any adverse inference. [50] The authorities in Chin Kek Shen (supra) and Davender Singh (supra) cited by the defence counsel are distinguishable cause they refer to the failure of an Accused person to call witnesses. [51] I find the Accused has no merit in this ground of Appeal. Failure to state under which sub-section of Section 37 DDA, 1952 is the presumption invoked [52] Learned counsel for the Accused submits that the learned Magistrate in paragraph 68 of her grounds of judgement failed to state under which sub-section of Section 37 is she invoking the presumption. [53] He submits further to say that this is important for the Accused to know whether to discharge the burden on the balance of probabilities or reasonable doubt. [54] I note this ground of Appeal is not pleaded by the Accused in his Petition of Appeal. However, for completeness, I shall deal with it. S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 14 [55] The Accused is charged under Section 12(2) read together with Section 39A (1) DDA, 1952 and punishable under Section 39 A (1). [56] Section 12 (2) DDA 1952 reads:- “(2) No person shall have in his possession, custody or control any dangerous drug to which this Part applies unless he is authorized to be in possession, custody or control of such drug or is deemed to be so authorized under this Act or the regulations made thereunder.” [57] The learned Magistrate at the end of the prosecution’s case made the following findings:- “[35] Tindakan OKT mencampakkan P8 menunjukkan OKT mempunyai pemilikan terhadap barang kes dimana OKT mempunyai kuasa untuk mengendalikan (dengan mencampak P8) yang mana hanya beliau sahaja yang berada di tempat kejadian semasa kejadian berlaku. [36] Tindakan OKT setelah mencampakkan P8, melarikan diri, bergelut dengan SP3 semasa tangkapan dibuat dan kegelisahan semasa tangkapan, menunjukkan inferens bahawa OKT mempunyai pengetahuan OKT mengenai dadah di dalam plastic berwarna oren P8 itu adalah barang salah.” [58] The above findings indicate that the learned Magistrate found the Accused act of throwing the orange plastic bag containing drugs S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 15 (P8) and being the only one at the scene of the incident showing that he was in actual possession and had control of the drugs. [59] She went on further to draw an inference from the act of the Accused running away, wrestling with PW3 during arrest and looking worried during arrest that he had knowledge of the drugs in the orange plastic bag as “barang salah”. This finding is supported by the Federal Court’s decision in PP v Reza Mohd Shah Ahmad Shah [2010] 1 CLJ 541 which held as follows:- “It was fanciful to say that the respondent took flight and threw the plastic bag because he probably knew that he was carrying some other prohibited goods. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, the inference must be that he knew that he was carrying what he was in fact carrying, namely, a prohibited drug.” [60] Nowhere in her grounds of judgement did the Learned Magistrate say at the end of the prosecution’s case that she was invoking the presumption of deemed possession under Section 37 (d) DDA, 1952 which warrants the Accused to discharge the burden on the balance of probabilities. [61] As such, the question of the Accused being misled at the end of the prosecution’s case as to whether to discharge the burden on the balance of probabilities or reasonable doubt does not arise. [62] Next, the learned Magistrate in paragraph 75 of her grounds of judgement held that the defence had failed to raise a reasonable doubt. S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 16 [63] In the circumstances, I hold the learned Magistrate had correctly addressed her mind on the applicable burden of proof which is for the Accused to raise a reasonable doubt though she had mentioned in paragraph 68 of her grounds of judgement that the Accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 37 DDA 1952. [64] In my judgement, Section 37 (d) DDA 1952 does not apply because as mentioned above, the Learned Magistrate had already made a finding under Section 12 (2) DDA 1952 at the end of the prosecution’s case that the Accused was in possession of the drugs. [65] Hence the submission by learned counsel for the Accused that the learned Magistrate had failed to state under which sub-section of Section 37 DDA 1952 the presumption is invoked against the Accused is misconceived. [66] In my judgement a mere mention of Section 37 DDA 1952 by the Learned Magistrate in her grounds of judgement is not fatal since the Learned Magistrate had applied the correct burden of proof upon making a finding of possession under Section 12 (2) DDA 1952 against the Accused. [67] The Federal Court decisions in Seyedalireza Seyedhedayatollah Ehteshamiardestani v. PP [2014] 4 CLJ 406, Abdul Aziz a/l Jamal v Public Prosecutor [2016] MLJU 1606 and Imran bin Zakaria v Public Prosecutor [2021] MLJU 2672 cited by learned counsel for the Accused does not apply to our present case cause these cases are in respect of a charge for trafficking and deals with the statutory presumptions under Sections 37 (d) and 37(da) DDA 1952. S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 17 [68] As such find this ground of Appeal also has no merits. Appeal against sentence [69] The Petition of Appeal has no grounds for Appeal against the sentence. [70] Counsel for the Accused did not address the Court that the Accused is proceeding with his Appeal against sentence. [71] There were no submissions made by the learned counsel for the Accused in his written submissions and during the hearing on sentence. [72] In the foregoing, the Court took the view the that Appellant had abandoned his Appeal on sentence. DECISION [73] In the foregoing, I find the Appeal by the Accused has no merits. [74] The Appeal is hereby dismissed and the decision of the Learned Magistrate is upheld. Dated this 16th November 2023 at Muar in the State of Johore. t.t. SURIA KUMAR DJ PAUL Judicial Commissioner S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 18 High Court of Malaya Muar Johore Darul Ta’zim Counsels: For the Appellant : R.K. Balakrishnan For the Respondent : Putera Amirool Faez Bin Suhasi Solicitors: For the Appellant Messrs R. K. Bala & Associates Advocates & Solicitors No. 9, 1st Floor Jalan Seri Temenggong 26/1 Taman Seri Temenggong 84000 Muar Johor [Ref. No. : RKB/CR-0132/2019] For the Respondent Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Mezzanine Floor Muar Trade Centre No. 16, Jalan Petri S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [JB-41S-4-04/2022] November 16, 2023 19 84000 Muar Johor [Ref. No. : ] Hearing Date : 13th February 2023, 20th July 2023, 2nd October 2023 Decision Date : 16th November 2023 S/N yhGjq/M6UiwwYU1R4S2zg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

DA-12B-45-10/2022

PERAYU 1. ) MOHD HASANI BIN MOHAMED NOR 2. ) NURSHAHIRAH BINTI JAMALUDIN RESPONDEN 1. ) TENGKU MUHAMMAD AMIRUL BIN TENGKU YAACOB 2. ) KU NURA BINTI TUAN AB HAMID

RAYUAN SIVIL: Isu yang perlu diputuskan dalam kedua-dua rayuan berkenaan ialah sama ada gantirugi yang diberikan oleh L/HMS adalah adil, munsabah tidak rendah atau melampau dan dapat memampaskan Perayu-Perayu.

05/12/2023

YA Dato' Roslan Bin Abu Bakar

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=62509e56-910c-42c1-ba77-1a1ccb91ede7&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - DA-12B-45-10-2022 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, MALAYSIA RAYUAN SIVIL NO: DA-12B-45-10/2022 ANTARA 1) MOHD HASANI BIN MOHAMED NOR 2) NURSHAHIRAH BINTI JAMALUDIN … PERAYU DAN 1) TENGKU MUHAMMAD AMIRUL BIN TENGKU YAACOB 2) KU NURA BINTI TUAN AB. HAMID … RESPONDEN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Perayu-Perayu memfailkan rayuan ini kerana tidak berpuas hati terhadap keputusan kuantum yang diberikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang terpelajar (selepas ini dipanggil “L/HMS”) dalam suatu kes tuntutan kemalangan jalanraya. [2] Perayu 1 (Plaintif 1 dalam kes di Mahkamah Sesyen) pada masa material adalah pemandu motokar bernombor PKY 3873. [3] Perayu 2 (Plaintif 2 dalam kes di Mahkamah Sesyen) pula pada masa material adalah pemilik berdaftar motokar PKY 3873. [4] Responden 1 (Defendan 1 dalam kes di Mahkamah Sesyen) adalah pemandu motokar bernombor WHJ 5458 pada masa material. [5] Responden 2 (Defendan 2 dalam kes di Mahkamah Sesyen) adalah pemilik berdaftar motokar WHJ 5458 pada masa material. Fakta [6] Pada 4.11.2016 jam lebih kurang 10.40 malam, Perayu-Perayu dalam perjalanan dari Ketereh ke Pulau Pinang dengan meniaki motokar bernombor PKY 3873. Sampai di Jalan Melor – Ketereh, motokar yang dipandu Responden 1 bernombor WHJ 5458 yang datang dari arah bertentangan telah memasuki laluan Perayu- Perayu apabila memotong sebuah lori treller dan terus bertembung dengan motokar Perayu-Perayu. 05/12/2023 16:05:02 DA-12B-45-10/2022 Kand. 26 S/N Vp5QYgyRwUK6dxocy5Ht5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [7] L/HMS memutuskan Pihak Responden bertanggungan 100% (liabiliti). Rayuan ini adalah terhadap kuantum sahaja. Isu [8] Isu yang perlu diputuskan dalam kedua-dua rayuan berkenaan ialah sama ada gantirugi yang diberikan oleh L/HMS adalah adil, munsabah tidak rendah atau melampau dan dapat memampaskan Perayu-Perayu. Penelitian dan penemuan mahkamah [9] Sebelum memutuskan isu kuantum ini, saya telah merujuk kepada beberapa kes mantap berikut sebagai panduan iaitu: Ong Ah Long v Dr. S Underwood [1983] 2 CLJ 198: “It must be borne in mind that damages for personal injuries are not punitive and still less a reward. They are simply compensation that will give the injure party reparation for the wrongful act and not for all the natural and direct consequences of the wrongful act, so far as money can compensate...”. Wong Li Fatt William (an infant) v Haidawati bte Bolhen & Anor [1994] 2 MLJ 497: “In considering the issue of quantum of damages, I bear in mind that an award must be fair which means that there must be a proper compensation for the injury suffered and the loss sustained”. Ong Ah Long v Dr S Underwood [supra]: “It is well established principle that special damages, have to be specifically pleaded and specifically proved.... The reason that special damages have to be specially pleaded is to comply with its object which is to crystallize the issue and to enable both parties to prepare for trial”. S/N Vp5QYgyRwUK6dxocy5Ht5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [10] Saya juga menggunakan prinsip “good gracious test” yang diberikan oleh mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes United Plywood & Sawmill v Lock Ngan Loi [1970] 1 LNS 164: “The general principle is that an appellate court can only interfere with an assessment if it is considered so inordinately low or inordinately high as to make the court exclaim: Good gracious, is that the sum which has been awarded, that sum has to be altered...” [11] Setelah meneliti dan menimbangkan hujahan kedua-dua pihak, rekod rayuan, nota keterangan, eksibit-eksibit dokumentar dan alasan penghakiman L/HMS, saya mendapati dan memutuskan seperti berikut: GANTIRUGI AM (atas dasar liabiliti 100%) Perayu 1 (i)severe traumatic brain injury [12] Peguam Perayu 1 menghujahkan gantirugi sebanyak RM350,000, manakala peguam Pihak Responden menghujahkan sebanyak RM70,000 dan dikira bersama dengan kecederaan di item (ii) iaitu C1 & C2 stable fracture. L/HMS telah memberikan award sebanyak RM180,000. [13] Dalam memberikan jumlah gantirugi tersebut, L/HMS telah menimbangkan faktor-faktor berikut: (a) award wajar dikira berasingan kerana melibatkan anggota badan berlainan. (b) berdasarkan laporan pakar Pihak Responden (laporan terkini), Perayu 1 telah boleh berdikari untuk makan, ke bilik air dan memakai pakaian. (c) laporan berkenaan juga menyatakan Perayu 1 boleh menaiki motosikal untuk membeli barang di kedai berdekatan. (d) gagal mendapatkan rawatan susulan di hospital (psikaitris). (e) gagal mengikuti rehabilitasi yang dicadangkan pakar. (f)perkembangan positif bahawa semakin pulih. (g) otoriti-otoriti (case laws). S/N Vp5QYgyRwUK6dxocy5Ht5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 (h) Compendium of Personal Injuries Awards 2018 (selepas ini dipanggil “Compendium”). (i) kecederaan kepada item ini: (aa) impairments due to right fronto-parietal lobes injury (ab) cerebral concussion (GCS score 13/15 & 8/15) (ac) cognitive impairment, irritability, apathy and headache (ad) intracranial hemorrhage (ae) skull fracture (af) right intraparenchymal bleed (ag) subdural hematoma with midline shift [14] Tujuan gantirugi bukanlah untuk mendapatkan faedah atau “kekayaan” tetapi untuk memampaskan Perayu 1 seboleh-bolehnya kepada keadaan asal seperti sebelum kemalangan. Appalasamy a/l Bodoyah v Lee Mon Seng [1996] 3 CLJ 71: “Thus, one must not forget the general rule that the function of damages in tort actions is purely to put the Plaintiff in the position which he would have been in had the tort not been committed in the first place and this can only be done through a reasonable award of damages. [15] Saya mendapati terdapat faktor-faktor lain yang gagal di ambilkira oleh L/HMS bagi mendapatkan suatu jumlah gantirugi yang adil, munasabah, tidak rendah dan tidak melampau. Faktor utama ialah ketidakupayaan Perayu 1 dalam kehidupan harian ekoran dari kecederaan yang di alami iaitu (berdasarkan kepada Laporan Pakar dari Gleneagles Hospital bertarikh 22.2.2021 di muka surat 260 – 267 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 3): (i) severe impaired mental functions (ii) skull defect over right temporal region (iii) injury to bilateral motor tracts (iv) reduced power for grip and brisk reflexes (v) incapable to live independent [16] Juga Laporan Pakar dari Island Hospital bertarikh 30.12.2020 di muka surat 247 – 250, Rekod Rayuan Jilid 3) yang menyatakan: “In my opinion, patient is having severe disability secondary to his head injury as his mental functions are severely impaired.” S/N Vp5QYgyRwUK6dxocy5Ht5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 [17] Saya juga berpendapat bahawa kadar dalam Compendium adalah sebagai satu panduan sahaja kepada mahkamah supaya mahkamah mempunyai suatu base bagi menentukan jumlah gantirugi dan tidak bertindak secara “pluck the figure from the air”. Abdul Waffiy bin Wahubbi & Anor v A.K. Nazaruddi bin Ahmad [2017] 2 PIR 1: “the compendium is not meant to stifle the rights of the parties to submit below or above the stipulated quantum, nor it is meant to fetter the courts discretion. As such, judges and lawyers are at liberty to depart from the compendium in the event case law or factual circumstances so dictate.” [18] Oleh yang demikian berdasarkan kepada pertimbangan- pertimbangan di atas dan pertimbangan umur Perayu 1, peluang bekerja, hubungan dengan keluarga serta masyarakat, inflasi, kejatuhan nilai Ringgit dan kos sara hidup, saya membenarkan rayuan Perayu 1 terhadap item ini. Dalam menentukan award yang adil, munasabah, tidak rendah dan tidak melampau, saya juga mengambilkira kegagalan Perayu 1 mendapatkan rawatan susulan di hospital (psikaitris). Dengan itu saya mengenepikan award L/HMS dan menggantikan dengan gantirugi sebanyak RM250,000. (ii)C1 & C2 stable fracture [19] Bagi item ini saya bersetuju dengan keputusan L/HMS bahawa ianya perlu dikira secara berasingan kerana melibatkan bahagian badan yang berbeza. [20] Peguam Perayu 1 menghujahkan gantirugi sebanyak RM50,000, manakala peguam Pihak Responden menghujahkan sebanyak RM70,000 yang dikira bersama dengan kecederaan di item (i) iaitu severe traumatic brain injury. L/HMS telah memberikan award sebanyak RM25,000. [21] Dalam memberikan jumlah award tersebut, L/HMS telah menimbangkan kecederaan tersebut telah menyebabkan Perayu 1 mengalami rotary subluxation of C1 & C2. Ini bermaksud Plaintif 1 mengalami kesukaran untuk menggerakan bahagian kepala dan leher seperti sebelum kemalangan. Keadaan ini telah dinyatakan dalam Laporan Pakar dari Damai Service Hospital bertarikh 14.1.2022 (Rekod Rayuan Jilid 3, muka surat 268 – 276) dan S/N Vp5QYgyRwUK6dxocy5Ht5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Laporan Pakar dari Gleneagles Hospital bertarikh 22.2.2021, Rekod Rayuan Jilid 3, muka surat 260 – 267). [22] Laporan perubatan dan laporan pakar Pihak Responden mengesahkan kecederaan ini boleh sembuh walau pun mengambil masa yang lama. Keadaan ini memerlukan kesediaan serta tanggungjawab Perayu 1 dan keluarganya untuk mengambil tindakan dengan betul dan munasabah. Malah dalam laporan pakar Gleneagles Hospital (seperti di atas), dinyatakan dari keterangan keluarganya, Perayu 1 sudah boleh menaiki motosikal untuk ke kedai berdekatan. [23] Berdasarkan kepada pertimbangan-pertimbangan tersebut dan berpandukan kepada Compendium, saya berpendapat award L/HMS adalah adil, munasabah, tidak rendah dan tidak melampau. Sehubungan itu saya menolak rayuan bagi item ini dan mengekalkan keputusan L/HMS. (iii)scars [24] Peguam Perayu 1 menghujahkan gantirugi sebanyak RM40,000, manakala peguam Pihak Responden menghujahkan sebanyak RM3,000. L/HMS telah memberikan award sebanyak RM8,000 setelah menimbangkan kecederaan ini adalah pada right side of the head with a skull defect (post-op) and right neck dan panduan dalam Compendium. [25] Berdasarkan kepada prinsip “good gracious test” yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes United Plywood & Sawmill v Lock Ngan Loi [supra], saya berpendapat tuntutan Perayu 1 sebanyak RM40,000 bagi item ini adalah terlalu tinggi. Parut berkenaan di bahagian kepala boleh ditutup dengan topi (contohnya) dan di bahagian leher boleh ditutup dengn baju yang dipakai. [26] Saya berpendapat award L/HMS adalah adil, munasabah, tidak rendah dan tidak melampau. Sehubungan itu saya menolak rayuan bagi item ini dan mengekalkan keputusan L/HMS. S/N Vp5QYgyRwUK6dxocy5Ht5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 GANTIRUGI KHAS (atas dasar liabiliti 100%) Perayu 1 (i)kos penjagaan (nursing care) [27] Laporan pakar terkini Pihak Responden mengesahkan Perayu 1 telah boleh berdikari untuk makan, ke bilik air dan memakai pakaian. Laporan berkenaan juga menyatakan Perayu 1 boleh menaiki motosikal untuk membeli barang di kedai berdekatan (Laporan Pakar dari Gleneagles Hospital bertarikh 22.2.2021, Rekod Rayuan Jilid 3, muka surat 260 – 267). [28] Perayu 2 (isteri Perayu 1) dalam keterangannya semasa disoal balas telah menyatakan Perayu 1 perlu diberi peringatan untuk makan walau pun makanan telah disediakan oleh Perayu 2 sebelum pergi kerja. Perayu 1 hanya makan apabila disuruh makan oleh Perayu 2 setelah pulang dari kerja. Perayu 2 juga bersetuju bahawa keadaan fizikal Perayu 1 adalah “macam” normal di mana boleh bergerak sendiri ke sana sini. Selain dari itu ibu Perayu 2 tinggal bersama dengan mereka. [29] Saya berpendapat (berdasarkan kepada keterangan tersebut), Perayu 1 bukanlah mengalami keilatan kekal seperti lumpuh atau tidak dapat bergerak. Walau pun laporan pakar Pihak Perayu dan Pihak Responden mencadangkan Perayu 1 memerlukan seorang penjaga dalam aktiviti harian, saya berpendapat keterangan Perayu 2 (isteri) adalah lebih boleh diterima kerana dia sentiasa berada dengan Perayu 1 di rumah. Manakala kedua-dua laporan tersebut dibuat setelah memeriksa Perayu 1 di premis mereka dalam suatu tempoh yang singkat. [30] Dengan itu ketidakupayaan Perayu 1 hanyalah kepada masa makan sahaja dan ibu Perayu 2 yang tinggal bersama mereka boleh membantu mengingatkannya kepada Perayu 1 semasa Perayu 2 pergi kerja. [31] Berdasarkan kepada penemuan-penemuan tersebut, saya menolak rayuan bagi item ini dan mengekalkan keputusan L/HMS. (ii)kehilangan pendapatan [32] Pihak Perayu mengemukakan seorang saksi iaitu majikan Perayu 1 (Pegawai Sumber Manusia dari Syarikat BW Yee Seng Steel S/N Vp5QYgyRwUK6dxocy5Ht5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Industries Sdn Bhd) yang mengesahkan Perayu 1 mula bekerja di syarikat itu mulai 24.2.2014 hingga 1.11.2016 sebagai seorang store keeper. Tetapi tiada keterangan dikemukakan bahawa Perayu 1 bekerja semula dengan sebuah syarikat lain bermula dari 2.11.2016. Juga tiada keterangan dikemukakan bahawa Perayu 1 dibenarkan bekerja separuh hari pada hari yang sama apabila mendapat panggilan kecemasan keluarga di Kelantan. Perayu 2 sendiri (isteri Perayu 1) tidak dapat memberikan keterangan di mana Perayu 1 bekerja semula. [33] Saya tidak dapat menerima keterangan Perayu 2 (isteri Perayu 1) yang dia tidak tahu langsung pekerjaan baharu suaminya. Saya mengambil judicial notice bahawa suami isteri akan saling mengetahui pekerjaan sesama mereka kerana ini adalah punca pendapatan keluarga. Tidak mungkin Perayu 1 berhenti kerja pada 1.11.2016 tanpa berbincang dengan isterinya (Perayu 2). Perayu 2 mempunyai masa yang mencukupi untuk bertanyakan kepada Perayu 1 berhubung dengan perkerjaan baharu sebelum kemalangan iaitu dari 2.11.2016 hingga 4.11.2016. [34] Saya juga mendapati tiada keterangan dikemukakan bagi membuktikan pekerjaan baharu Perayu 1. Tiada surat tawaran, kad kerja atau apa sahaja dokumen bagi menunjukan Perayu 1 bekerja di syarikat baharu pada 2.11.2016. Saya juga berpendapat, jika sebenarnya Perayu 1 bekerja di tempat baharu, majikannya sudah tentu akan menghubungi Perayu 1 setelah beberapa hari tidak datang kerja. [35] Tiada juga keterangan dari ahli keluarga Pihak Perayu yang mengesahkan kakak iparnya sakit teruk (ectopic rupture) dan mempunyai peluang 50%-50% untuk selamat. Keterangan ini adalah perlu bagi membuktikan majikan baharu amat bersimpati dan prihatin sehingga membenarkan Perayu 1 bekerja separuh hari sahaja pada hari pertama masuk kerja. [36] Berdasarkan kepada penemuan tersebut, saya memutuskan Perayu 1 gagal membuktikan dia mendapat dan bekerja di syarikat baharu mulai 2.11.2016. [37] Satu lagi isu bagi tuntutan item ini adalah sama ada Perayu 1 mempunyai prospek atau berkeupayaan mendapat pekerjaan baharu yang sesuai dengan kelayakan serta pengalamannya setelah berhenti dari pekerjaan lama. Keterangan menunjukan S/N Vp5QYgyRwUK6dxocy5Ht5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 pekerjaan Perayu 1 sebagai seorang store keeper dengan Syarikat BW Yee Seng Steel Industries Sdn Bhd adalah dari 24.2.2014 hingga 1.11.2016. Tiada keterangan yang menunjukan mengapa Perayu 1 berhenti bekerja dengan syarikat itu. Dengan mengambilkira keadaan ekonomi sekarang, saya berpendapat hujahan peguam Perayu 1 bahawa Perayu 1 mempunyai peluang pekerjaan di masa hadapan adalah suatu spekulasi sahaja. [38] Berdasarkan kepada kesemua penemuan tersebut, saya menolak rayuan bagi item ini dan mengekalkan keputusan L/HMS. Perayu 2 (i)closed fracture neck of right 5th metacarpal bone [39] Peguam Perayu 1 menghujahkan gantirugi sebanyak RM12,000, manakala peguam Pihak Responden menghujahkan sebanyak RM4,000. L/HMS telah memberikan award sebanyak RM6,000. [40] Berhubung dengan tuntutan untuk item ini, saya mendapati Peguam Perayu 2 tidak menghujahkan kesan dan ketidakupayaan akibat dari kecederaan yang di alami Perayu 2. Hujahan hanyalah kepada pekerjaan Perayu 2 sebagai seorang jururawat yang memerlukan skil tangan dalam bidang pekerjaannya. [41] Selain dari itu dihujahkan juga kepada faktor-faktor kejatuhan nilai matawang, inflasi, kesakitan yang di alami dan rawatan serta komplikasi yang akan ditanggung di masa hadapan. Tiada keterangan kukuh dikemukakan bagi menunjukan berlakunya ketidakupayaan pada masa ini atau komplikasi di masa hadapan. [42] Berdasarkan kepada panduan dalam Compendium dan otoriti-otoriti yang dikemukakan, saya memutuskan award L/HMS adalah adil, munasabah, tidak rendah dan tidak melampau. Sehubungan itu saya menolak rayuan bagi item ini dan mengekalkan keputusan L/HMS. Keputusan [43] Atas imbangan kebarangkalian, sebahagian rayuan Perayu 1 dibenarkan dan sebahagian lagi ditolak. Manakala rayuan Perayu 2 ditolak. S/N Vp5QYgyRwUK6dxocy5Ht5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [44] Kadar faedah untuk gantirugi yang diberikan oleh L/HMS dikekalkan. [45] Pihak Responden (secara berkongsi) diperintahkan membayar kos kepada Perayu 1 sebanyak RM5,000 dan tertakluk pada 4% alokatur. Bertarikh: 30 November 2023. (ROSLAN BIN ABU BAKAR) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu. PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi pihak Perayu: Tetuan S. Kuppusamy Fadzil & Co, No. 27, Tingkat Atas, Jalan Bayu, 09000 Kulim, Kedah. Bagi pihak Responden: Tetuan Othman Hashim & Co, 1st Floor, PT 371, Rumah Kedai Lembah Sireh 15050 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. S/N Vp5QYgyRwUK6dxocy5Ht5w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-24-6-01/2022

PEMOHON TAN SOO TUAN RESPONDEN TANG TECK SENG

Civil Procedure — Foreign judgments — Enforcement — Reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments — Registration — Plaintiff obtained ex parte order to register Singapore judgment — Defendant applied to set aside judgment — Whether Defendant submitted to Singapore Court jurisdiction — Whether enforcement of Singapore judgment against public policy — Forum Shopping — Forum non conveniens — Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 s 5

05/12/2023

YA Dato' Wan Ahmad Farid Bin Wan Salleh

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=404e9e22-49dd-4fc3-a929-c9c368ca6c9c&Inline=true

05/12/2023 15:48:04 WA-24-6-01/2022 Kand. 42 S/N Ip5OQN1Jw0pKcnDaMpsnA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Ip5OQN1Jw0pKcnDaMpsnA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Ip5OQN1Jw0pKcnDaMpsnA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Ip5OQN1Jw0pKcnDaMpsnA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Ip5OQN1Jw0pKcnDaMpsnA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Ip5OQN1Jw0pKcnDaMpsnA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Ip5OQN1Jw0pKcnDaMpsnA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Ip5OQN1Jw0pKcnDaMpsnA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Ip5OQN1Jw0pKcnDaMpsnA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Ip5OQN1Jw0pKcnDaMpsnA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N Ip5OQN1Jw0pKcnDaMpsnA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—2l—6—D1/2022 Kand. 42 us/12/2023 15:42-04 DALAM IIIAHKAMAH TIIIGGI MALAVA DI KUALA LUIAPUR DALAM WILAVAN PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUM PUR (EAHAGIAN RAVUAN DAN KuAsA.KuAsA KNAS) SMAN EEMULAN WN24-3 H2022 Delam Perknrn Snknyen 4 ma Penguatkuasa Salmgan Hukuman 1953 Dan Dllam Pvrkara Alurarv s1 Kaedah 2 Kaedah— Kaedah Mahumah 2012 Dan Datam Ferkam Penuhakvman Mnhkamnh Repubhk Smgapun mum 22 5 2021 dmam Gunman M: acts 944/2020 ANYARA TAN soc ‘rum [N0. PASSPORT: so1nus12z] ...PLAlNTlF DAN YANG TECK sane mo. KIP: 721114-055297] .DEFENDAN 24311 [1] The hrieffacls 01012 case are as follows. [2] On 510 21:17, me plamlrfl, a Singaporean and ms mend, one Tan Kah Arm (“Kah Arm"L were Invnlved m an accidem war: a vehxcle drwen by me de1endan|alJa\an Masax Lama, Johor Bahru. [3] As a rash‘! nl me accideru, me mamhfi and Kan Ann sufiared from Injuries S!NIp5DDM1.AwflpKmD-MINIA 1 g mm smm ...m.mm be used m van; .. mmmy mm: dun-mm VII mum pm [41 On 7.5.2119‘ Kah Ann filed an action agarnsttneaeiendont ant: one crran Loong Nee (“Loony Nee’) at the Jortor Eahm sessions court In S No: JA-E53KJ-05/2019 (‘Me JB Sui|“) [Dung No: is the ered owner or the vehtde no. JGJ 5431. A consent judgment was recorded by the paths: on 27 9 mo in the tutiawrng manner rat Deisrtdandalemart hendaklalt memblyar kepada Platrtm wang seiurniat. Rwonomon sahaia seoagai Gnnlrrugi Am dart Khas ierrnosuk hadaht dart tot Dalendandelendan Ivendaklah membeyav mo. lindukan mi nhanvyak RM40,am on sanzia sebawat penyeiessrnn Dertuh dan mnklamnd [5] on 2.10 2020, the plaintiff elected to commence an action against the detendant at the Singapore Higrt Ccun tnrcugn Messrs Nim 5. Co LLC (“Messrs Mini). [5] on 31.12.2020, the piarntiit utrtaineu a judgment in aeiauit [‘JlD“) against tne darendant at the Singapore Hign court Subsequsnfly. the assessment or damages was continued and on so 7.2021, the Stnglpofe Hign Court issued an order on quantum. mum mler alus are as lollows (“the stngnoare Judgment’). (tr YM delertdartl do any tn. oiorntin tna sum M $5107.52? 11.(ogt1h5r writ. tna in|em11 st tna rate M 5 as-/. per annum an in mm oi sszimoo on iron. (ha dnhn onne sanrioeotttrawrrt bemg 212 Mo to in. dale MIN: Jungrnarn Ind irriarut at the rate of 2 57% per unnum on tna sum or ssa1.s21 H train the dale oi lite accdam new 5 to 2017 In in. d.IIn at this Jtmgmeri 42; The netennani to pay me Ptaimrw msts tixaa at 5315.000 on m on is 2 2022, me Singapcre Judgment was registered by an order made by the iearnea senior Assistant Regtslrlr ('SAR') of this Cowl since the tumor made by tne learned SAR was ex pane in natute, she had given the liberty to the L1eVendanl to set aside the same. Para 3 ol the order Sfa|es as {DIIOWSZ INIp6DON1JwflvKmD-MDVIA 1 “None s.n.r nmhnrwm r. .r... m min t... nflmrrnflly mini: dnuuvinrrl n. .rrune Wm! Pmak—pihak am Pinak Plarrvm Law Tuck Huil. Own King Nyong Ieman Sullan r H Lew A Former: Bag! Pmak Defender: ex Ganesan‘ Szrmeel Smuh Sagan mum. Luvulsu a. Hulmas sm |D5DDN1.MflvKmD-MDKIIA «mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mmmuny Rm. dnuumnl VII mum Wm! 3 Delendnn behas unluk mamumn umuk mettgammkan pendaflamn xersebm dalam masa a mu dinpldl Dervvllmvawin nuns vwdaflaran lersebm u. llurvyu dl M-llyua mnum Anna 57 «man 1 Kaadarmaeaan Mlhknman mm mm aanau mamplmy a\zsan Imluk bemum demiuan Thu applucation in Encl 6 [3] By an appll horn in End 6, me delendanl sought «a set aside me reguslrahon Mme s gapore Judgmem The apphcamn is anchored on 5 5 of me Recuprocax Enforcement av Judgmarus Act mse (‘RE.|A') and o 67 r 9 of ma Rules at Court 2012 (‘ROC') For relevance. 5 5m J ov REJA Is reproduced harem On an apvhcnlmn m man man dmy made by any pany agamsl mom a mqnslgved gudgmenl may be women ma mqishilmn of ma jmgnenh 1:] snau be set aside a me Ieglsmrmq own u uulf-ed — m Ilusl ma pxdgm-HI V1 nul a yudgmnnl hu mm was Pan appfles or was registered m oonlravenbon of mu Acl on lhnumcounsuflh-counIryL71ms mégmnlcnwl had nnjurwdwcllun m the clrcumsmnnes cl ma case. (my m:| me 1udgmen| demm, hemg the mmaann nu lhs pmcnadmg: n. ma angina! mvrh ma rlul mmwnnmmmgmmpmunmay have been my sewn: on mm m accordance with me lam ol me mum 0! ma nngxml mm Iacswe mme an Ihase mam-ng. um um um mm to crush]: mm In name We p.uma.»ga and an no! -wsar, sm moaummpxmu.mps-m 3 «mm. saw ...m.mm .. U... a may he mm-y -mm: dnuumnl Vfl mum Wm! (W) ineiineiuanmeiiwesemined by iisua. in inei ine eMnn>enEn| oi me Judwmnnl waulfi bu mnlrlry to euniic mm in Meieysie. or my manna nwns unaei |he iudgmem are nm vealed 4!! me person by Mmm ine application for ienisueiien was made, and in; may be sei esiae ll ine regtslemg eeun is sniisnea Ihal ine meuei in uiseui. in in. eieeeeaings in ine oflunzl court had piemiisny (0 me we ul me iuagmeni in ma enginni mun been me mien: er e iinei and eenciusne iingmeni by an own VVIVIHE iuiimnien in me mmei [9] The appiiceiion is suppofled by ine airiaevii at vimeian a/I Karupaylh in Enci 7 (“AIS-7') Encik vimaien is the Heed a1 cieinis Dwlslon ei me MSIG Insurance [Malaysia] aemed (“MISG'), the insurer ior |he molar vehicle no. JGJ 8431 no] In essence. me derenaenve eppiieenen |a set aside the iegisiieiien 07 (I19 gapcre Judgment Is anchomd on the [allowing gmunds. Forum non ccnvsniens [11] II is not in aispuie me: me accident luck place in Johor The ueiendeni resides in John! rrie pahee iepon wu made in Juhur Tne investigating vfficers are ironi sen Alam Police station, Jorior Bahiu Fursuantlo ss 59, as and 99A ollne Suhmdina|e Cuurls Act 19AB(“SCA'), irie Johor Bshru sessions ceun nes ine iunsaiciion lo hear me diepine. [121 According to ieemea counsel «in me aeienaeni. i. 59i2) sieies Ihal me sessiens ceuns snaii have junsdiclmn to near cases wimin ina iocei Iimiis oi ]uriSd1C1iOrI assigned |o mem. My eneniien was «hen drawn H1 H1: iudgmanl a! me than Supreme Oourl in Amarlcln Expness Bank Ltd V Mohamed Taufic AI—01Ior 3. Anal [1995] 1 cm 273 so. The Supreme caun held Ihauhe iunaeniennsi pnncipie Ill rogard to the flochme uHomII1 non convervensis that there is N Ip6DOM1JwflvKmD-MDWIA A “Nana s.n.i nunhnrwm i. .i... m min i... nflmnnflly MVMI dnuminnl wa nF\uNG Wm! some other Inhunal, havmg mmpeIenqurisdi:1:'un,m wrncn me case may be vied more smlablyfnrthe inlevesls olaH parties and also tor the ends of gushes [1 3] The Supreme court look pans to explam mat we won: "conveniens" means sumahimy and appmprmeness or me raievaru gunsdlchon and nul one at eenvemence Nan-subrmssmn la singapores iunsdicl/"an [141 Learned counsel (or the dehndanl contended than the defendant nad never submmed m the jurismcmn or me Singapore High coun under me s-ngapore Supreme Conn 01 Juurcanure Acl 1969 (“SC.lA'). on the oonuary, prior In lhe eommaneemant of anion at me singapore Hugh Cnurl, me devenuanc, according |o Veamed counsel, had sxpresfly Infused lo submvl In the jurisdiction 07 the Smgapore wurls [15] Accordmg to learned counsel tor the ddendanl, the Singapore Hrgn Ceurl could orfly assume wnsdnctxan |o hue! lhe dispute N the uelenaant subrnns lo the yunsdiclmn under s 16 of me Singapore SCJA [16] In United ovemas Bank Lllnlted V Tjong TjuiNyuk[19€7]2 MLJ 295,015 Smgapore Mg?! Court held Ihal an agreement In subrrlll ID the iurisdlctmn M a lcrengn lnbuna\ cannot be i-npnsa land must be made expressxy. [171 In any event 5 s(2xa)m or REJA Dmvndes mat ms country of me ongmal mun, man in «ms case 15 Singapore, shaH be deemed to have had junsdwclion N the derendanl In the ongmal mun subrmlled no the wrisdiclion of mu mun by volunlarfly appeanng In lhe pvoceedmgs. Under s 5(2)(a|(Ii\], n musl be esvamusnea that me defendant In the ongmal noun‘ had, bafure the commencement 01 the proceedings. agreed (0 submit Co lheAunm\¢hDn Mlhal ouufl [15] vras an amafl dalzd 29 5.2020, Ina asvendanrs soncrmrs made It clsarto me plaunws men salrcnars m Smgapcre. Messrs Lawrence cnua Practice LLC, mat: rNIp6Uum.M1pKmD-Mpmn 5 mm. snrm mmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... mm-y mm: dnuumrrl VII mum v-max Based on (III aims we hereby put you on miles inai we mm iiai be siiarriiiiing In [Illa] iurisaiaron er Slnfinvnm il ii ll cieariiiat iria coun iziai rias iiinauiciion an inis niaiier l5 irie ssuians caiiii an JOVIM Enhru Ii is iuririis reason that leamea ouurlsel ior irie delenaanloorilanaed trial lire defendanl riad never subniiliaa lo the lurisdidlon or 016 Slngapnve courts. on the issue afpunlic policy [19] Learned counsel fur itie deiendant siihrnilteu itiai in obtaining the Singapore Judgmenli itie plalnliii riaa acieo in breach or nalural ]us|ioe and against public policy Tris oalendanrs cori|enlIon is lhal itie plaintiffs action in filing itie casein Singapore is akin lo ianini stiopning [20] My aiienlipn was then drawn to irie judgment oi the High Calm in uirmglinir corporation Sdn Bind II SCH Consultants sun and [2020] MLJU 1221. II was tiald ttiat - plalnllflshould no: he allowed ta pick a oourl merely to g an advantage In the proceeding in aeleiiniining wrieitieririere is an element nflorum snapping. Awang Arniaaaiaya JC rield as lollarws‘ in item lrlslarluns. iria iirsi siep is io aeienriine wnaii-iii WW um lnslarin iaruni I! (he rialural iaiuni, nr wrieisier Iii: ionirii rias lire closesl eorirmiion wiiri iria llflmfl am iii. piiriiei iti- mun aaiininaies mieiner iiiere is arioiiiar iiiiiini iriai ii mare approprlaie uiiaar (he so-sinne oi cmvmY [21] in any event‘ 5 5(I)(a)(v) oi as», a ioreigri iiiiiginsni is liable k) in sei aside n itie enioieernarii of irie jlldgrrlenl would be contrary In public policy in Malaysia. Mull/grow Corporation IS also an auinoriiy For the pmposlllon U\I| there IS a public policy agairlsl deferring In B piiiiriiirrs choice or venue in Clalms where triers may be mare irian one appmpnaleiunsdiclmn ru lp6DDM1JwflvKaiD-MDWIA 6 “Nair s.r.i nurlhnrwlll be i... m min i... nflfllrrnllly MVMI dnuuvlnril VII .niiiie mi TM plaintiffs mspouse [22] Trre crux or the olarnlrlrs lrne of argunrenl ls this ll Indeed lrre delendarll vrgorously belleves llral lrre proper lorurn lo hnng lne olarrn ls lne ses ' s coon ln John! sarrru, the proper course ol action would oe «or the delendenl lo have responded lo me proceedrrrgs rn srngapore. In shun, me delendanl or Mlse should nave epplred ro challenge lns junsdlltllon er wughl a slay. [23] Learned counsel lor lrre plainlw suornmed that since me delendant had sorrrplelsly drsregerded the srngappre prpceedlngs, me rrarural course ol acllon would be for Messrs Nlru lo enler Ihe JID agarnsl me delendanl on 31 12.2020. Messrs Nlm then proceeded with lrre essessnrerrr of damages pursuanl lo rrre JVD. [24] Al the hearing more assessmenl at damages, lne Hlgh coun then recorded lrre nnal ludgrrrerrl in me rorrn 01 me srngapore Judgnrenl. [251 Illsmeplalnllffscaselhalmmughouuheproceedlngslnslngapore, Messrs Niru kept the delemianl and MISG mlormed 3| every significant slage. One of the leners was dated 1.2.2021 and addressed lorlre delendarrrwilrr a cupyla Mlse, whens Messrs Nlru lnllmaled that they had the plainlflfs lnslrucllons to have Ihe damages assessed by the Singapore Court The defendanl was also glven muse that a prr.-lrral oonlererree for me assessment or damage: was fixed 90! hearing an 3.2 2021 by way at video cenlererrcrnp [26] secondry, learned oounsel lor rlrs plarrrml submlfled met me cuncepl oliunedrclron rs rrol nrulually exclu ‘ . llsrrnply means llrrs ll one Coun assumes junsdlctlan. il (105 not mean lrral me plrrer couns are excludnd lronr assurnrng lne same In shun, il a delendanl rs nel happy wiln lne lommr rre can file an applrcalron lo slay me prooeedrngs on me ground lnal rl rs more oonvemenllor lne claim lo be adjudrcered ln enolner ooun r~ Ip6DDN1.lwflvKmD-MDGIA 7 “None s.n.r nuvlhnrwlll r. u... w my r... prwlnsllly mm: dnumlnrrl wa .rruns v-mxl Annlysli [271 Let me firs| deal with the preliminary obpecluon of {he defendant on me ground Ihal Ihe ongmal copy 0! the plaintiff's alfidavxl m rep\y was not served on Ihe deiendant. [23] I do not. win rsspecLflm1Ims cm.ec1mn«o have mems 041 r 10(4) 0! me Roc pvowdes (halwhara an amdavn has been men. an was my |I1etea1may be used m any nrooeedmgs. [29] Yha amacuon 1: meretera ausmusssa. [30] I mu now proceed mm the menus cl me applucauon In End 5. [31] As I aHuded In earner‘ me hne of me plammrs submission Is man unless m s clearly svaced under any wnnen Vaw, me quesuon of ;urisdI an Is not mu|ualIy excluswe. With respscl‘ (ms cnnlanhun is very persuaswe. we take ans example I! a cause oi action takes place in Kuanlan. bullhe pames Involved are lrom Kma Bharu Ban me Hwgh Cnuns m Kola Sham am Kuaman, being me gh own of Malaya, havelhe;unsmc|Km1n hr me manner. [:2] Assuming for one moment mm me plamllfl in |ha| case files me sun at the Kuanlln High Court Does u mean that the High Com m Kala Eharu does not have me Junsmclion to hear me case? The short answer Is in the nagalrve ll me detandanl Is not happy wun Ihe Kuanlan Hugh cnun hearing me maner, whs| he should do \s to’ m rm. Io wndmunil appauanue su ma Kuantin man cum‘ m mu. an appuuuun lo! a stay ul pmceedmgs and 4c; Seek an mderm Irznsler me case m the Kulz Slum N971 Com! «or Inn mallev to bs team and mspusea omaere The wssue oi /Drum non convsmens wuu Khan be dean Kuaman Hugh ooun. at me [33] ms delendanx m Ihalcase cannot surely wan fora J|DIobe entered before Vaunching ms snack ‘man to me, is a Mlle (00 lane. m Ip6DOM1JvmvKmD-Mwm x «mm. Snr1n\nunhnrwH\I>e LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! [34] Let us now ooma back Io lna lrlslam case. ln cm.» H k Foon v suma Harbour sun and .9 Ann! [2010] 9 CLJ 995, me judgmanl dabwr (‘JD’) applied (or an order man and raglauanon under REJA daled 15.10.2005 recorded by the Hong Kong High Cnurl he set aslde. The lssues were, lnler alla, wnelner the JD snould apply at Hong Kong Courl whan Ihey wan! la dlspuls Hong Kong Courl since ll was not a convenient ldnnn la lry lne mamer and wnelner mare was a lommsndpplng on the pan olme ludgmenlcredllorlo unjus1ly plum (mm ma alleged mlaldnuna. [35] zulkllll Bakanl held that n was not proper (or mu court la say that a roralgn mun nad arrad by applylng IIE own laws. Only ma supenor caurl alme sald same country should declde lune sald cdun nad lnlsdlreued llsen ln applylng the law [36] In the il'I5|iM case‘ the Singapore High Cuurl had deeded Iha had me junadlcndn la hear the case. I am therefore raluaanl (0 accede to the lnvilahon L77 laamed counsel of the defendant (0 lntarvrel the Slrlgapore SCJA and conclude that (he Slngapare igh Coun had erred .n assumlng jurisdialcn lo hear the case lf indeed lhe gapove Hlgh Omm had even. VI la not V01 me lo say ll The umperlorurvl would be ldr ma appallaoa mun in Singapore to make Ihal pmmuncemem [37] Tna learned Judge men wenl on to ramarlc valld Crawl! In seuslda lagl:|lIbom:n ln. uld lIIdqmsrl| E s1aled dearly under: sml-lollna REJA AL1 1958 l luund mwmeru ln Ihe sale sacmn dun wllh lonlnl snopnlna Judimerll demdrs counsel had submlllsd ma| Nani xana noun naa mad .n -unlymg Hung Kong lnm .n assesslrlfl damages [H ms cau wlm due lfllpldl Ida nm Ioceyl Ihls aanlanllan ll a rlel WOPM luv our calm to say man lmelgn mull had and by applylng 0-an own laws ll we were lo no man pumivi ll may laad Io cnada lo our lmlclal system and cream Dullflllil M laws. only In Supvemr mm: :1! ma um um. counld would dame n ma S-Eld n nu mndlrucled ltxall .n applying ma law. m a always been on practice and lne rules Counsel my puflgmalfl deblnl amll dn II»: In Hong Kong man and not M Mlinyslin COW‘ m Ip6DON1JwflvKmD-MIKMA 9 “Nair a.n.l nuvlhnrwm a. 0... w my me nflnlnnflly ml. dnuuvlnnl VII .nunc Wm! wiih iaspeoi, I am in coiiipieia agreement wiih the said proposition [as] there is anoiher aspod ol ihiii aigiiineni on iha Issue M ieriiiri shopping ii is ihis Ey asseriing that iheioriini in singapere wnuid be favourable |o ihe piainiiii, ine daienderii is, in iaci, imniying iihal the own in singapere wnuld noi he laveurable lo hiin it he were io siinenaer to the Singapore iiinsiiiciion. There I or oouise, nn evidence to casi ihis aspersiori. [391 on the issue oi mania or ionirn non conveiiiei-is, the aeiendanrs aigiinienis in this Court shciiiia have been canvassed and veniilaled an ihe singapore High Courl Thesingapore High couri Shouid have been appraised wilh ihe iaciiiai narraiiori on me avaiiah ty oi wiinesses in .|nhorBahru, inoiuding Ine iniiesiigaiiiigoiiioeis, so that ii could make an inianviea aeaision on the issue oi /Drum i-ion canveriians Findinas [40] As i ailuded io eariiar, whai ihe deieridani should have done is to file a conditional appearance at the Singapore High coimana seek in have me use ii-aiisienaa io irie Jnhov Bahia sessions oouii on the grounds oi Iamm non Convfinieris unvoriiinaieiy, itiis is not done. And me ueiendani did so at his peiii. [41] The aeiendani is the auihor oi his own niisiumirie. [421 the aeianaani has iaiiea io esiaoiish ihai any oi ihe limbs in s 5l’i)(a) oi REJA Ipplies [43] This appiicaiion is dismissed wiih costs oi RM5iooo suoieei In allocalur (WAN AHMAD FARID am WAN SALLEH) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kiinia Lurripiir Tniikri: 5 niumbor 2023 IN Ip6DDM1.MflvKmD-MDGIA 10 “Nair Smni nuvihnrwiii be ii... m min i... nfliiriaflly MIMI dnuuvinril wa aFiuNG mi

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

DD-83-31-02/2019

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya [Pendakwa Raya] TERTUDUH Ibrahim Idham Bin Mat Daud

Section 41(1) Road Transport Act 1987 - plead guilty mid-trial - appeal against sentence - section 173A Criminal Procedure Code - conditional discharge - bond of good behavior - no conviction - prosecution cost - principle of sentencing - concept of public interest - public servant - effect of conviction on public servant - accused background - mitigating factor - time is of the essence - discretion of the court

05/12/2023

Tuan Mohd Fauzan Bin Mohd Suhairi

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c9b60403-cc14-451d-be71-4459517e8b72&Inline=true

1 IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF BACHOK IN THE STATE OF KELANTAN DARUL NAIM CASE NO.: DD-83-31-02/2019 BETWEEN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND IBRAHIM IDHAM BIN MAT DAUD (IC NO.: 901007-03-5707) CORAM: MOHD FAUZAN BIN MOHD SUHAIRI, MAGISTRATE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT INTRODUCTION [1] The accused was charged under section 41(1) Road Transport Act 1987 on 19 February 2019, detail as follows: “Bahawa kamu pada 27/09/2017 jam lebih kurang 11.15 pagi di Jalan Bukit Temalong, Gunong di dalam daerah Bachok, di dalam negeri Kelantan telah memandu kenderaan 05/12/2023 23:18:27 DD-83-31-02/2019 Kand. 17 S/N AwS2yRTMHUWcURZUX6Lcg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 m/kar no. AEL8878 jenis Perodua Kelisa di atas jalan tersebut secara merbahaya sehingga menyebabkan kematian seorang pejalan penama Mamat Bin Rendah, dengan itu melakukan kesalahan di bawah seskyen 41(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 (Akta 333) dan boleh dihukum di bawah peruntukan yang sama”. The sentence: Penjara selama tempoh tidak kurang daripada 2 tahun dan tidak lebih daripada 10 tahun dan denda tidak kurang daripada lima ribu ringgit dan tidak lebih daripada dua puluh ribu ringgit. [2] The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. This case took a long period of time spanning from 2019 to 2023 comprising of a lot of mention dates, trial dates, and postponements due to various reasons. Not to mention, this case was presided by three Magistrates and prosecuted by five Deputy Public Prosecutors in total. In the middle of the trial sometime around 2022, unfortunately, the initial defense counsel in this case passed away. A new defense counsel took up the case to speed until the disposal of the case. [3] On 6 September 2023, the accused changed his plea and pled guilty to the charge. This Court fixed the next mention date on 3 October 2023 for Fact and Sentence. On the 3 October 2023, this Court, without recording conviction, ordered the accused be discharged from the charge on the condition of him entering into a bond to be of good behavior for a period of two years on RM 2000.00 bail with one surety, under section 173A(2)(b) Criminal Procedure Code. This Court also awarded RM 1000.00 cost to be paid to the Prosecution, in default of 7 days jail. Aggrieved by the decision, on 12 October 2023, the Prosecution appealed against the sentence passed by this Court. [4] Hence, this is the Grounds of Judgment of this Court. S/N AwS2yRTMHUWcURZUX6Lcg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 PRINCIPLE OF SENTENCING [5] In the case of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. JAFA BIN DAUD [1981] 1 MLJ 315, his Lordship Justice Mohamed Azmi observes as follows: “A ‘sentence according to law’ means that the sentence must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section, but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles. In assessing sentence, one of the main factors to be considered is whether the convicted person is a first offender. It is for this purpose that before passing sentence, a Magistrate is required to call for evidence or information regarding the background, antecedent and character of the accused.” [emphasis added] [6] On the same principle, his Lordship Judicial Commissioner Augustine Paul (as he then was) in ZAIDON SHARIFF V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1996] 4 CLJ 441, held as follows: “The phrase “pass according to law” in the subsection adverted to means that the sentence imposed must not only be within the ambit of the punishable section but it must also be assessed and passed in accordance with established judicial principles (see Re CHONG CHENG HOE & ORS [1966] 2 MLJ 252, PP V. JAFA BIN DAUD [1981] 1 LNS 28; ; [1981] 1 MLJ 315 AND PHILLIP LAU CHEE HENG V. PP [1988] 2 CLJ Rep 144; ; [1988] 3 MLJ 107). The right to determine the quantum of punishment on a guilty party is absolutely in the discretion of the trial court. It will exercise that power judicially and will not tolerate any encroachment or even semblance of encroachment by either the prosecution or the defence in respect of that right.” [emphasis added] [7] His Lordship Justice Hashim Yeop A. Sani J (as His Lordship then was) in PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V. LOO CHOON FATT [1976] 2 MLJ 256, expressed the following observations: S/N AwS2yRTMHUWcURZUX6Lcg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 “In respect of sentencing there can be only general guidelines. No two cases have exactly the same facts to the minutest detail. Facts do differ from case to case and ultimately each case has to be decided on its own merits. In practice sentences do differ not only from case to case but also from court to court. All things being equal these variations are inevitable if only because of the human element involved. But, of course, there must be limits to permissible variations.” SECTION 173A CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE [8] For ease of reference, the provision of section 173A Criminal Procedure Code is reproduced below: “173A Power to discharge conditionally or unconditionally (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 173, the Court shall have the powers contained in this section. (2) When any person is charged before the Court with an offence punishable by such Court, and the Court finds that the charge is proved, but is of opinion that, having regard to the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the person charged, or to the trivial nature of the offence, or to the extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment or any other than a nominal punishment or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation, the Court may, without proceeding to record a conviction, make an order either- o (a) dismissing the charge or complaint after an admonition or a caution to the offender as the Court seems fit; or o (b) discharge the offender conditionally on his entering into a bond with or without sureties, to be of good behaviour and to appear for the conviction to be recorded and for sentence when called upon at any time during such S/N AwS2yRTMHUWcURZUX6Lcg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 period, not exceeding three years, as may be specified in the order. (3) The Court may, in addition to any such order, order the offender to pay compensation for injury or for loss (not exceeding the sum of fifty ringgit) or to pay the costs of the proceedings as the Court thinks reasonable or to pay both compensation and costs. (4) An order under this section shall for the purpose of revesting or restoring stolen property, and of enabling the Court to make such order as to the restitution or delivery of property to the owner and as to the payment of money upon or in connection with the restitution or delivery, have the like effect as a conviction for an offence committed in respect of such property. (5) If the Court is satisfied by information on oath that the offender has failed to observe any of the conditions of his bond, it may issue a warrant for his apprehension. (6) Any offender when apprehended on any such warrant shall, if not immediately brought before the Court having power to sentence him, be brought before a Magistrate who may- o (a) either remand him by warrant until the time at which he is required by his bond to appear for judgment or until the sitting of a Court having power to deal with his original offence whichever shall first happen; or o (b) admit him to bail with a sufficient surety conditioned on his appearing for judgment. (7) The offender when so remanded may be committed to prison and the warrant of remand shall order that he shall be brought before the Court before which he was bound to appear for judgment or to answer as to his conduct since his release. S/N AwS2yRTMHUWcURZUX6Lcg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 (8) This section shall not apply- o (a) if the offender is charged with a serious offence; or o (b) if the offender is charged with the commission of an act of domestic violence as defined under section 2 of the Domestic Violence Act 1994. [9] In PP V. MORAH CHEKWUBE CHUKWUDI [2017] AMEJ 0782, the Court of Appeal enumerated circumstances that may invite the application of section 173A: “[5] It is well established that there are a number of factors that courts take into consideration before sentencing. Some of them are as follows: (a) the gravity or severity of the facts constituting the offence; (b) the circumstances in which it was committed; (c) the rampancy of such offence in the area; (d) the offender’s previous record; (e) the offender’s contribution and support to his family members; (f) the offenders means; (g) the effect of conviction and sentence on his job opportunities; (h) the age and health of the accused; (i) whether it is his first offence; (j) whether the accused had cooperated with the police after the commission of the offence; (k) whether the accused had pleaded guilty; (i) status of the accused; (m) whether there was violence during the crime; (n) public interest, etc. [6] All these factors where applicable need to be addressed by the defence to secure a just sentence. It is equally important for the prosecution to rebut the facts adduced by the accused if they are not bona fide, as ultimately the power to sentence is placed on the trial judge and the judge had to rely on the facts adduced in court...”. DECISION OF THIS COURT [10] The accused, as pointed out by the learned defense counsel, is now a public servant. He is currently a staff at the Jabatan Kemajuan Masyarakat (KEMAS), being employed as Pemaju Masyarakat (Grade S19) sometime around 2021. On this note alone, this Court is of the utmost and considered view that the accused be given a second chance in life. Being a public servant, as well serving under KEMAS, he is an asset to the S/N AwS2yRTMHUWcURZUX6Lcg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 community and the country. If the accused is convicted under the charge, he will be imprisoned, and unfortunately, will also be subject to dismissal from the current employment. This serves no purpose to the goal of principle of sentencing particularly to the underlying element incorporating public interest. [11] This Court also took note of the factor in regards to the background of the accused. The accused is the only child that lives with his mother who suffered stroke and in need of intensive care at home. As pointed out by the learned defense counsel, the accident happened in 2017, and the accused was charged in 2019. Up until the present time, the accused together with his family had given full cooperation to the authorities and the Court regarding this case. He was being bailed by the police after the investigation up until the date that he was charged in Court. The accused never failed to turn up in Court on all the dates fixed by the Court. The defense counsel submitted that through these years, through these hard times, the accused already suffered enough with all the time spent, costs expended and the amount of depression faced by him and his family. The accused had to put off his desire to build a family in order to focus on this case that he worried will be detrimental to his future wife and children. This Court is of the view that time is of the essence in this factor. Hard times and difficult situation faced by the accused as in this particular case warrant sensible consideration by this Court. [12] This case took years that started rolling in 2019 up until this year, 2023. At the risk of repetition that the initial defense counsel also had passed away mid-trial. Much of the Court’s precious judicial time has been spent and the case was still at the Prosecution stage at that point in time. The accused, in pleading guilty has contributed to saving a lot of the Court’s time and cost, as well as saving taxpayers’ money. The accused is a first- time offender. As submitted by the learned defense counsel, through these years, the accused has not been involved in any criminal case nor traffic offence. This manifests to the fact the accused was remorseful and a heedful road user. This Court considered these factors to be ancillary in the decision of this Court. S/N AwS2yRTMHUWcURZUX6Lcg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [13] Alluding to the submission of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor, three Prosecution witnesses have testified in the trial. Thus, this Court in awarding cost of RM 1000.00 to be paid by the accused to the Prosecution, weighs this as just and proportionate to the particular circumstances of this case. [14] In the upshot, it was for all the reasons aforesaid that this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed to the Accused is well-grounded and warranted. [15] On a final note, this Court finds these words illuminating to ponder upon; in the case of Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Fadzli bin Mohd Amin [2019] MLJU 1741: “Similarly, with the decision made by the learned magistrate, this court is hopeful that the suspended sentence would give the respondent another chance in life and that he will ‘turn over a new leaf’. If the order of the suspended prison sentence has the effect of reforming him, then public interest has indeed been served and best served as if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living (See decision of Hilbery J in Rex v Kenneth John Ball [1954] 35 Cr. App. R 164).” Dated 5 December 2023 sgd MOHD FAUZAN BIN MOHD SUHAIRI Magistrate Magistrate’s Court Bachok Kelantan For the Prosecution : NURSYAFIQAH BINTI MOHAMAD Deputy Public Prosecutor For the Accused : NIK SAIFUL ADLI BIN BURHAN Messrs. Irmohizam Rosley & Nik Adli S/N AwS2yRTMHUWcURZUX6Lcg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-12BNCvC-128-09/2022

PERAYU LA GRANDE KIARA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION RESPONDEN GERALDINE CLARE HARDING

This appeal is dismissed with costs of RM10,000. The decision of the Session Court is affirmed.All the eight grounds of appeal were considered and this Court, after having read the Session Court’s Judgment found them to be untenable. The Appellant had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities the evidence that supported its claim of the Respondent’s alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, trust, negligence, fraud and that she had caused the Appellant to suffer the loss of RM201,297.15.

05/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ed971804-221a-4c68-a700-02ed51d2e99e&Inline=true

05/12/2023 09:44:58 WA-12BNCvC-128-09/2022 Kand. 29 S/N BBiX7RoiaEynAALtUdLpng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N BBiX7RoiaEynAALtUdLpng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N BBiX7RoiaEynAALtUdLpng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N BBiX7RoiaEynAALtUdLpng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N BBiX7RoiaEynAALtUdLpng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N BBiX7RoiaEynAALtUdLpng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N BBiX7RoiaEynAALtUdLpng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N BBiX7RoiaEynAALtUdLpng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N BBiX7RoiaEynAALtUdLpng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N BBiX7RoiaEynAALtUdLpng **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal w.\—12aucvc—12a—o9/2022 Kand. 29 as/mzm 29:44-52 IN THE HIGH coun IN MALAVA AY KUALA LUMFUR IN THE FEDERAL YERRIYORV. IIALAVSIA cwu APPEA - WA~12BNOv¢-I23—aBI2n22 aElwEEN LA GRANDE KIARA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION [FYGIWP. 2o/2343/2005) APPELLANT Ann GERALDINE GLARE HARDING (mm: ND: 630403-1n»1au) RESPONDENT GROUNDS or JUDQIAENT The all [1] Afler a mu man, we Session Cowl dismissed the Aopeuanrs clam am damages av RM2aI,297 15 lav aHeged Dreachss av lhiuclary and svamlnry dunes, breach aflmsl. negngenoe and Iraua The Appellant was omsm Io pay me Resuondsm her oesls an a solicrlor and chant bass The Raspnnaan: was also awarded me cos! er ma action in me unuunn or RM7.5D0 sw amxvmzymuuaww -um Sum ...m.. WW be .15.. M van; M m\g\ruHIy mm; dun-mm VI] .nuNG pm In ggllan 2 cl: [2] The Respondenl was a council rnernber of me Appellant for leur mnsecunve sesslons — zall/2ul2, 2n1212ol3, 2013/2014 and zol 41201 5. She alsu held me one 01 onairrnan 0! me Appellant The Respondent Iflmugh Glnnal GT (M) sun Bhd where she was a dlleclor and sharlhuldsv, awned a few lols el me Leerande Klara Oondcmlnlum. [31 aeuween soplenmer em November 2014‘ cm Appallarll reserved a quomion «run Orvyx—Ta:h (M) son Bhd (Onyx) In lnllall new LED llgnc syelun at me ounduminlum me we: considerad al me oouncil rneelrng an 5 12 an 4 [41 Between January and April 2015. Onyx slaned me irlstallalions lar a neelnel penad allnnae marlms The lnsrallenon was never ccmpleled [51 Between 1 5 2015 and 2: a 2095 me Respondent had umlelerelry enlemd mlo two wnlmcvs forms mppiy and inslallalinn more LED llghts ln lne condomlnium wnn Onyx Tmy were [I] Pnm snering Panxage Agrenmem wharaby Onyx was In supply and inslall 1494 unlls of LED lights a| me common erees or me Dundamlnlum wlm lree o1 mus. The elsclrilily bulls were In be shared equally mm me Appellant lure perlod ol five years, LED Llgmmg lnslalment Agreement vmerzby Onyx was to supply and lnslell 900 umls ul LED llgms at lns zaesemnl el 2 SW aalxvkuaiymuludww «me Smnl ...m.mn re flied m yaw r.. nflnlnnllly ml. dun-mm VII nFluNG vwul [ha uundomlrllulvl which II the car park for RMB1 1000 lncludirlg to-1. Antares! yearly to be Data by the Appellant over a period 0! SIXW Years. [5] The Appellant claimed that the contracts were erllevsd lnta by me Respondent wltnaut ma pmper mandala 01 me councll. rne Appellanl eortlutdsv man the exec-ltlon aims eontlaetz. was nu! latzledl nellrter was ll dlscusssd at the aennnlltee meellrlg on a.l2.2n14. Yhe canuacu warn also not lorwardad la lnu Anne-II:nt‘s menun tn be mad lorcon-manta and B61/lee m rna Avvellant cialmod mat on l>lm|ri:ts were dlmmsd by me new uouncll 2017/2013 Th: Appellant olalmed that ltte wrllracl causad lmes la n II had suwessiully otmuned dlsedunt of RM25l11A.fl5 from the «sure la be pend. The total pad to Onyx Was RM2o1,297.15 mat stemmed from lhe Mo contracts executed by he Respondent la] Folluwlrla thn 10* Annual Genaral Maanng held on 15.12.2018, an lrlqulry was conducted into me mutter lad by one Udlya Eublyakkara (3 lalum owner at me condo iniurnl lmm 3.2.201Dm1E 3 2019 we report dulsd 19 3 2019 concluded the following, (I) there was no mandala grvsn ta me Respondent to execute the Mn cormacts: (il) the Mo cnnlrzcls were ml velted by me Appellanfs snllnnors, SIN aalxnzaazynnmuawnn “Nair Smnl nnvlhnrwlll be LAIQ4 M my 1... nflnlnallly M1Mn dun-vlnnt VII nFluNG Wflxl (iii) Onyx mu not supply m MI me LED lam: ax me «me 01 me axocuuon Mme Mo contracts: (iv) the Appellant am not uenem wn any sharing orelecmcuy costs as pmvlded by me two mnlracis, on me Avbellanl did ml have ov was given omdal am on me can savings M e\ec1noIIy upan the insmuanm and usage 01 me LED lights‘ M) me App-Ilam had mus mcurrad unnecessary costs [91 An amaommary Genera! Meenng was convened an 21 4 20:9 and N was aecmaa lhat me Anpsuanrs ouumril uugnua ounsider acfian againn muse responsbleior me exeumn ollhe two conlraas. no} Al um 11-" Annual Gensral Meenng on 21 ¢2.2m9 n was decided mu me Anpsuunn puma an amen against me Raspandenl my darnagoa a1RM2u1,2w15 "us was lorwegad braacms omuua-y mu svalutory duues, breach oflfusl, Mqligemza and fraud by me Rasvundent 1 [11] The Respondent had contended snnal Inalsha was gweu mandate exmssxy andlar Ampbedly m emer Into me two conlraas. II was me Rlspondanfs use that the N40 contracts were executed In the best sw amxmuzymuuaww mm smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum p-mm er-asis al me Apnenam Yha vnlanfim was |a save ems at me mndamimum [:2] Tha minutes Mseveral counal meeungs Define me execunon otme wnimms lay me Respondem in June 2015 showed dlscussmns so me mum: memberscannnl now alarm they have nokrwwiedge The aecusm |o go wnn me pmposll by Onyx was named m the mlmnes of me 44'" Oaun:HMae1mg on 6.12 2014 when on! ul me lnur pmpusah, me warm! members had denuded tn choose Onyx and allow 1: to carry om a ma! new for me Ll Granda Klan Candamlnlum Such dsasmn wax moamcmea m the mvnum a| Darzurzph 3 — Proposed LED LIgnlmg* ‘ONYX: pmnasa/ is more suuaora fol La Grande Kjava nut nfthe above because their pmoosal does not mcur any saamonar eosr lo ms nuudmg and me supplier snau share mm ms managemem on cost savmg smym m we raw (0 be agmed. Mr Wong wul arrange wan cwvx lo M all LED hghls to me Common Area In! a ma! pound 0/ was (3) momns. Mr Oponshaw I: raquaszsa lo mm m smfly/rvg the new al men’ pmpoaat " [131 There were three subsequent mum meetings on :71 2015, 7.3.2015 and 1342015 me: all recorded the installation ov the LED lighting system fur the ma! mn. Anhougn me am oounul meeling on an 5.Zu15dh1 mllaoord anymmg on this mathsi, (ha Rssnondeuneslified that mm was a snow av hands that aonfimled a unanimous aeuismn for the gunman at me contracts wm. Onyx Yhe Respondsal teamed that 5 sw saxxwu-aEynAAuudLu~n -um Snr1n\n-nhnrwmbe used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm vu muNG pm me dmlls at me oonvacls were also c-muiatea amongst council members One at me cuuncil members was Ihe diairman wno had succeeded the Deienaant wnam was had kntmieaga of me matter and me pmieclod savings. [I4] rne Respondent‘: evtaenee In crass-examination was tnet due process and tne standard nperntlng procedure wore comphed with as me txtnlmms with Onyx were vetteu by me lawyer: but was not inimitea in me m|nu|os at meetings For me five payments made by the Appeiient |u Onyx. tne Respomtent was but one of the three signatanea to me enemies Suhsequenfly. tne Appolllnl eontinuert with Manly-light runner payments The Appettant had aeceptea ine eertmcate fmnl Onyx and hid not repeated uroumplained atxmttne LED insuiienon on these eviaenee. me Reswndenl premised nerpasman tnat tne Appellam nan trnawn and had mandaled her It: execute tne san contracts mm Onyx us: It would have been Ideal {oi the Appeiienrs committees agnemsnt in enter imu me said mnlracts witn Onyx exp.-eeeent in tne rnimnes or nneunga Perhaps even lhmugh tn. pasting at an expmeea reeoiution Mandate is res: ‘ ed and it would have men uniawi tor Im Rosponaent to enter mlu any omtrracts tar and on behalf elm: Awillunl. Manaaoa at me Respondent in Ihis ountext meant tne agreement and the consensus mtne eommillee. I tra evidence In tms case shows tnattne committee and newer tna Appeiiant had knawiadge olthe contacts at the maternal time, and agreement: tnerete ms Ian was reinlurced by meirccnducl during and aner me Raspondenfs having left are past :2! Chairlnan Payments amrntntea oortflnued It: be made, no otaieatons were ever reoameu. 1 s sin BEiX7RuaEynAALtUdwWI «ware s.n.i n-vthnrwm as as... a mm ms ntwinnflly sun. dun-mm VII erium v-mat to consensus by ms Aprpellam Thus, in (Zn be smely concluded tnal lne Respnm1en| nao the mandate to execute me two wnlracls for and an oenall cl tne Aopeuanl omerwlse, the payments would nave been questloneo hum me very neglnnlng (la) The Appellant mntenoeo that me Rsspsnoenl had sntemd lmo me lwo cnnnacu var persunal lnI.erss| as ltle LED syslenl was also Installed ln tns managemen|a1fibe wnlcn was owned sly net lannly wmpany ms com rslscu sustl susnnssiona 15 mars was no evidence |u pmve Khls (act At me and ol lns any, ma slslm was all out bare allegal-nns — see FK./wm Sdn Bhdflbrmorly known It Ammnsx com-ctlc Sdn sna) vModI Clmlt Sdn Bhdand Or: [2012] MLJU 751 [17] The LED system was resumed ln tne rnlnules at lneetlng ann showed lnal ll was lnsvalled ln all me common areas onne conaolnlnlum as wall. There IS no evidence mat the Respondent nao committed any measn ohms! or lnsl sns had meacneo any fiduclzly or svalukary duties The sesslon Cnun nao oarlsldalad 556 ol lna SI1a|a Management Am 2913 and found mat mere wave no slanllmy ploylmns at any case laws man raslnctsd and prsysntao me Reanonosnl (mm axeoullng tn. Mu oontram lor and on behafl or ma Appellant. was com awass wnn ms llnoinu. on a balance sl smear:-lltlas, lna an/ldmlce shvwad mat the R-svonoenl had me required rnanoale— see Pmvln Dvvulopm-In Sdn and y Hunpkonq and snangnnl Blnkinfi Corporation ma] :5 MLJ 153 [la] As to me clalm ol nagllgsnce, ma laots In Ihis case mo not shaw man there was any on the pan 0! me Respcnflsnl. No evlasnse on how she was nagllgant as clalmad by ma Appellanl The snnsnce also showed 7 sln BElX7RuuEynAALtUdwWI None Smnl In-vlhnrwlll be st... M mm s. nflnlnnllly ml. dun-vlnnl y.. .nuye Wflxl mail me Appeiianl on me ulnar nenar did run demuvlslrale any lnlennen Io ienninale lhe mo mnxrams with Onyx The Appellant had nmuesded wnn 25 payrnenls Th: Appellant’: case of negligence against the Reepondenl had nm been pruven. [1 91 rnere is np evluenae olmala Me or had lnlenlinn on me pan ailne Responacnl in axacuung lne Mo conI1ac|s.TIlls collnnnps Ihai there is no evidence |u support me Appellanla claim. me Appellanl nea lailea In ndduce evluanee inal shcwld the Respondent had known lnel such mnlracle wuuld rasun in Insss: wlncn Ilsa were um clearly pnwen in any evenl on me alner mm, lharo is c denoelhalslwwadthsra was lnxaresl on me pen onne Appellanl in lna rnslallalipn Lfllhe LED system will. lha inlennun ai rnonelary savings in me long run‘ nol lrnmediale relurns [201 The Appellant was In full knowledge enne rnaners canoe-nlng LED syslern mnlrained wim Onyx 2| all limes Aner me Resporudem had resigned (rpm the once as pnalrrnen 0! me cornrnlllee, me Appellant mnlulued (D be in lalal eonlroi or new |L7 lemme or llnrll me eonlenaea leases eunerea. [211 The Cowl omppears aeclsion in Puvbldln-n Pengumun J me sauan v J we saw. Sdn and [2019] 1 ms zzai proved pumanea whsre rl ruled al para 45: ‘Hence, we scare me lawlo be this, me: la me: me caurlcll members ora managernenl corporation owe a my offiduaary and good faith and care to me Dorparalmn similar la rnpse owed by directors ola corvumny Such a dulylsquiros lnern none allowanyeonfllci loartse between Moll duty la the wlpalalmn and melr own psaonnl SIN BElX7RuaEynAAL|UdwWI -nae s.n.l ...n.mll be used m mm as pflmnaflly MVMS dun-mm VII .nune v-mxl mm-eszs rne dulyrs to De mummy wflh such cars as an ordinary prudenl person m a like pas/(ion would use unue: wnflar urcun-szancea And when has discnarges as such, councilmembevs may nut be new /tame for dscrsinns that were /any and reasonably made, even /r n lumed out to be wrung In hindsight ms rs often rslefled m as me ‘ousflvessjudgnrsm Me‘ and n pmveas oounw membavs 1/ :2 can no aszannsneu ma: may have acted II! good /ann (along mm acwunl all me teem smrnund/ng the malls! and me; my personally be/rived the daemon mm at was made II! the but mremsz of the condalnimum awncrs mu me manegsman! mrpmnen as a whale ' 122] Funhermom‘ me evidence showed Ihat me dtssilrsfzcmun amse in 2015 » some «me years am my execunon ohm mncrsccs and am payments had been uffiolally Issued uy me Appeuann - and had begun invssllgsunn no me mallet only mzms, Fmm lhesefads, me argumenns max ma Appeilzm nea vnmaxaa his action agams: me Respondent on an Allerlmmgm may be suanamea sea Amour Cour! uanegemenn Covpurulian v he soon run A an [amp ms 440. [231 AH me ewht gmunds or appeal wen uonsuaerea and um: Court, mar navmg read me Sessum Courfs Judumen| found mam |a be unhanalfle The Aopellanl had «awed la move on a balanoi of pmbabnmes the emenae Ihal supponaa wb claim of me Resp-ondenrs alleged xxeeenes Mfiduclary duty, uusv. negligence, lraua and max she had caused me Aunauam Io suwerme loss 0! RM2fl’L297 15. \X7RuuE nuuua «5£1E“s.nn ...n1.Mn.$‘."..“.ea.n,..n,n.u.y.nn. m.n.m..nune perm Golltluiion [za] Tm: appeal 1: dvsmissld wnh um: V1 RM1D,D00. The deaisaon of me Sessnon cam is ammled DATED 7 SEPTEMBER mm mm V / ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN Juolcm COMMISSIONER HYGH coum w MALAVA KUALA LUMPUR For the Applicant: R. Thanasogsl mgemet wim Sou Shin T/n Chambers cfFin1aus Fm Ms Respondm. Ka J19 Vang and my mg N: 7/n ./. Kan 5 Partners |u ‘ .. mm fl 5-L”1E“s‘.’JZ ...‘u1".?$m .. 3;; mm .. m,M.y mm: dun-mm VII .nuNG W

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

01(f)-3-02/2023(P)

PERAYU 1. ) FIVE STAR HERITAGE SDN BHD 2. ) HLA TOON TOOLSERAM 3. ) MAUNG AUNG THOU 4. ) MOONG BA 5. ) MOUNG BAN CHOWI 6. ) Maung Shwe Winn Sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Penang Burmese Society RESPONDEN Jabatan Peguam Negara

The central issue in these 4 appeals concerns the interpretation and understanding of the Attorney General’s consent obtained under Section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 [Act 359].Of the four appeals, three appeals arose from the judicial review proceedings [JR proceedings] while the fourth appeal arose from proceedings related to Originating Summons No: 24NCVC-1128-12/2014 [OS 1128]. We heard all four appeals together. After full consideration of the submissions, reasonings of the Courts below and the records of appeal, we unanimously allowed the appeals relating to the JR proceedings and dismissed the appeal relating to OS 1128.

05/12/2023

YA Dato' Mary Lim Thiam SuanKorumYA Dato' Mary Lim Thiam SuanYA Dato' Nordin Bin HassanYA Datuk Abdul Karim Bin Abdul Jalil

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=61bd8453-e606-40bb-ac7e-918ab1cd278d&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - Five Star 5.12.2023 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: 01(f)-3-02/2023(P) ANTARA 1. FIVE STAR HERITAGE SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 2. HLA TOON TOOLSERAM (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069) 3. MAUNG AUNG THOU (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) 4. MOONG BA (No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) 5. MOUNG BAN CHOWI (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) 6. MAUNG SHWE WINN Sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Penang Burmese Society (No. Pendaftaran: 1410) … PERAYU-PERAYU DAN PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA … RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia (Bidangkuasa Rayuan) Rayuan Sivil No: P-01(A)-621-10/2021 Antara Peguam Negara Malaysia … Perayu Dan 1. Five Star Heritage Sdn. Bhd (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 2. HLA Toon Toolseram (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069 3. Maung Aung Thou 06/12/2023 14:06:54 01(f)-3-02/2023(P) Kand. 61 S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) 4. Moong BA (No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) 5. Moung Ban Chowi (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) 6. Maung Shwe Winn Sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Penang Burmese Society (No. Pendaftaran: 1410) … Responden- Responden [Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Pulau Pinang Permohonan bagi Semakan Kehakiman No: PA-25-32-08/2016] Antara 1. Five Star Heritage Sdn. Bhd (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 2. HLA Toon Toolseram (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069 3. Maung Aung Thou (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) 4. Moong BA (No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) 5. Moung Ban Chowi (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) 6. Maung Shwe Winn Sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Penang Burmese Society (No. Pendaftaran: 1410) … Pemohon- Pemohon Dan 1. Peguam Negara Malaysia 2. Nai Ninn Sararaksh (No. K/P: 400324-07-5301) 3. Ho Choon Teik (No. K/P: 750707-07-5261) … Responden- Responden S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 (didengar bersama) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: 02(f)-6-02/2023(P) ANTARA 1. FIVE STAR HERITAGE SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 2. HLA TOON TOOLSERAM (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069) 3. MAUNG AUNG THOU (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) 4. MOONG BA (No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) 5. MOUNG BAN CHOWI (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) … PERAYU-PERAYU DAN 1. NAI NINN SARARAKSH (No. K/P: 400324-07-5301) 2. HO CHOON TEIK (No. K/P: 750707-07-5261) … RESPONDEN- RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia (Bidangkuasa Rayuan) Rayuan Sivil No: P-02(IM)(NCvC)(W)-2553-10/2021 Antara 1. Five Star Heritage Sdn. Bhd (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 2. HLA Toon Toolseram (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069 3. Maung Aung Thou (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) 4. Moong BA (No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) 5. Moung Ban Chowi (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) … Perayu – Perayu S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 Dan 1. Nai Ninn Sararaksh (No. K/P: 400324-07-5301) 2. Ho Choon Teik (No. K/P: 750707-07-5261) … Responden- Responden [Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Pulau Pinang Permohonan bagi Semakan Kehakiman No: 24NCVC-1128-12/2014] Antara 1. Nai Ninn Sararaksh (No. K/P: 400324-07-5301) 2. Ho Choon Teik (No. K/P: 750707-07-5261) … Plaintif-Plaintif Dan 1. Five Star Heritage Sdn. Bhd (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 2. HLA Toon Toolseram (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069 3. Maung Aung Thou (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) 4. Moong BA (No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) 5. Moung Ban Chowi (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) … Defendan-Defendan (didengar bersama) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: 02(f)-7-02/2023(P) ANTARA 1. FIVE STAR HERITAGE SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 2. HLA TOON TOOLSERAM (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069) 3. MAUNG AUNG THOU (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 4. MOONG BA (No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) 5. MOUNG BAN CHOWI (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) 6. MAUNG SHWE WINN Sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Penang Burmese Society (No. Pendaftaran: 1410) … PERAYU-PERAYU DAN HO CHOON TEIK (No. K/P: 400324-07-5301) … RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia (Bidangkuasa Rayuan) Rayuan Sivil No: P-01(A)-609-10/2021 Antara Ho Choon Teik (No. K/P: 750707-07-5261) … Perayu Dan 1. Five Star Heritage Sdn. Bhd (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 2. HLA Toon Toolseram (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069) 3. Maung Aung Thou (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) 4. Moong Ba No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) 5. Moung Ban Chowi (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) 6. Muang Shwe Winn Sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Penang Burmese Society (No. Pendaftaran: 1410) … Responden- Responden S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Pulau Pinang Permohonan Semakan Bagi Kehakiman No: PA-25-32-08/2016 Antara 1. Five Star Heritage Sdn. Bhd (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 2. HLA Toon Toolseram (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069) 3. Maung Aung Thou (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) 4. Moong Ba No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) 5. Moung Ban Chowi (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) 6. Muang Shwe Winn Sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Penang Burmese Society (No. Pendaftaran: 1410) … Pemohon- Pemohon Dan 1. Peguam Negara Malaysia 2. Nai Ninn Sararaksh (No. K/P: 400324-07-5301) 3. Ho Choon Teik (No. K/P: 750707-07-5261) … Responden- Responden (didengar bersama) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: 02(f)-8-02/2023(P) ANTARA 1. FIVE STAR HERITAGE SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 2. HLA TOON TOOLSERAM (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069) 3. MAUNG AUNG THOU (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) 4. MOONG BA (No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 5. MOUNG BAN CHOWI (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) 6. MAUNG SHWE WINN Sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Penang Burmese Society (No. Pendaftaran: 1410) … PERAYU-PERAYU DAN NAI NINN SARARAKSH (No. K/P: 400324-07-5301) … RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia (Bidangkuasa Rayuan) Rayuan Sivil No: P-01(A)-602-10/2021 Antara Nai Ninn Sararaksh (No. K/P: 400324-07-5301) … Perayu Dan 4. Five Star Heritage Sdn. Bhd (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 5. HLA Toon Toolseram (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069) 6. Maung Aung Thou (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) 7. Moong Ba No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) 8. Moung Ban Chowi (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) 9. Muang Shwe Winn Sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Penang Burmese Society (No. Pendaftaran: 1410) … Responden- Responden S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Pulau Pinang Permohonan Semakan Bagi Kehakiman No: PA-25-32-08/2016 Antara 1. Five Star Heritage Sdn. Bhd (No. Syarikat: 942376-W) 2. HLA Toon Toolseram (No. K/P: 430113-07-5069) 3. Maung Aung Thou (No. K/P: 460804-07-5145) 4. Moong Ba No. K/P: 490906-07-5565) 5. Moung Ban Chowi (No. K/P: 621231-10-7713) 6. Muang Shwe Winn Sebagai Naib Pengerusi kepada Penang Burmese Society (No. Pendaftaran: 1410) … Pemohon- Pemohon Dan 1. Peguam Negara Malaysia 2. Nai Ninn Sararaksh (No.K/P: 400324-07-5301) 3. Ho Choon Teik (No.K/P: 750707-07-5261) … Responden- Responden] CORUM: MARY LIM THIAM SUAN, FCJ NORDIN BIN HASSAN, FCJ ABDUL KARIM BIN ABDUL JALIL, FCJ S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT [1] The central issue in these 4 appeals concerns the interpretation and understanding of the Attorney General’s consent obtained under Section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 [Act 359]. [2] Of the four appeals, three appeals arose from the judicial review proceedings [JR proceedings] while the fourth appeal arose from proceedings related to Originating Summons No: 24NCVC-1128-12/2014 [OS 1128]. We heard all four appeals together. After full consideration of the submissions, reasonings of the Courts below and the records of appeal, we unanimously allowed the appeals. BACKGROUND FACTS [3] Both the JR proceedings and OS 1128 arose from these salient facts. Vide a trust indenture dated 30.5.1845, on behalf of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the East India Company created a Burmese-Siamese Trust over a plot of land known as Lot 104 in Georgetown subject to terms and conditions as found in the indenture [the Trust]. On Lot 104 was/is a temple serving the Burmese and Siamese communities living on the island of Penang, and their successors in the said Trust. Expressly, the Trust was “for the management of the affairs of their Temple”. Four trustees, two from each community, were originally appointed to manage the affairs of the temple [Trustees]. Amongst those terms and conditions was that the trustees had no “right, power or authority whatsoever” to “grant, bargain, sell, assign, transfer, convert or otherwise alienate the said piece of Ground or any part or parcel thereof”. The trust land “shall remain, continue for the benefit of the Burmese and Siamese S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 Community of Prince of Wales Island and its Dependencies from henceforth forever”. [4] Despite those express terms and conditions, on 16.4.1994, the Trustees entered into a written agreement to inter alia, partition Lot 104 between the two communities. Lot 104 thus became Lots 2102 and 2103 and an order of Court dated 19.10.1994 [OS No: 24-665-1994 in the HC Penang] was secured to seal that agreement. The effect of that division left the temple remaining on the land held and still held by the Siamese trustees [Lot 2102]. The Burmese trustees continued to hold Lot 2103. [5] On 3.10.2002, funds which had been hitherto collected from the temple amounting to over RM3,778,523.73 were equally divided between the two communities. Again, another order of Court was secured to endorse the division of funds [OS No: 24-1209-2002]. Effectively, this left the original trust now standing as two separate trusts, one for the Siamese community in respect of Lot 2102 and the other for the Burmese community in respect of Lot 2103. For this purpose, the Attorney General’s consent was obtained on 1.6.2000. The High Court viewed this consent, referred to as the “1st Consent” as confirming the partition of the original Lot 104 into Lots 2102 and 2103 and that the original trust had been terminated. We will have more to say on this shortly. [6] Following this Court order of 3.10.2002, the trustees for the Burmese community [Penang Burmese Trustees] executed a new trust deed dated 31.7.2006 [Trust Deed]. Amongst its many terms were these: i. Subject to clause 7 of the Trust Deed, that the Penang Burmese Trustees shall have no power to sell the Penang S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 Burmese Trust Property or any part thereof or mortgage the same or to create a charge to any third party thereon; ii. Pursuant to clause 7, the Penang Burmese Trustees shall have the power to enter into a joint venture agreement and/or transaction with any such future, potential Develop and/or Contractor to develop and/or construct and/or build on the Penang Burmese Trust Property upon such terms and consideration as the Penang Burmese Trustees shall deem fit and proper and for the best interest and future benefit of the Burmese community in Penang. [7] On 25.8.2006, the Penang Burmese Trustees, the applicants in the JR proceedings entered into a joint-venture agreement with Airmas Development Sdn Bhd to commercially develop Lot 2103. A Court order was obtained on 31.10.2007 to declare that this joint-venture agreement was validly entered into by the parties. As part of that development, Lot 2103 was subdivided into Lots 10029 and 10030. With the joint-venture, the earlier was registered in the name of the developer whilst Lot 10030 was registered with the Penang Burmese Trustees. [8] The developer then commenced an action at the Sessions Court against Nai Ninn inter alia for vacant possession of premises located on Lot 10029. Nai Ninn filed his defence and also counterclaim, claiming that he was the owner of the premises and was not obliged to deliver vacant possession as Lot 10029 was part of a charitable trust created under the 1845 Indenture; and that the developer’s ownership of Lot 10029 was questionable. This case was subsequently transferred to the High Court. S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 [9] Meanwhile, vide OS 1128 filed in 2014, Nai Ninn Sararaksh and Ho Choon Teik challenged the validity of the Court order dated 31.10.2007, that because Lots 10029 and 10030 are part of a public charitable trust, the AG’s consent under section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 [Act 359] must first be secured before the order may be secured. Since there was none, the order was invalid and must be set aside ex debito justitiae. We understand Nai Ninn Sararaksh, of Siamese descent, lives on Lot 10029. In OS 1128, Nai Ninn Sararaksh and Ho Choon Teik have sued the developers as well as the Penang Burmese Trustees. [10] Although OS 1128 was filed in 2014, both Nai Ninn Sararaksh and Ho Choon Teik themselves did not procure the AG’s consent to file the action until 31.5.2016. In fact, Ho Choon Teik was not even a party to OS 1128 when it was filed. Armed with the AG’s consent, Ho Choon Teik then intervened and was added as the 2nd plaintiff to OS 1128. [11] Together with the developer and the Vice-Chairman of the Penang Burmese Association, the Penang Burmese Trustees filed the JR proceedings seeking to quash the AG’s consent dated 31.5.2016. The JR proceedings were filed on 30.8.2016. Decisions of the High Court [12] It is quite clear that the parties were fully aware of the two sets of proceedings. Unfortunately, the JR proceedings and OS 1128 were heard before different judges, and disposed of at different times. There does not appear to be any effort to consolidate the actions. This would have greatly assisted better use of time and resources, be it of the Court, counsel or the parties themselves. Each component share in that responsibility in the S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 administration of justice; and every effort ought to have been made, especially in order to obviate any inconsistent decisions, as happened in these appeals. [13] Insofar as OS 1128 was concerned, on 24.11.2017, the High Court allowed the claim and set aside the joint-venture agreement; holding that the agreement was unlawful, illegal, null and void and of no legal effect. At the same time, the High Court held that the division of Lot 2103 into Lots 10029 and 10030 was similarly unlawful, illegal, null and void and of no legal effect; that the subsequent registration of these subdivided lots to the developer and the Penang Burmese Trustees was also null and void. Further, the High Court set aside the order of the High Court dated 31.10.2007. Injunctive orders were also issued, effectively restraining the joint-venture agreement and the registration of the subdivided lots of Lot 2103. [14] The JR proceedings took a longer time to be disposed of; aggravated by the appeals involved. Initially, leave was refused by the High Court on the basis that the AG’s consent was not reviewable or justiciable. That decision was upheld on appeal. On 12.12.2018, the Federal Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal and ordered the substantive application to be heard on its merits. [15] On 29.9.2021, the High Court in the JR proceedings allowed the application and quashed the AG’s consent. In addition, the High Court held that the Trust Deed of 31.7.2006 was a private trust; and that all the earlier orders granted by the Court, namely orders dated 19.10.1994, 3.10.2002 and 31.10.2007 are valid and binding. S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 Decisions of the Court of Appeal [16] Both parties appealed against those respective decisions. Thankfully, the appeals were heard by the same panel at the Court of Appeal. On 15.6.2022, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals in respect of the JR proceedings whereas the decision of the High Court in respect of OS 1128 was allowed in part. OUR DECISION [17] On 30.1.2023, this Court granted leave on the following 3 questions of law: i. Whether the consent of the Attorney General can be retrospective in light of the clear wordings and pre-requisites stated in Section 9(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and the mandatory nature of Section 9(2) of the same Act and the decisions of the High Court in the cases of Ledchumanan Nagappan v R. Nadarajah & 2 Ors [1993] 4 CLJ 253 and Subramaniam Vallan & Anor v Dr. S. Sivasundaram & Ors [2016] 1 LNS 675 and whether such consent goes to jurisdiction? ii. In the light of the decision of the High Court which held that the subdivision of the original trust land should stay; that the land partitioned and given to the Burmese be vested in the remaining Burmese Trustee and as the beneficiaries of the Burmese Trust are ascertained or ascertainable individuals as held in Re Endacott [1959] 2 All ER 562, should the S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 Burmese Trust be construed as a private trust or a public trust and whether the construction of a trust instrument and the original intention of the settlor under such circumstances, a question of law or a question of fact? iii. If a donor’s dominant intent is to restrict the charitable gift to the exact purpose specified in the Trust Instrument and for no other purpose, is the Court at liberty to presume that the donor still evinced a general charitable intent and effectuate the donor’s intent by applying the cy-prés doctrine to that gift? [18] From the submissions, grounds of decisions and the records of appeal, we were clear that the determination of the first issue was sufficient to dispose of all four appeals. [19] As indicated earlier, this Court had already opined that the decision of the AG under section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 [Act 359] is justiciable and thereby reviewable by the Court. Further authorities may be gleaned from the decision in Peguam Negara Malaysia v Chin Chee Kow and another appeal [2019] 3 MLJ 443; that the AG’s power to grant or refuse consent is not absolute and is always subject to limits as prescribed in the statute itself. [20] Section 9 states as follows: (1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust for public, religious, social or charitable purposes, or where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Attorney General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 obtained the consent in writing of the Attorney General, may institute a suit or be joined as a party in any existing suit on behalf of the Government or the public for the purpose of— (a) asserting any interest or right in the trust property; (b) removing any trustee; (c) appointing a new trustee; (d) vesting any property in a trustee; (e) directing accounts and inquiries; (f) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust; (g) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged, charged or exchanged; (h) settling a scheme; and (i) obtaining such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. (2) No suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in subsection (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity with that subsection. [emphasis added] [21] From the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in appeals in relation to OS 1128, the AG’s consent dated 31.5.2016 was upheld on the following grounds. At paragraphs 22 and 23, the Court of Appeal reasoned that: [22] “…there was nothing wrong or improper in the AG granting his written consent for OS 1128 for otherwise it would be oppressive for Nai Ninn who has been asked to vacate his house to defend himself and to inquire into how the land, once held under a public charitable trust had been transferred to Five Star”. S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 [23] All that the AG allowed by his written consent is for Nai Ninn to ventilate his claim and for the Court to decide without taking side on the issue of the final outcome. We could not see how such a decision vested in him under s 9 of the GPA could be said to have been given unreasonably or irrationally such that no right-thinking decision maker would have given his consent. [22] At paragraphs 84 to 86, the Court of Appeal further rationalised why the AG’s consent need not be obtained before the commencement of OS 1128. According to the Court of Appeal, the expression- “… the Attorney General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Attorney General, may institute a suit or be joined as a party in any existing suit on behalf of the Government or the public” (emphasis added) in s 9(1) of the GPA indicates to us that what is far more important in keeping with the rationale behind the written consent of the AG is that no frivolous action or suit is to be commenced or continued to completion without the AG having applied his mind to the action and having consented to it. If the action or suit has commenced already, then it is not to be continued, as would be a case where a second person is joined as a party to the action or suit, without the written consent of the AG. [86] As the AG has no issue with that and was fully aware of the action that had been commenced, it would be pedantic and pointless to labour further on the point at which the consent in writing was given. There was also no application filed by the defendants to strike out the OS before the written consent of the AG was obtained. S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [23] In separate grounds written in respect of the JR proceedings, the Court of Appeal found that the AG did not act in bad faith when granting consent dated 31.5.2016; that it was important that “the AG did not take any partisan stand on the issues, but left it to the parties to persuade the Court”. The Court of Appeal further found that it was not legally wrong for the AG’s consent to be given as one of the issues which required probing was “how, why and when that a charitable trust for religious purpose could be turned into a purported private trust, no less with a commercial pursuit”. Consequently, the Court of Appeal found that there was “no good reason to review his decision”. [24] Amongst the many roles and duties of the Attorney General, an office constituted under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution, is the role and responsibility as custodian of the public interest; particularly in the matter of public, religious, social or charitable trusts. Such trusts are set up for the benefit of the larger sector of society and it is the AG’s duty to ensure that the intent of the relevant trusts is adhered to and safeguarded. [25] Some deliberations to this effect may be found in the decision of Chin Chee Kow (as the Secretary of Persatuan Kebajikan dan Amal Liam Hood Thong Chor Seng Thuan) v Peguam Negara Malaysia [2021] 5 MLJ 303. There, the Court of Appeal correctly explained the intention of Parliament in enacting section 9 of Act 359; that it is to empower the AG in the protection of charitable trusts from abuse and to prevent proceedings affecting the charity funds from unnecessary waste of such funds. [26] Similar views may be found in the earlier cases of Cheah Ewe Chong & Anor v Cheah Kee Wee & 15 Ors [1934] 1 MLJ 212; Haji Abdullah & Ors S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 v Ibrahim & Ors [1965] 2 MLJ 189; and Lee Eng Teh & Ors v Teh Thiang Seong & Anor [1967] 1 MLJ 42. [27] In Cheah Ewe Chong & Anor, Whitley J cited and adopted Eldon LC's observations made in Attorney General v Green 1 Jacob & Walker 303, that it is the duty of the Court to take care that as little expense as possible should be incurred by the charity estate. Courts are reminded that safeguards are emplaced through section 9 [then under section 18 of the FMS Chapter 17, the precursor to Act 359] in order to prevent abuse, and to prevent proceedings against charitable trusts from being instituted too frequently for no other reason than because it is known that costs will be payable out of charity funds. In Lee Eng Teh & Ors, Gill J explained the consequences of non-compliance, that “…but for the consent of the Attorney General or his being made a party to the action, the present action would not be maintainable”. [28] The failure to comply with the mandatory requirements in section 9 renders any action or suit instituted not maintainable. In these appeals, not only was OS 1128 filed before the written consent of the AG was obtained, the written consent when finally obtained, is also clearly outside the terms prescribed by section 9. This is quite aside from the fact that both Nai Ninn and Ho did not meet its mandatory requirements. [29] The significance of non-compliance with the requirements in section 9 was explained in Ledchumanan Nagappan v R Nadarajah & 2 Ors [1993] 4 CLJ 253. There, the plaintiff who was seeking certain declaratory orders from the Court concerning the affairs of the Subramanian Temple at Batu Caves including an injunction to stop the celebration of Thaipusam at that Temple failed to obtain the prior written consent of the AG before instituting S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 his action. The application was dismissed when the learned Judge found inter alia that there was a “total failure to comply with the three preliminary requirements” under that provision. Although not named as a party, the AG’s representative had attended Court to express the view that the action should not be allowed to proceed since there was non-compliance of the requirements, namely there must be in existence of at least two persons having an interest, the prior written consent of the AG, and the suit itself being brought in the name of the AG. The Court agreed and was of the view that “it would not be necessary to say anymore”, on that point. [30] We agree with those principles and the approach. Sections 9(1) and (2) provide in quite clear terms how and when the AG becomes involved in such trusts, and what requirements must be met before matters relating to such trusts may be challenged in Court. First, it is in the nature of trust itself. The AG only becomes involved under section 9 where the trust is either an express or constructive trust set up for public, religious, social or charitable purposes. Next, there must be an allegation of breach of such a trust; or the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of such trust. In simple terms, Court action is contemplated. [31] Where proceedings in Court are indeed contemplated, section 9 mandates that whoever is moving the Court must first obtain the written consent of the AG. We can appreciate the rationale for such a requirement. As explained in the above case authorities, the process allows scrutiny by the AG to check against abuse and wastage of funds and other resources. Public, religious, social or charitable trusts are, by their very nature and intent, set up and intended for a larger community and purpose; serving an entirely different set of beneficiaries identified by some common cause or interest. Such trusts invariably would serve more than a single person. S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 21 [32] So, where there is an allegation of breach or where direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of such trust, and some suit or proceeding is contemplated, it makes good sense that the written consent of the AG is first procured. And, according to section 9(1), that written consent must be sought by two or more persons. Again, this makes good sense, appreciating the nature and character of such trusts. More than one disgruntled person or complainant must step forward to make that complaint and, secure the prior written consent of the AG. [33] The next requirement is that the application must seek any of the reliefs set out in section 9(1)(a) to (i). [34] In respect of the first requirement, there is present the intention to sue for an alleged breach of trust for the reasons relied on. The reliefs sought in OS 1128 are also within the reliefs set out in section 9(1)(a) to (i). However, the impugned written consent was sought only after OS 1128 had already been filed and it was sought by actually just one as opposed to the requisite two persons. The application by Ho to be joined as a party to an existing suit similarly suffers defects due to non-compliance of section 9. [35] Section 9(1) also deals with joinder; that there must be two or more persons intending to join, and not just the single person like Ho here. Again, this is understandable given the nature and character of the trust. This, too, is on the basis that the suit already instituted is valid to start with. Where the suit to which Ho seeks consent for joinder is itself flawed for want of consent under section 9, his application to join will not in the least alleviate the fatal deficiencies of the suit when it was first filed. S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 22 [36] In the present appeals, Nai Ninn was the sole plaintiff in OS 1128 when it was filed in 2014. He did not secure the AG’s written consent at the time of filing. Ho, on the other hand, applied to intervene and be joined as an additional plaintiff to OS 1128 which had already been filed by Nai Ninn. The records show that both of them then made that single application on 20.8.2015 and the AG gave his written consent on 31.5.2016 in the following terms: AKTA PROSIDING KERAJAAN 1956 [AKTA] PERSETUJUAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 9(1) PADA menjalankan kuasa-kuasa yang diberikan oleh Seksyen 9(1) Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956 [Akta 359], saya, TAN SRI DATO’ SRI HAJI MOHAMED APANDI BIN ALI, Peguam Negara Malaysia dengan ini bersetuju dengan permohonan Encik Nai Ninn Sararaksh (No KP: 400324-07-5301 dan Encik Ho Choon Teik (No. KP: 750707-07-5261) bagi meneruskan satu prosiding di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Pulau Pinang melalui Saman Pemula No: 24NCVC-1128-12/2014 untuk mendapatkan perintah seperti berikut: (i) satu perintah mengepikan pendaftaran nama-nama Defendan-Defendan sebagai pemilik Lot 10029 dan Lot 10030 secara ex debito justitiae atas alasan ketiadaan bidang kuasa dan ketiadaan kebenaran Peguam Negara di bawah Seksyen 9 Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956; (ii) satu perintah injunksi tetap yang menghalang Defendan-Defendan sama ada oleh dirinya sendiri, pengkhidmat-pengkhidmat, ejen-ejen mereka atau sesiapapun daripada bertindak sebagai pemilik berdaftar hartanah amanah awam; (iii) satu perintah bahawa Defendan-Defendan mengemukakan penyata akaun bagi “Harta Amanah Keturunan Burma di Pulau Pinang” (“Penang Burmese Trust Property”) kepada Mahkamah yang Mulia ini; dan (iv) satu perintah bahawa segala wang yang telah digunakan oleh Pemegang Amanah Burma selepas 31.10.2007 berkenaan akaun hartanah amanah keturunan Burma Pulau Pinang dikembalikan dengan serta-merta dan didepositkan ke dalam Mahkamah yang Mulia ini dan kemudian pihak komuniti Burma Pulau Pinang. Bertarikh: 31 haribulan Mei 2016 S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 23 [37] In our view, this written consent not only does not meet the terms of section 9(1), it clearly exceeds the restrictions imposed by section 9. It is a consent devoid of authority and mandate in several respects. That being so, the written consent is liable to be quashed, rendering OS 1128 as not maintainable and the High Court was thus right in issuing the order of certiorari quashing the said decision. [38] On the assumption that both Nai Ninn and Ho fulfil the conditions of having an interest in the trust, the application serves two different objectives depending on whose application we are addressing. For Nai Ninn, it was to institute a suit, or as it would appear, to regularise a suit which had already been filed at the time of the application for AG’s consent. As for Ho, it was to be joined as a party to an existing suit, OS 1128. In either case, both are alone for their respective purpose. In our view, this distinction of separate purpose or objective illustrates that their respective application was and is outside the meaning of the words “two or more persons”. [39] Further, in the case of Nai Ninn, his application is obviously outside the terms of section 9(1) as the AG’s consent was sought long after he had filed OS 1128 on 15.12.2014; almost as an afterthought. As can be seen, section 9(1) expressly requires the written consent to be procured before the suit is instituted. To say that consent may be sought and procured after Court proceedings for the reliefs mentioned in section 9(1)(a) to (i) have been instituted pays scant respect to the clear intention and requirements in section 9(1). [40] It also cannot be said that the AG is empowered to give consent retrospectively as this, quite clearly, runs contrary to the express terms of S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 24 section 9(1). Such an argument is like a double-edged sword as ironically, this suggests that Nai Ninn and Ho’s own complaint that the Court orders secured by the Penang Burmese Trustees are invalid for want of prior written consent from the AG is unfounded since consent may be given retrospectively. [41] In any case, the written consent of the AG uses the term ‘meneruskan’ which translates to mean “carry on” or “continue”. Such a term does not have the effect of retrospectivity but merely connotes permission or consent to proceed with what has already been started. Such a consent takes effect from the date of the consent itself which is 31.5.2016 and not 15.12.2014, the date when OS 1128 was filed. This leaves OS 1128 bereft of the necessary consent at the material time when it was instituted in 2014. [42] It must also be emphasised that the term “meneruskan” is not found in section 9 at all, especially in section 9(1) in which case, the impugned consent is without the authority of law. We find it not just difficult but a strain on the language to say that the words “institute” or “join” include “meneruskan”. [43] Perhaps, this becomes clearer when section 9(1) is contrasted with the power to grant sanction in cases of insolvency under section 471(1) of the Companies Act 2016 [Act 333]. That provision reads as follows: 471. (1) When a winding up order has been made or an interim liquidator has been appointed, no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court and in accordance with such terms as the Court imposes. S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 25 [44] Section 471(1) uses the words “proceeded with or commenced”. This indicates that the power to grant leave to sue wound up companies is not limited to fresh actions or proceedings [“commenced”] but extends to the instance where actions or proceedings have already commenced [“proceeded with”]. In the latter, these actions may now proceed, carry on or be continued; or “meneruskan”. Again, these words do not appear in section 9(1) in which case, the AG’s consent of 31.5.2016 is without legal power or is outside the terms of section 9(1); and is thus invalid. [45] In addition, the Court of Appeal has overlooked the presence of section 9(2) which reminds the importance of compliance with the requirements of section 9(1): No suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in subsection (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity with that subsection. [emphasis added] [46] Section 9(2) reiterates the mandatory requirement of securing written consent before institution of a suit. Since OS 1128 was instituted before AG’s consent under section 9(1) was obtained, it is not “in conformity with that subsection”. While the AG has discretion on the matter of consent, it is with regard the grant, refusal or imposition of terms or conditions to such request for consent. The consent at all times must however, relate to a suit or proceeding which is yet to be instituted, and not to one which has already been instituted. In the latter case, the AG’s consent is in respect of whether the applicants for consent may be joined as a party to that suit already filed. We must add that in the latter case of joinder of party(s), the institution of that suit must, in the first place, have complied with the terms of section S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 26 9(1). In the case of OS 1128, no written consent was secured before it was instituted; aggravating the position yet further. [47] We do not find the High Court decision of Lee Chick Yet v Chen Siew Hee [1977] 2 MLJ 218 of assistance. Bearing in mind that it was a first- instance decision where the learned Judge opined that the Court could direct compliance of section 9 within a certain time period instead of striking out the whole action, that argument is flawed. Not only does it run contrary to the plain and unambiguous terms of section 9(1), but as pointed out earlier, the Penang Burmese Trustees similarly ought to have been given the same option. [48] The respondents had urged this Court to apply the principle of nunc pro tunc. With due respect, we decline to do so. [49] The principle is generally applied to cases involving court decisions, where the court seeks to correct their records on clerical errors. Black’s Law Dictionary explains the term as follows: ‘Now for then’ having retroactive legal effect through a court’s inherent power the court entered a nunc pro tunc order to correct a clerical error in the record. Acts allowed to be done after the time when they should be done; nunc pro tunc nearly described inherent powers of court to make the court records to speak the truth. [emphasis added] [50] That does not arise here at all. See also Kok Song Kong v BSP Co Sdn Bhd [1988] 2 MLJ 440: S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 27 In the light of our conclusion that on the facts of the present case we are able to hold that the suit was instituted on 18 April 1984, it may strictly be unnecessary for us to say or do anything further; but out of caution we will direct that the writ be resealed nunc pro tunc, that is to say, with the date, 18 April 1984, which it ought to have borne in the first place. We do this in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction which the court has over its officers, not under any of the provisions of the rules. Where the rights of a party are threatened by an act or default of an officer of the court, the court clearly has such a power to correct the matter. [emphasis added] [51] No error prevails in the Court records for any correction; the only error lies in the impugned consent for the reasons we have already explained. [52] Before we leave this issue, we feel compelled to deal with a point made at paragraph 4 of the grounds of decision in respect of appeal on OS 1128. There, the Court of Appeal found that the written consent of the AG had been obtained in relation to the order dated 19.10.1994. We have poured through the records and we cannot find any consent to this effect. [53] There are only 2 consents issued by the AG, the 2nd consent dated 31.5.2016, the impugned consent has already been dealt with. The other consent, the first, is dated 1.6.2000 and it reads as follows: AKTA PROSIDING KERAJAAN 1956 PERSETUJUAN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 9(1) PADA menjalankan kuasa-kuasa yang diberikan oleh subseksyen 9(1) Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956, saya, Tan Sri Datuk Seri Mohtar bin Abdullah dengan ini bersetuju dengan permulaan satu prosiding di Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang oleh Wong Hoong Keat (Penerima Harta Amanah Orang Thai/Burma di Pulau Pinang), (No. K.P. 3238892), Dr. Ko Ko Win (No. K.P. 9600855), U Khema Wuntha (No. K.P. US 035257736), Cheah Boo Eng (No. K.P. 4461657). Ong Ba Nee (No. K.P. 570101-07-5429), Prabandh Sanasen (No. K.P. 210819-71-5147) dan S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 28 Songkeram @ Sungkram a/l Apau (No. K.P. 7644628) untuk memohon perintah- perintah seperti berikut: (i) (a) Bahawa pelantikan Dr. Ko Ko Win, U Khema Wuntha, Cheah Boo Eng dan Ong Ba Nee yang beralamat di Dhammikarama Burmese Buddhist Temple, No. 24 Lorong Burma, 10250 Pulau Pinang sebagai Pemegang Amanah Komuniti Burma di Pulau Pinang pada 22 Februari 1998 menggantikan Maung Boon Khan dan Hia Toon Toolseram disahkan oleh Mahkamah; (b) Bahawa harta yang terletak di Lot 2103, Georgetown Seksyen 4, No. H.S. (D) 528, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang diletakhak atas nama Dr. Ko Ko Win, U Khema Wuntha, Cheah Boo Eng dan Ong Ba Nee sebagai Pemegang Amanah Komuniti Burma di Pulau Pinang; (ii) (a) Bahawa pelantikan Prabandh Sanasen dan Songkeram@Sungkram a/l Apau yang beralamat di Chaiya Mangalaram Buddhist Temple, No. 17, Lorong Burma, 10250 Pulau Pinang sebagai Pemegang Amanah tambahan Komuniti Thai di Pulau Pinang dalam Mesyuarat Agung Komuniti Thai di Pulau Pinang pada 6 September 1998 disahkan oleh Mahkamah; (b) Bahawa harta yang terletak di Lot 2102, Georgetown, Seksyen 4, No. H.S. (D) 527, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang diletakhak atas nama Prabandh Sanasen dan Songkeram @ Sungkaram a/l Apau dan atas nama Pemegang Amanah yang sedia ada iaitu Bhikku Daeng a/l Nai Chan Satchap dan Sook Buranakol sebagai Pemegang Amanah Komuniti Thai di Pulau Pinang; (iii) (a) Bahawa akaun terakhir Penerima Harta Amanah Orang Thai/Burma disahkan dan harta amanah termasuk wang tunai dalam Simpanan Tetap dalam akaun bank diserahkan kepada Pemegang Amanah kedua-dua tanah yang berkenaan iaitu Lot 2103 kepada Pemegang Amanah Komuniti Burma dan Lot 2102 kepada Pemegang Amanah Komuniti Thai; (b) Bahawa Wong Hoong Keat, Penerima Harta Amanah Orang Thai/Burma di Pulau Pinang dilepaskan sebagai Penerima Amanah tersebut; (iv) Bahawa semua kos yang timbul daripada tindakan ini dan kos permohonan ini dicukai dan diuntukkan daripada Amanah tersebut; dan (v) Lain-lain relif yang difikirkan patut dan suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah yang mulia ini. S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 29 Bertarikh pada 1 haribulan Jun 2000. [54] With this consent, an order of Court dated 3.10.2002 was obtained granting orders which essentially dealt with the appointment of trustees and the vesting of Lots 2102 and 2103 on the appropriate trustees: ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN 1. bahawa Wong Hoong Keat, sebagai Penerima yang dilantik melalui Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi, Pulau Pinang bertarikh 14.12.1973, dilepaskan sebagai Penerima daripada mengutip segala sewa dan hasil (pendapatan) untuk harta amanah mengenai Amanah-amanah dalam suatu Dokumen Amanah menerusi Geran No. 2655 bertarikh 30.05.1845; 2. bahawa nama-nama Maung Boon Khan (K/P: A3103868) Hla Toon Toolseram (K/P: 3465236) dan Sook Buranakol (K/P 4083456) dibatalkan dan dikeluarkan daripada geran mengenai hakmilik tanah yang dikenali sebagai Geran No: 61389, Lot 2102, Daerah Timur Laut, Seksyen 4, Georgetown, Pulau Pinang (dahulu di kenali sebagai H.S.(D) 527, Lot 2102, Daerah Timur Laut, Seksyen 4, Georgetown, Pulau Pinang) dan Songkeram@Sungkram a/l Apau (No KPT: 450515-02-5097) digantikan dan diletakhakkan sebagai Pemegang amanah; 3. bahawa nama-nama Bhikku Daeng a/l Nai Chan Satchapan (K/P: 2190061) dan Sook Buranakol (K/P: 4083456), simati, dibatalkan dan dikeluarkan daripada geran mengenai hakmilik tanah yang dikenali sebagai Geran No: 61390, Lot 2103, Daerah Timur Laut, Seksyen 4, Georgetown, Pulau Pinang (dahulu di kenali sebagai H.S.(D) 528, Lot 2103, Daerah Timur Laut, Seksyen 4, Georgetown, Pulau Pinang) 4. bahawa akaun dalam Afidavit bertarikh 19.09.2002 oleh Penerima Harta Amanah Komuniti Thai-Burma di Pulau Pinang, En. Wong Hoong Keat, disahkan dan diluluskan dan daripada wang sebanyak Ringgit Malaysia Tiga Juta Tujuh Ratus Tujuh Puluh Lapan Ribu Lima Ratus Dua Puluh Tiga dan Sen Tujuh Puluh Tiga (RM3,778,523.73) Sahaja dalam pengangan pihak Penerima setakat 30.6.2002, pihak Penerima diperintahkan:- (i) membayar wang sebanyak Ringgit Malaysia Satu Juta Lapan Ratus Lapan Puluh Sembilan Ribu Dua Ratus Enam Puluh Satu dan Sen Lapan Puluh Enam (RM1,889,261.86) Sahaja kepada Tetuan Vello & S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 30 Associates, Peguambela dan Peguamcara, Pulan Pinang untuk dan bagi pihak dan untuk membayar bersama-sama kepada Bhikku Daeng a/l Nai Chan Satchapan (K/P:2190061) dan Songkeram@Sungkram a/l Apau (KPT: 450515-02-5097) sebagai Pemegang-pemegang Amanah Komuniti Thai di Pulau Pinang; dan (ii) membayar wang sebanyak Ringgit Malaysia Satu Juta Lapan Ratus Lapan Puluh Sembilan Ribu Dua Ratus Enam Puluh Satu dan Sen Lapan Puluh Enam (RM1,889,261.86) Sahaja kepada Tetuan G. Raju and Company, Peguambela dan Peguamcara, Pulau Pinang untuk dan bagi pihak dan untuk membayar bersama-sama kepada Maung Boon Khan (K/P: A 3103868) dan Hla Toon Toolseram (K/P 3465236) sebagai Pemegang-pemegang Amanah Komuniti Burma di Pulau Pinang 5. Bahawa pihak Penerima hendaklah memberi suatu akaun terakhir daripada 01.07.2002 sehingga 31.10.2002 dan selepas menolak peruntukkan untuk kos, perbelanjaan dan lain-lain bayaran yang patut, membahagikan serisama wang-wang yang dalam pegangannya dan membayar setengahnya (1/2) kepada Tetuan Vello & Associates, Peguamcara dan Peguambela, Pulau Pinang untuk dan bagi pihak Pemegang-pemegang amanah Thai dan setengah (1/2) yang bakinya kepada, Tetuan G. Raju and Company, Peguamcara dan Peguambela untuk dan bagi pihak Pemegang- pemegang Amanah Burma. 6. Kos yang dipersetujui sebanyak Ringgit Malaysia Tiga Puluh Ribu (RM30,000.00) Sahaja diperuntukkan daripada tabung Amanah tersebut dan pihak Penerima hendaklah membayar wang sebanyak RM10,000.00 kepada Tetuan G. Raju and Company, RM10,000.00 kepada Tetuan Vello & Associates dan RM10,000.00 kepada Tetuan Pregrave & Mathews sebagai peguamcara-peguamcara untuk pihak-pihak dalam perkara ini masing- masing; dan 7. Bahawa Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah, Pulau Pinang hendaklah mendaftarkan perintah-perintah yang dibuat dalam perkara ini dalam geran-geran masing- masing. Bertarikh pada 3 haribulan Oktober 2002 [55] There is no mention, whether in the first consent or in this Court order of the splitting of Lot 104. This is hardly surprising since Lot 104 had already been split as far back as 19.10.1994: S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 31 ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN:- 1. Bahawa harta amanah Thai Burmesa yang terletak di Lot No. 104 Seksyen 4, Georgetown, Daerah Timur Laut, Pulau Pinang dibahagikan mengikut pelan ukuran No. CAB/11/C/PG/92-P1 bertarikh 26 haribulan Ogos, 1993 danPerjanjian untuk Pecah Milik bertarikh 16 haribulan April, 1994 dan Perjanjian Untuk Pengurusan Bersama ke atas Tanah Perkuburan bertarikh 16 haribulan April, 1994 dan bahagian yang ditanda “1” dalam pelan ukuran harta amanah tersebut didaftarkan dan diletakhak atas nama Pemegang Amanah Komuniti Thai dan bahagian yang ditanda “2” dalam pelan ukuran harta amanah tersebut didaftarkan dan diletakhak atas nama Pemegang Amanah 2. Tanah Perkuburan yang terletak di bahagian yang bertanda “1” dan “2” dalam pelan ukuran harta amanah tersebut diurus bersama oleh Pemegang- Pemegang Amanah Komuniti Thai dan Burma; 3. Encik Chuah Ah Bah dari Jurukur Chuah & Rakan, seorang jurukur tanah berlesen dilantik untuk memohon bagi pecah lot dan pembahagian keatas harta amanah tersebut; dan 4. Kos untuk permohonan ini dibayar dari kumpulan wang amanah. Bertarikh pada 19 haribulan Oktober, 1994. [56] For this “split” of Lot 104, there does not appear to be any consent from the AG, of any description, for what we see is a most critical departure from the 1845 Indenture. Conclusion [57] For the above reasons, we find for the purposes of section 9 of Act 359, the learned AG has no discretion to give consent after a suit has already been instituted. Worse when the application for consent is only made by a single person and not two or more persons. To say otherwise would defeat the ‘filter’ mechanism in the statute and the protective role that the AG plays as custodian of the public interest. S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 32 [58] In the circumstances, the impugned consent of 31.5.2016 is invalid and is liable to be quashed. The High Court had rightly granted the orders sought in the JR proceedings. Question 1 is thus answered in the negative. [59] In view of our answer to Question 1, and since OS 1128 was instituted without the consent of the AG, that OS is incompetent and not maintainable. We therefore do not see the need to answer questions 2 and 3. [60] The appeals in relation to the JR proceedings are thus allowed and the decisions of the Court of Appeal dated 15.6.2022 are set aside and the decision of the High Court is reinstated. In respect of the appeal in relation to OS 1128, the appeal is allowed and the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the High Court are set aside. [61] There is no order as to costs. Dated: 5 December 2023 Signed (MARY LIM THIAM SUAN) Federal Court Judge Malaysia S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 33 Counsel/Solicitors For the appellant Civil Appeal No. 01(f)-3-02/2023(P), No. 02(f)-6- 02/2023(P), No. 02(f)-7-02/2023(P), No.02(f)-8-02/2023(P): Karin Lim, A. Suppiah, Julinder Daliwal & Alisa Lim Wei Zhen Aznil Naziah Juli & Praba Peguambela dan Peguamcara Suite 2-05 Tingkat 2 Bangunan Wisma Pantai Jalan Kampong Gajah 12200 Butterworth For the respondent Civil Appeal No.01(f)-3-02/2023(P): SFC Shamsul Bolhassan, SFC Mohammad Al-Saifi Hj. Hashim, SFC Nurul Farhana Khalid, FC Nor Aqilah Abdul Halim & FC Nur Syazwani Abdul Aziz Bahagian Guaman Jabatan Peguam Negara No. 45, Persiaran Perdana Presint 4 For the respondent Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-6-02/2023(P) & No. 02(f)-7-02/2023(P): T. Gunalan Seelan, Balwant Singh Purba, Eng Yuh Pei & Tan Shin Yi Messrs. Balwant Singh & Co. Peguambela dan Peguamcara No. 20-B (Ground Floor) Lebuh Penang 10200 Pulau Pinang For the respondent Civil Appeal No.02(f)-8-02/2023(P): T. Gunalan Seelan, Ong Ken-Jeen & Lee Min Yau Messrs. Vello & Associates Peguam Bela dan Peguamcara No. 105, Anson Road 10400 Penang S/N U4S9YQbmu0CsfpGKsc0njQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

DA-33-1-01/2022

PEMPETISYEN SEK CHIA WEN RESPONDEN CHUA KOK LUI

PETISYEN PENCERAIAN : Apakah yang menyebabkan Perkahwinan Tersebut pecah belah dan tidak dapat dipulihkan lagi - sama ada Responden wajib membayar nafkah bulanan kepada Pempetisyen dan berapakah jumlahnya sebulan - sama ada hak penjagaan anak-anak sesuai dan sepatutnya diberikan kepada Pempetisyen - berapakah peruntukan nafkah bulanan bagi anak-anak yang perlu diberikan oleh Responden - sama ada Pempetisyen berhak mendapat harta sepencarian yang didaftarkan atas nama Responden dan jika berhak, bagaimana harta sepencarian tersebut perlu dibahagikan - sama ada kredit KWSP Responden merupakan harta sepencarian dan 50% bahagian kredit itu patut diberikan kepada Pempetisyen.

05/12/2023

YA Dato' Roslan Bin Abu Bakar

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=1b895bc6-298a-4325-b594-de3c438db198&Inline=true

Microsoft Word - DA-33-1-01-2022 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KOTA BHARU DALAM NEGERI KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, MALAYSIA PETISYEN PERCERAIAN NO: DA-33-1-01/2022 ANTARA SEK CHIA WEN (ISTERI) … PEMPETISYEN DAN CHUA KOK LUI (SUAMI) … RESPONDEN PENGHAKIMAN Pengenalan [1] Pempetisyen (isteri) memfailkan petisyen penceraian ini bagi mendapatkan (antara lain) perintah pembubaran perkahwinan, nafkah bulanan dirinya serta anak-anak, hak penjagaan anak dan harta sepencarian dari Responden (suami). Fakta [2] Pempetisyen dan Responden telah berkahwin secara sah pada 12.12.2014 di Pertubuhan Penganut Tokong Mek, Tin Hin Kong, Kota Bharu, Kelantan (selepas ini dipanggil “Perkahwinan Tersebut”). [3] Selepas berkahwin, kedua-dua mereka tinggal bersama di sebuah rumah beralamat PT 631, Taman Sri Kutan, Kampung Kutan, Wakaf Bharu, Kelantan (selepas ini dipanggil “Rumah Matrimonial”). Mereka telah dikurniakan dengan tiga orang anak iaitu Chua Sher Ling (Perempuan – berumur 6 tahun), Chua Yu Xuan (Perempuan – 2 tahun) dan Chua Chong Bao (Lelaki – 1 tahun). [4] Sepanjang Perkahwinan Tersebut, Pempetisyen pernah bekerja sebagai seorang pereka grafik. Manakala Responden pula adalah pencari rezeki utama kepada keluarga ini. Responden juga telah membelikan Pempetisyen sebuah kenderaan MPV Mazda CX5 untuk kegunaan Pempetisyen dan didaftarkan atas nama Pempetisyen. 05/12/2023 16:00:31 DA-33-1-01/2022 Kand. 39 S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [5] Anak ketiga mereka (bongsu) dilahirkan pramatang pada 25.6.2020 i.e. dalam tempoh kandungan 25 minggu dan disahkan mengidap penyakit paru instrisil (childhood interstitial lung disease). Anak tersebut telah dimasukan ke wad penjagaan intensif bayi (NICU) di Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan (selepas ini dipanggil “HUSM”) dan selepas itu dipindahkan ke Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II, Kota Bharu, Kelantan (selepas ini dipanggil “HRPZ2”). [6] Pempetisyen telah keluar dari Rumah Matrimonial bersama anak sulongnya pada bulan Jun 2021 dan menyewa sebuah rumah lain. Anak kedua dan ketiga kini tinggal bersama-sama dengan Responden. [7] Sepanjang Perkahwinan Tersebut, terdapat beberapa harta alih dan tak alih yang didaftarkan atas nama Responden iaitu lima (5) buah hartanah, dua (2) buah syarikat dan dua (2) buah kenderaan. Isu [8] Isu-isu yang perlu diputuskan mahkamah dalam perbicaraan ini adalah: (i) apakah yang menyebabkan Perkahwinan Tersebut pecah belah dan tidak dapat dipulihkan lagi. (ii) sama ada Responden wajib membayar nafkah bulanan kepada Pempetisyen dan berapakah jumlahnya sebulan. (iii) sama ada hak penjagaan anak-anak sesuai dan sepatutnya diberikan kepada Pempetisyen. (iv) berapakah peruntukan nafkah bulanan bagi anak-anak yang perlu diberikan oleh Responden. (v) sama ada Pempetisyen berhak mendapat harta sepencarian yang didaftarkan atas nama Responden dan jika berhak, bagaimana harta sepencarian tersebut perlu dibahagikan. (vi) sama ada kredit KWSP Responden merupakan harta sepencarian dan 50% bahagian kredit itu patut diberikan kepada Pempetisyen. S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 Kes Pempetisyen [9] Memandangkan anak bongsu mereka dilahirkan pramatang dan memerlukan penjagaan serta rawatan rapi, Pempetisyen dan Responden mencapai persetujuan supaya Pempetisyen berhenti kerja sepenuhnya dan Responden menjadi pencari rezeki tunggal. [10] Pempetisyen menyatakan sepanjang anak bongsu mereka dirawat di HUSM dan HRPZ2 (lebih kurang 1 tahun 1 bulan), Responden tidak pernah menemani, membantu atau menjenguk anak itu di hospital. Hanya keluarga Pempetisyen sahaja yang membantunya. Selepas dibenarkan keluar dari HRPZ2, anak bongsu tersebut perlu mendapat pemeriksaan serta rawatan susulan yang kerap dan kadangkala memerlukan bermalam di hospital. Tugas ini digalas oleh Pempetisyen tanpa bantuan Responden. [11] Begitu juga dengan dua lagi anak mereka di mana Responden hanya memberikan sumbangan kewangan sahaja tanpa membantu menjaga dan menguruskan mereka. Oleh yang demikian Pempetisyen terpaksa menempatkan mereka di rumah ibubapanya semasa dia membawa anak bongsu ke hospital. [12] Pempetisyen juga mengatakan dia bersabar dengan sikap Responden ini bagi menjaga keharmonian rumahtangga mereka. Namun kesabarannya tercabar apabila mendapat tahu Responden mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan seorang wanita (selepas ini dipanggil “Wanita Tersebut”) dan berlaku curang di Hotel Grand Renai, Kota Bharu, Kelantan sejak bulan Februari 2020 iaitu semasa Pempetisyen mengandung anak bongsu. [13] Kemuncaknya pada 27.5.2021 jam lebih kurang 4.30 petang, Pempetisyen bersama adiknya (SP2) telah berjaya menangkap perbuatan curang Responden bersama Wanita Tersebut di sebuah bilik hotel berkenaan. SP2 telah membuat rakaman video berhubung dengan kejadian tersebut (dikemukakan sebagai eksibit P4 dan P5). [14] Pempetisyen masih memberikan peluang kepada Responden untuk berubah tetapi Responden memaklumkan bahawa dia tidak dapat melupakan dan tidak dapat melepaskan Wanita Tersebut. S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [15] Disebabkan kecewa dengan insiden tersebut, Pempetisyen telah keluar dari Rumah Matrimonial dengan anak sulongnya pada 1.6.2021 dan menyewa sebuah rumah di Kota Bharu, Kelantan dengan sewaan RM1,000 sebulan. Mulai tarikh tersebut, Responden telah menghentikan bayaran nafkah Pempetisyen dan juga bayaran ansuran bulanan kenderaan Mazda CX5. Disebabkan kesempitan kewangan, Pempetisyen telah menjualkan kenderaan tersebut dan balik ke rumah ibubapanya. [16] Pempetisyen cuba membawa pulang anak kedua dan ketiga ke rumah ibubapanya tetapi dihalang oleh ibubapa Responden. Sebaliknya Responden tidak langsung datang melawat anak sulong mereka di rumah ibubapa Pempetisyen. Kes Responden [17] Responden bersetuju dengan permohonan Pempetisyen supaya Perkahwinan Tersebut dibubarkan dan dikri nisi menjadi mutlak serta merta. Responden mempertikaikan tuntutan nafkah bulanan Pempetisyen dan anak-anak kerana terlalu tinggi dan tidak munasabah. Pendapatannya juga merosot disebabkan salah sebuah syarikatnya telah digulungkan kerana tidak mampu membayar hutang. [18] Responden juga tidak bersetuju dengan permohonan Pempetisyen untuk mendapatkan hak penjagaan terhadap ketiga-tiga anak mereka. Ini adalah kerana Pempetisyen telah menyerahkan sendiri anak bongsu mereka kepada Responden dan tidak mahu menjaganya kerana anak tersebut mengalami masalah kesihatan. Dan semasa dalam jagaan Responden, kesihatan anak bongsu itu telah mula baik dan tidak lagi bergantung kepada tangki oksigen untuk bernafas. [19] Selanjutnya Responden menyatakan kesemua harta alih dan tidak alih adalah diperolehinya sebelum mereka berkahwin dan kesemuanya menggunakan wangnya sendiri. [20] Responden menghujahkan Perkahwinan Tersebut tidak dapat diselamatkan lagi kerana Pempetisyen tidak menguruskan rumahtangga dengan baik dan tidak melayan Responden. S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 Penelitian dan penemuan mahkamah [21] Dalam perbicaraan ini Pempetisyen mengemukakan seramai tiga (3) orang saksi iaitu ayahnya (SP1), adik lelakinya (SP2) dan dirinya sendiri (SP3). Manakala Responden hanya mempunyai seorang sahaja saksi iaitu dirinya sendiri (SD1). [22] Relif-relif yang dituntut Pempetisyen adalah: (i) Perkahwinan Tersebut dibubarkan dan dikri nisi dijadikan mutlak serta merta. (ii) Responden membayar nafkah bulanan Pempetisyen. (iii) Pempetisyen diberikan hak jagaan ketiga-tiga anak mereka dan Responden diberikan akses untuk melawat. (iv) Responden membayar nafkah bulanan ketiga-tiga anak mereka. (v) harta sepencarian dijual kepada pihak ketiga dan harga jualan bersih dibahagikan sama rata atau secara alternatifnya, hartanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 1940, Hakmilik GM 1832, Kampong Seberang Sekil, Daerah Salor, Mukim Salor, Kelantan diberikan kepada Pempetisyen secara mutlak untuk dijadikan rumah kediaman Pempetisyen bersama anak-anak. (vi) deklarasi bahawa kredit KWSP Responden adalah merupakan harta perkahwinan dan 50% bahagian kredit KWSP itu diberikan kepada Pempetisyen. [23] Setelah meneliti dan menimbangkan kes kedua-dua pihak, saya mendapati dan memutuskan seperti berikut (berdasarkan isu-isu yang ditimbulkan): (i) apakah yang menyebabkan Perkahwinan Tersebut pecah belah dan tidak dapat dipulihkan lagi [24] Pempetisyen menyatakan sebab utama berlakunya pemecahan Perkahwinan Tersebut sehingga tidak dapat diselamatkan lagi adalah kerana Responden melakukan kecurangan dalam perkahwinan iaitu mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan Wanita Tersebut dan tidak dapat melupakan serta tidak dapat melepaskannya. S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 [25] Keterangan SP2 dan Pempetisyen (SP3) bersama dengan rakaman video yang ditunjukan dalam perbicaraan (P4 dan P5) sudah cukup menunjukan perlakuan ini. Saya tidak dapat menerima penjelasan Responden bahawa Wanita Tersebut adalah bekas pekerjanya dan datang ke bilik hotel tersebut untuk menghantar dokumen perniagaan. Penjelasan ini pada pendapat saya adalah tidak munasabah. [26] Sikap Responden yang tidak membantu dalam penjagaan anak- anak terutamanya anak bongsu, masih boleh diterima oleh Pempetisyen bagi menjaga keharmonian rumahtangga. [27] Responden pula menyatakan keruntuhan Perkahwinan Tersebut adalah disebabkan oleh sikap Pempetisyen yang tidak melayannya sebagai seorang suami. Pempetisyen memberi alasan bahawa dia terpaksa menjaga anak bongsu mereka yang mengalami masalah kesihatan yang kronik. [28] Meneliti dan menimbangkan kepada alasan oleh kedua-dua pihak, saya mendapati perbuatan yang dilakukan oleh Responden iaitu hubungan dengan Wanita Tersebut adalah punca utama kepada runtuhnya Perkahwinan Tersebut. Ini adalah suatu fitrah manusia apabila berlakunya perbuatan curang sebegini sama ada oleh suami atau pun isteri, perkahwinan tidak dapat diselamatkan lagi. (ii) sama ada Responden wajib membayar peruntukan nafkah bulanan untuk Pempetisyen dan berapakah jumlahnya sebulan [29] Kuasa mahkamah dalam memberikan perintah nafkah isteri diperuntukan di bawah Seksyen 77(1)(b), Akta Memperbaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan dan Penceraian) 1976 (selepas ini dipanggil “Akta 164”): “Mahkamah boleh memerintahkan seseorang lelaki membayar nafkah kepada isterinya atau isterinya yang dahulu: (a) semasa penjalanan prosiding perkahwinan; (b) apabila memberi atau selepas daripada memberi sesuatu dekri perceraian atau perpisahan kehakiman.” S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [30] Meneliti kepada keterangan di hadapan saya, Pempetisyen telah berhenti kerja sebagai seorang pereka grafik di kedai ayahnya (Tiara Signs & Advertising) dengan persetujuan Responden bagi menjaga anak bongsu mereka yang dilahirkan pramatang dan mengalami masalah kesihatan kronik. Ini membuktikan Pempetisyen sanggup berkorban untuk keluarga dan rumahtangganya. Selepas berhenti kerja, Pempetisyen hanya mengharapkan wang saraan dari Responden untuk kehidupannya. Apabila telah berpisah dengan Responden atas alasan yang saya huraikan di perenggan (i) di atas, Pempetisyen tidak lagi mempunyai sumber kewangan. [31] Keadaan ini melayakkan Pempetisyen untuk mendapat nafkah kewangan dari Responden. Malah jika Pempetisyen mempunyai pekerjaan pun, dia masih layak mendapat nafkah tersebut. Ini telah diputuskan dalam kes-kes: Loh Poh Yee v Ang Hua Keong [2018] MLRHU 1256: “[49] Currently, the petitioner is gainfully employed, but that could not preclude her from claiming maintenance from the Respondent. During all those years the parties were together, it was the Respondent who supported the petitioner”. Koay Cheng Eng v Linda Herawati Santoso [2008] 1 MLRA 230 CA: “[23] We observed that in his written judgment the learned judge had considered if not all but most of the authorities cited. ... She had sacrificed her career to follow the husband to his various postings in the United Kingdom and ultimately in Malaysia in order to set up a home. Today the husband has very successfully advanced his status in life and is now a successful ENT surgeon. Surely the husband cannot just abandoned the wife by refusing to provide maintenance for her. This court will not be doing justice if no maintenance is ordered against the husband.” [32] Selanjutnya mahkamah perlu memutuskan berapa kadar nafkah bulanan yang boleh diberikan kepada Pempetisyen. Dalam penghujahannya, Pempetisyen menuntut sebanyak RM4,745 sebulan iaitu: S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 (a) keperluan asas seperti makanan, petrol, bil elektrik, bil air, bil telefon, bil internet dan lain-lain yang kesemuanya berjumlah RM2,000. (b) ansuran motokar (yang akan dibeli): RM1,500. (c) insuran dan cukai jalan motokar: RM245. (d) sewaan rumah: RM1,000. [33] Dalam membuat keputusan bagi isu ini, saya merujuk kepada Seksyen 78, Akta 164: “78. Pentaksiran nafkah. Pada menentukan amaun sesuatu nafkah yang hendak dibayar oleh seseorang lelaki kepada isteri atau isterinya yang dahulu atau oleh seseorang perempuan kepada suami atau suaminya yang dahulu, mahkamah hendaklah mendasarkan pentaksirannya terutama sekali atas kemampuan dan keperluan pihak-pihak itu dengan tidak mengira kadar nafkah itu berbanding dengan pendapatan suami atau isteri itu, mengikut mana yang berkenaan, tetapi hendaklah memberi perhatian kepada darjah tanggungjawab yang diperuntukkan oleh mahkamah kepada tiap-tiap satu pihak terhadap kepecahbelahan perkahwinan itu.” [34] Juga kepada kes-kes: Koay Cheng Eng v Linda Herawati Santoso [supra]: “[25] We are of the view that with the standard and cost of living of the Respondent, the sum awarded is justifiable. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Respondent is to be placed in a position to enjoy the same standard of living as she had during the existence of the marriage. In Lumsden v. Lumsden [1963] 5 FLR 388, the court held: ... In the second place in awarding maintenance the court endeavours, subject to the husband's financial position, to place the wife in a position to enjoy the same standard of living as she did during the marriage...” “..What is needed to be decided now is the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the wife. It is an established principle that in deciding what amount of maintenance the husband should pay the wife, the court must take into consideration the means and needs of the parties. In assessing the means and needs of the parties the court has always had regard to the duration of the marriage, whether there were any children of the marriage, the age of the parties, S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 whether the husband had financially supported the wife during the duration of their marriage, the parties earning capabilities and whether the divorce would have affected the husband's position financially”. Tan Kok Sung v Yap Sew Moy & Ors [2015] MLRU 1976: [4] Further s 78 of the LRA provides that in assessing the amount of maintenance to be paid by a man to his wife or former wife, ‘the court shall base its assessment primarily on the means and needs of the parties, regardless of the proportion such maintenance bears to the income of the husband, but shall have regard to the degree of responsibility which the court apportions to each party for the breakdown of the marriage’. (emphasis added). [35] Panduan dari peruntukan dan kes-kes tersebut adalah bahawa mahkamah perlu menimbangkan: (a) keperluan dan kemampuan (means and needs) kedua-dua pihak. (b) kadar tanggungjawab (degree of responsibility) pihak-pihak terhadap keruntuhan Perkahwinan Tersebut. (c) taraf kehidupan (standard of living) Pempetisyen semasa perkahwinan masih berjalan. [36] Berdasarkan kepada panduan tersebut, saya berpendapat keperluan Pempetisyen seperti yang dipohon adalah tinggi walau pun hendak disamakan dengan taraf kehidupan Pempetisyen semasa Perkahwinan Tersebut masih berjalan. Saya berpendapat tiada keperluan Pempetisyen menuntut bayaran sewa rumah kerana beliau tinggal dengan ibubapa dan juga telah membuat tuntutan kepada harta sepencarian. Keperluan asas juga boleh dikurangkan kerana Pemetisyen tidak lagi tinggal dengan Responden seperti dahulu. Kemampuan Responden juga perlu dipertimbangkan kerana sekarang dia perlu membiayai perbelanjaan untuk dua buah rumah (i.e. Pempetisyen dan Responden). [37] Berdasarkan kepada pertimbangan tersebut, saya memutuskan nafkah bulanan Pempetisyen yang perlu diberikan oleh Responden setiap bulan adalah RM3,200. Jumlah ini adalah munasabah dan adil kepada kedua-dua pihak. S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 (iii) sama ada hak penjagaan anak-anak sesuai dan sepatutnya diberikan kepada Pempetisyen [38] Kuasa mahkamah bagi isu ini diperuntukan di bawah Seksyen 88, Akta 164: 88. Kuasa bagi mahkamah membuat perintah mengenai penjagaan. (2) Pada memutuskan ke dalam jagaan siapa seseorang anak patut diletakkan pertimbangan utama ialah kebajikan anak itu dan tertakluk kepada ini mahkamah hendaklah memberi perhatian kepada: (a) kemahuan ibu bapa anak itu; dan (b) kemahuan anak itu, jika dia telah meningkat umur dapat menyatakan sesuatu pendapatnya sendiri. (3) Adalah menjadi suatu anggapan yang boleh dipatahkan bahawa adalah untuk kebaikan seseorang anak di bawah umur tujuh tahun supaya ia berada dengan ibunya tetapi pada memutuskan sama ada anggapan itu terpakai bagi fakta sesuatu kes tertentu, mahkamah hendaklah memberi perhatian kepada ketidakwajaran mengganggu kehidupan seseorang.” [39] Pempetisyen menuntut ketiga-tiga orang anaknya diberikan penjagaan kepadanya. Anak sulong pada masa ini berada dalam jagaan Pempetisyen, manakala anak kedua dan anak bongsu dalam jagaan Responden. [40] Dalam membuat keputusan bagi tuntutan ini, saya merujuk kes-kes berikut sebagai panduan: Thavamani Deve Govindasamy v N. Sugumaran Neelmehan & Anor [1995] MLRH 679: “[13] The father as guardian, would normally have custody of the child, unless the mother can show the father is no longer alive; or if he is still alive, grounds why she should have custody. In making any order under the powers conferred upon it by the Act, the Court or Judge is charged by s 11 as follows: 11. The Court or a Judge, in exercising the powers conferred by this Act, shall have S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 regard primarily to the welfare of the infant and shall, where the infant has a parent or parents, consider the wishes of such parent or both of them, as the case may be. [17] There is generally a presumption that a young child is better off with its mother than father. It is however, only a presumption and not of its own necessarily a decisive factor. It must be weighed together with all other factors relevant to the question of the primary consideration, which is the welfare of the child. [18] From the point of view of the welfare of the child, the familiarity and certainty of what the child is used to now, living with the first and second defendant is preferable to the unfamiliarity uncertainty of life in Taiping. The applicant in making her application failed to show in certain terms what kind of living conditions the child will have in Taiping. There is indeed no evidence the child is not well looked after or cared for with the defendants. Although the father is an alleged drug addict, there is no evidence he seeks to make his child a drug addict. The child in fact had always stayed with the defendants, who are the natural father and the paternal grandmother respectively. The child is living in the house the father ordinarily resides, and it cannot be said he has no custody. There is not put before the Court anything to compare with to show that the welfare of the child is better attended to in Taiping with the mother. In such circumstances the status quo should remain. Lee Soh Choo v Tan Ket Huat [1986] 1 MLRH 98: “… on the other hand, the children are still at the matrimonial home, an environment they have been used to and adapted to since they were very young. They are being taken care of by respondents and his mother and the elder of the 2 children attends a kindergarten that has reported that she has adapted very well to school life and enjoys going to school. As for the younger child, there is no evident of any ill treatment and for that matter, there is no proof that the health of any of them is in any threatened by their continuing to live with their father.” Sivajothi K. Suppiah v Kunathasan Chelliah [1999] 4 MLRH 266 “Children Of Tender Years Should Have The Benefit Of Being Brought Up By Their Own Mother Rather Than Grandmother [26] In the case of Helen Ho Quee Neo v. Lim Pui Heng [1974] S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 1 MLRA 304; [1974] 2 MLJ 51 at p 53 the Singapore Court of Appeal held: In our judgment, having considered all the facts, both disputed and otherwise, the proper order to make was to reverse the order for custody made by the judge and order that the appellant should have custody, including care and control over the child and responsibility for its upbringing. This would ensure that during his tender years he would have the benefit of being brought up by his own mother as opposed to being brought up in a haphazard way by others to whom the respondent might feel disposed to entrust his upbringing.” [41] Faktor utama yang perlu ditimbangkan mahkamah adalah kebajikan (welfare) anak-anak tersebut. Pempetisyen menyatakan Responden telah tidak menjaga anak kedua dengan baik atas alasan beberapa kali ditegur guru sekolah kerana tidak membayar yuran. Responden juga telah menukar perkhidmatan pembantu rumah sebanyak tiga kali dan ini menunjukkan Responden gagal mengawasi pembantu rumah dalam menjaga anak kedua dan anak bongsu. [42] Manakala Responden pula menyatakan sejak anak bongsu dijaganya, keadaan kesihatan anak itu telah bertambah baik dan tidak memerlukan lagi pemakaian tangki oksigen. [43] Berdasarkan kepada keterangan yang dikemukakan di hadapan mahkamah, saya mendapati fakta-fakta berikut: (a) semasa Pempetisyen keluar dari Rumah Matrimonial pada 1.6.2021, dia cuma membawa anak sulong sahaja dan pada masa material berumur 6 tahun 2 bulan. (b) anak kedua (berumur 2 tahun 2 minggu pada masa material) dan anak bongsu yang masih belum semboh dari penyakit yang dialaminya (berumur 11 bulan 24 hari pada masa material). (c) dari tempoh Pempetisyen keluar dari Rumah Matrimonial pada 1.6.2021 hingga ke tarikh keputusan hari ini (29.10.2023) iaitu 2 tahun 4 bulan, anak sulong berada dalam jagaan Pempetisyen dan anak kedua serta anak bongsu berada dalam jagaan Responden. S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 (d) dalam tempoh 2 tahun 4 bulan itu, saya percaya ketiga-tiga anak mereka telah dapat menyesuaikan diri, timbul kasih sayang pada penjaga mereka (Pempetisyen/Responden/ibubapa mereka) dan sudah selesa dengan kehidupan harian di tempat masing-masing. (e) jika hak penjagaan ditukar i.e. sama ada Pempetisyen dapat penjagaan ketiga-tiga anak atau Responden yang dapat hak itu, saya berpendapat keadaan ini akan mendatangkan kesusahan, kesedihan dan kesulitan kepada anak-anak tersebut kerana perlu menyesuaikan diri dengan tempat serta persekitaran baharu. [44] Maka disinilah timbulnya maksud kebajikan (welfare) yang sebenarnya yang perlu dipertimbangkan mahkamah. Dengan mengekalkan status quo seperti sekarang, saya berpendapat anak- anak tersebut akan hidup lebih gembira dan selesa. Tambahan pula Pempetisyen atau Responden diberikan akses untuk melawat anak- anak mereka. [45] Saya juga menimbangkan bahawa terdapat kes-kes yang memutuskan hak jagaan anak-anak kecil adalah kepada ibu. Tetapi ini hanyalah anggapan dan tidak menimbangkan faktor kebajikan. Keadaan kes ini adalah berbeza di mana anak-anak telah tinggal berasingan dengan penjaga masing-masing dalam suatu tempoh yang lama sebelum petisyen pembubaran perkahwinan diputuskan (2 tahun 4 bulan). Ini berbeza dengan keadaan di mana kesemua anak-anak tinggal dengan ibubapa mereka sebelum perintah penceraian dibenarkan. [46] Sehubungan itu saya menolak relif ini yang dipohon oleh Pempetisyen. (iv) berapakah peruntukan nafkah bulanan bagi anak-anak yang perlu diberikan oleh Responden [47] Memandangkan keputusan saya supaya hak jagaan anak-anak kekal seperti sekarang (status quo), maka tanggungjawab Responden adalah untuk memberikan nafkah bulanan kepada anak sulong yang berada dalam jagaan Pempetisyen. S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 [48] Kewajipan ini diperuntukan di bawah Seksyen 92 dan Seksyen 93 Akta 164: 92. Kewajipan untuk menanggung anak Kecuali jika sesuatu perjanjian atau perintah mahkamah memperuntukkan sebaliknya, adalah menjadi kewajipan seseorang ibu atau bapa untuk menanggung atau menyumbang terhadap nafkah anaknya, sama ada anak itu berada dalam penjagaannya atau dalam penjagaan manamana orang lain, sama ada dengan mengadakan bagi mereka sesuatu tempat tinggal, pakaian, makanan dan pendidikan sebagaimana yang munasabah dengan mengambil kira kepada kemampuannya dan kedudukannya dalam kehidupan atau dengan membayar kosnya. 93. Kuasa mahkamah untuk memerintahkan nafkah bagi anak (1) Mahkamah boleh pada bila-bila masa memerintahkan seseorang lelaki untuk membayar nafkah untuk faedah anaknya— (a) jika dia telah enggan atau secara munasabahnya abai untuk mengadakan peruntukan bagi anak itu; (b) jika dia telah meninggal langsung isterinya dan anak itu berada dalam jagaan isterinya; (c) dalam masa menunggu penyelesaian apa-apa prosiding perkahwinan; atau (d) apabila membuat atau selepas daripada membuat sesuatu perintah meletakkan anak itu dalam penjagaan mana-mana orang lain.” [49] Juga seperti yang diputuskan dalam kes Parkunan Achulingam v Kalaiyarasy Periasamy [2004] 2 MLRH 38: [4] Therefore it is clear that the husband has the primary obligation to maintain the children. The mother only has a secondary obligation where the court "is satisfied that having regard to her means it is reasonable to do so.” S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 [50] Pempetisyen menuntut nafkah untuk anak sulong sebanyak RM1,500 sebulan iaitu meliputi keperluan asas seperti makanan (RM600), yuran tuisyen (RM300), perubatan (RM150), baju (RM150), alat permainan (RM200) dan lain-lain (RM100). Daripada tuntutan ini saya berpendapat item baju dan alat permainan tiada keperluan untuk membeli setiap bulan. Dengan itu saya membenarkan nafkah kewangan kepada anak sulong sebanyak RM1,200 sebulan. (v) sama ada Pempetisyen berhak mendapat harta sepencarian yang didaftarkan atas nama Responden dan jika berhak, bagaimana harta sepencarian tersebut perlu dibahagikan [51] Kuasa mahkamah bagi isu ini diperuntukan di bawah Seksyen 76, Akta 164: 76. Kuasa bagi mahkamah untuk memerintahkan pembahagian aset perkahwinan. (1) Mahkamah hendaklah mempunyai kuasa, apabila memberi sesuatu dekri perceraian atau perpisahan kehakiman, memerintahkan pembahagian antara pihak-pihak itu apa-apa aset yang diperoleh oleh mereka semasa perkahwinan itu atau memerintahkan penjualan mana-mana aset itu dan pembahagian hasil jualan itu antara pihak-pihak itu. (2) Pada menjalankan kuasa yang diberi oleh subseksyen (1), mahkamah hendaklah mengambil perhatian: (a) tentang setakat mana sumbangan telah diberikan oleh tiap-tiap satu pihak dalam bentuk wang, harta atau kerja terhadap pemerolehan aset itu atau pembayaran perbelanjaan untuk faedah keluarga; (aa) takat sumbangan yang diberikan oleh pihak lain yang tidak memperoleh aset itu untuk kebajikan keluarga dengan S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 menjaga rumah tangga atau memelihara keluarga; (b) tentang apa-apa hutang yang terhutang oleh salah satu pihak yang telah dilakukan bagi faedah bersama mereka; (c) tentang keperluan anak-anak belum dewasa, jika ada, dari perkahwinan itu; (d) tempoh perkahwinan itu, dan tertakluk kepada pertimbangan itu, mahkamah hendaklah cenderung kepada pembahagian yang sama rata.” [52] Dalam menentukan hak untuk mendapatkan harta sepencarian, mahkamah perlu menimbangkan sumbangan yang telah diberikan oleh pihak-pihak berkenaan dalam memperolehi harta-harta tersebut. Sumbangan ini tidak sahaja kepada sumbangan kewangan tetapi juga sumbangan tanggungjawab dan fizikal seperti menjaga, mengurus, membersihkan dan sebagainya. Berdasarkan kepada penemuan ini, Pempetisyen berhak kepada harta sepencarian walau pun didaftarkan atas nama Responden. [53] Merujuk kepada senarai harta sepencarian iaitu lima (5) buah hartanah, dua (2) buah syarikat dan dua (2) buah kenderaan, mahkamah boleh memerintahkan kesemua harta-harta tersebut dijual kepada pihak ketiga dan harga bersih (berbentuk kewangan) dibahagikan sama rata kepada Pempetisyen dan Responden. Dalam keadaan ini kedua-dua pihak akan kehilangan terus harta- harta tersebut dan akan sukar untuk mendapat ganti. Kedua-dua pihak hanya mendapat keuntungan berbentuk kewangan tetapi rugi dalam bentuk harta yang semakin sukar serta mahal untuk diperolehi sekarang. [54] Bagi mencapai keadilan kepada kedua-dua pihak, saya memutuskan (seperti yang dipohon secara alternatif oleh Pempetisyen), hartanah yang dikenali sebagai Lot 1940, Hakmilik GM 1832, Kampong Seberang Sekil, Daerah Salor, Mukim Salor, Kelantan diberikan kepada Pempetisyen secara mutlak untuk dijadikan rumah kediaman Pempetisyen bersama anak sulong. S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 Dalam keadaan ini Responden masih lagi mempunyai hakmilik terhadap harta-harta lain. (vi) sama ada kredit KWSP Responden merupakan harta sepencarian dan 50% bahagian kredit itu patut diberikan kepada Pempetisyen [55] Berdasarkan keputusan kes Koay Cheng Eng v Linda Herawati Santoso [supra] dan kes Ching Seng Woah @ Cheng Song Huat v Lim Shook Lin & Anor [1995] 2 MLRA 487, caruman KWSP Responden adalah matrimonial assets yang dicarum sepanjang perkahwinan berjalan. [56] Saya dengan ini memberikan deklarasi bahawa caruman KWSP Responden semasa Perkahwinan Tersebut berjalan adalah suatu harta sepencarian yang mana Pempetisyen layak mendapat 50% bahagiannya. Harta sepencarian ini bermula dari tarikh perkahwinan iaitu 12.12.2014 (salinan daftar perkahwinan dikemukakan dan ditandakan sebagai eksibit P6) hingga tarikh keputusan mahkamah membenarkan pembubaran Perkahwinan Tersebut iaitu 29.10.2023. Keputusan [57] Memandangkan Responden tiada bantahan kepada relif pertama, maka saya membenarkan pembubaran Perkahwinan Tersebut dan dikri nisi menjadi mutlak serta merta. [58] Responden membayar nafkah bulanan kepada Pempetisyen sebanyak RM3,200 sebulan mulai 7.11.2023 dan berikutnya setiap 7 haribulan melalui akaun Malayan Banking Berhad Pempetisyen (no. akaun: 1531-0428-1582) sehingga Pempetisyen berkahwin semula. [59] Hak penjagaan anak sulong adalah kepada Pempetisyen dan anak kedua serta anak bongsu kepada Responden. Pihak-pihak diberikan akses untuk melawat anak-anak tersebut pada bila-bila masa yang sesuai dengan kedua-dua pihak dan mendapat persetujuan kedua-dua pihak dahulu. S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [60] Responden membayar nafkah bulanan kepada anak sulong sebanyak RM1,200 sebulan mulai 7.11.2023 dan berikutnya setiap 7 haribulan melalui akaun Malayan Banking Berhad Pempetisyen (no. akaun: 1531-0428-1582). [61] Harta sepencarian iaitu Lot 1940, Hakmilik GM 1832, Kampong Seberang Sekil, Daerah Salor, Mukim Salor, Kelantan diberikan kepada Pempetisyen secara mutlak dan didaftarkan atas nama Pempetisyen untuk dijadikan rumah kediamannya. Responden diperintahkan menyempurnakan/melaksanakan pindah milik/pendaftaran/penukaran nama dalam masa 30 hari dari tarikh menerima arahan/dokumen dari peguamcara Pempetisyen. [62] Jika Responden gagal mematuhi perintah di perenggan (5), maka Timbalan Pendaftar/Penolong Kanan Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kota Bharu berhak menyempurnakan/melaksanakan/menanda tangani dokumen/suratcara pindah milik/borang permohonan kebenaran pindah milik EXCO Negeri bagi pihak Responden. [63] Lain-lain harta sepencarian kekal kepada Responden. [64] Pentadbir/Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Kelantan dan/atau Pejabat Tanah dan Jajahan Kota Bharu hendaklah memberi efek serta merta dengan melaksanakan perintah di perenggan (5) dan/atau (6) dalam masa 30 hari bermula dari tarikh penyerahan dokumen/suratcara pindah milik/borang permohonan pindah milik (kelulusan EXCO Negeri) di Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Kelantan dan/atau Pejabat Tanah dan Jajahan Kota Bharu. [65] Segala kos/perbelanjaan/cukai yang timbul/terakru ekoran dari perintah di perenggan (5) dan (6), hendaklah ditanggung oleh Responden. [66] Deklarasi diberikan bahawa Pempetisyen berhak kepada 50% caruman KWSP Responden sepanjang Perkahwinan Tersebut berjalan iaitu dari 12.12.2014 hingga 29.10.2023. S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 [67] Kos petisyen ini masing-masing ditanggung oleh pihak-pihak sendiri. Bertarikh: 29 Oktober 2023. (ROSLAN BIN ABU BAKAR) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu. PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi pihak Pempetisyen: Tetuan Yeap & Ang, No. 5P5 & 5P12, Tingkat 5, Kota Bharu City Point, Jalan Ismail Hilir, 15000 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Bagi pihak Responden: Tetuan Fazlan Allaudin & Izasuhana, PT 1732-A, Tingkat Atas, Bangunan Koperasi YIK (Sebelah Stesen BHPetrol), Jalan Tunjung – Pasir Mas Salor, 15100 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. S/N xluJG4opJUO1lN48Q42xmA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-31NCvC-878-03/2023

PEMOHON JESSICA VALERIE KINGHAMPIHAK TERKILANGlenville John Kingham

Evident from the affidavits exchanged, the relationship between John and the deceased was not good. Although the Applicant did counter the spew of aspersions against her husband and her by questioning his integrity, her position seems more stable to resolve the deceased’s estate. This Court considers that the deceased estate must be administered expeditiously and economically. This Court exercises its discretion to only grant the Application the LA to administer the deceased’s estate which comprised of the four assets and two liabilities. Order in terms is granted as per the application in Enclosure 1.

05/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=c2a49062-acf6-4caf-bdfd-2484d5e87cc1&Inline=true

05/12/2023 09:42:38 WA-31NCvC-878-03/2023 Kand. 40 S/N YpCkwvasr0y9/SSE1eh8wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N YpCkwvasr0y9/SSE1eh8wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N YpCkwvasr0y9/SSE1eh8wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N YpCkwvasr0y9/SSE1eh8wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N YpCkwvasr0y9/SSE1eh8wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N YpCkwvasr0y9/SSE1eh8wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N YpCkwvasr0y9/SSE1eh8wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N YpCkwvasr0y9/SSE1eh8wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N YpCkwvasr0y9/SSE1eh8wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N YpCkwvasr0y9/SSE1eh8wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N YpCkwvasr0y9/SSE1eh8wQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal WA—31llCvC—E78—03/2023 Kand. 40 us/12/2023 um;-as IN THE HIGH CDURY or MALAYA AT KIJALA LUMPUR IN ms rznzmu YERRITOIY. MALAVSIA ORIGINATING summons NO WA/31NCVl>o7M73I2n23 JESSICA VALERIE KINGNAM [NRIC N0:S5o1M—0I-6511) APPLICANT GROUNDS or JUDGMENY [1] TheAppncanlsM;ght|u obmnqranllorleltevs oiadnunisnanm (LA) Mm ngam to her father‘: estate, The father, James J Kmgham all Funnampulam um deceased) had mm inlesiale on 23.5 2:122. The beneficlane: In 4:) Drama Yvonne Klnuham (Nmc No JVHDB-01-5¢O0j, me wuaow/Agphc.anrs mother but she too had passed away recenny on 7 2 2023. nu) ma Appucant my Glevwllle John Kmgham (NRIC No 620101-in-8393), me Appncanrs omssn brolher (John), ml the dale at me Appflcanl filing um: appuunon an own an 21 3 2023 had not hanounced ms mm: In In I>oadmxn\sva|uv nar comlrrnad ms mxunnon In be um. um ma filing on his wound mu amdamt m rvp\y an 16 4 202 nd "Vii W (IV) Rmharv James Kmqham (NRIC No ecwzm-10532:), me Aoglicanrs other moms: (Rnnaud) mm had renounced his name to be a obadminlstramrlo me deceased’: asun- Pn'n|| camp; [21 Caunael for John had submmad that me pro-reqwsllzes var me flung of «ms appucauan nan not been mar. Th: buis was lhal Ins Apphcanfs apnhcllion undar Ovdav 71 or ma Rec was wrongly men as applicauons undsrme Iawd ordur am only rornonodnxamous probate prooasdlngs [3] ma Ccurl noes nut acdapc max submlsuons as In: hmaims are at Mews- (I) 23.52022 — the deceased had passed away: on 19.5.2022 ~ the Applvcanl informed John that she wowd proceed to apmy for a noun omertn admvnmerlhe deeeaseds 9s|a(a. an 2911 2022 — dram cauaa papal: were latwardsd Aa John mu them was no raspanu on whemu he nad ma mlenuon In be ewadmlmlmrw tar me deceased‘: altale or renounce ma ngms to do so. (w) 7 2.2023 — (heir nmmer nad pmsed man no 21 3.2023 ~ me Applicant filed lhls annlicahon, Ridnard renounced ms ngm and suppuned the App can! to be me admmrsh-alor of the deceased‘: estate‘ (n) 27 3.2023 — John suggeslsd IVIO HSBC auwums n-Id undev me name at me Applucam and Richard be included In me rim 0! assets John nad also querred on me ltemlsed mnerav 1 mm W For rm 1“ AggrvsvedF'Irty' Glenvllls Jnhn Kmynam A K Ehuvnmswsrl rm Bum/an & Cc. fi.sm;v=s:::=;::z:aaF.,L-3:2:m,,..m.W.,m.w..mW axunsas and «me: suggesled (u can the Vegal 9995 at RM5,oo0: M?) 11 4.2023 —Ihe Appneam responded In an ma madam in Juhn‘s amdavit |vm)16.4.2D23 ~ Jdmu men slated mat he smuld be me sole or 1»- admlnrslramr cl me deceased‘: same [4] When the Appncam had Ned nus appHc.Ifim. she was ngm Io lake the posmon mat ma application rm LA wu unoenlermous. II was my a mnnm am ma filing av this aapncauan man John lsqueslad |u be - sole or czradm|r\is(ra|orlurlh2 daceesod's same [5] The Appltcanfs anpncaxiun mu not fail on ma: aacoum. rm: ooun does not aim me plehmmary objecnon and proceeds Io conswder ma merlls oi me apphcamdn The lasts and ewdame put forth by an parties are evaluated ram 007 Ihln cmurs coma-uuou [51 Havmg mad ma amd-ms and naard me subm-suona «am both pames—mere an M0 muss have on. V5 memarm Appiicanva bromav John aughl to be her on-admrmslralar for lhslr dwuiied Mhafs estate, and ma other Is me d-nenmnarion afasssls max are (a be u-eluded m cm um av assets. m ma Conn locked Irllo ma uamrassacs John Amplarw Ims court he exxend ma M5! at assas M me deceased kn Indude alher bank aoedunvs and prdpemas nygzsce-ed under amsr namaa man the dammed John had evened mama deceased was aqudbalad nankmm m ma 1980: due ; aw Vnckmasmyv/ssztamawn «ma saw n-nhnrwm be used m mm has mm-y mm: flan-mm VII mum and tn a failed proiicl ms! was «named by Bank Penaman aemad. The deceased had than used me names at his «army members to bank scoaunls and aequne assels during me perm avnme when he pam back the amount owing In enable a dnscnarge o1 bankruptcy. [B] John avevved Ihauhs deceased had mfmmed him back m 2017012! me ueeeasea nan mneye an MD bank accounts al HSBC. one ex Oayrnole Branch m Smgapora pnssmly accoun| number 0471455131496 and ene an the Puchmg Eranch in Malaysia pnssuuy mxzmml number 354411353 mes. Hssc lcouunis wee undar me mm| names 0! me Aaplltantand Richard John cunlunded manna aeoeaseas mnennnn was that me account holflem mu me moneys m trust luv me beneficiaries Jnlvu iurlher oonleoded lhal me HSBC aoeuuntx musl be men-med m me nsx aiassets Tu open an account a| HSBC claymore arsncn Singapore‘ a mimmum o1SGD250.0n0 was reqnned [91 Aaearaing mane snepnen Khawflen Chye vma becameaoquavnlad wan me aeoeuea emoe me Minn Financial Cnsls II’! 1997. ne was Informed by me Deceased on semen bank accounts m 2014 me eeceasea had conmbuled to and waved money: in ma foflowlng bank accounts In finance rm cwumn phnlalion of use acme in new ov Kamnan, Chemur Persk. an Agm Bank Peruman i(Tan}ang Mavim Perak unaerrns name andlur menerd: my HSEC Uzymcre Branch 171 Singapore undsf Ihe names at Rmnam audluv me AvphcanL sna em Vnckmasmywsszmaawn «ma smn n-nhnrwm a. med w my n. ennmun mm: dun-mm wa muNG v-vrm (in) HS!!!) Kmrara-Puchung Branch in Malayan under (he names of Rxchard and/or the Amhcam [10] It seemed man the deceased had alsa mlumlsd mat he had pen fur me lnllcwmg asses (u The family home an Taman aemam Barn, Tanfing MaHm under Ihn name av Rvcm . m) Tm aaliculluru plots amamuna crack, Tunionq Mlilm under me nama M manna. (nu One lmee-story anopmanaman Nusa Tanjong Millm under me name Mnlanne. [111 John obmzaa Ihal no ama-mu was svalad for ma wagax vass undav ma llslallubilmes He luggaltad lo uaxa an amannl nlRM§,00U as Vsgul (nos. He no mqulrld numau mum luvlunursl axvsrllal in ma Imount omMa,u1« 70 [121 It was JDhn‘s pnsinon that all Ihose who had interest in their lale mowers sslala filed ma nsuessary amaavns Lasny, he does mt agrseta the Applicant as me we admxnis1:ak:rn1lheir\amlamefs estate. [13] One oi John‘: gmusee was mat the lunevafl axuenses sated Is nM5,n11 70 was not nomlsed um um Court is sansfied man (M Apnncam has provided ms pnwmea thereto was Mr umaavix Em: 7 name 11.4 2n2a am Vnckmasmywsszmaawn mm. saw ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm Lin M an [141 ms own examined the |\s| afassets and ruled mm all those under me deceased: names wnamer solely ur ‘oinflymusl bemduded m me hsl oq assets Mm those unae< me names omen lale mnilhev, me deoeaseds widow. Neither are those accounts and propamea underthe names nllhe mnenuanaa meme: ,o.nuy or so\e\y [151 Thu bankruptcy swan conducted on 2: 4 ms oonfirmsd max me deceaud was not an aquducated bankrupt (nu Exmm J-1 Io Endasuva «up. So. me cnn|en(Inns by John ann Stephen am nu| auxmod In any uvenl. co hold omervnse wnum go sasmstour bankmplcy laws. A person edjudwcatsd bankmm carmm sneak away from or mrcumvenl me pmmnmon of upemng aeeaums In over peoo|e's Hams: and wtfing maney there or even acqumng omer asaeus when thus are crednnrs to be Dam in tonne amoums owed us] ma co-m could am End any emence In mlmhorme John‘: oonxenuon that some av me bank awwnm held under ma names M me Aophcam Ind Richard were mean! «o be on mm M lha daoeasad Them Vs also no ewaenea to suppurI.lohn's oomenum mu IM pmgamas under me name: afmeiv late molhar, ms Apvlvcant and Richard war: aliu held on (ms! fur me demased rnus, «ma coun nna man may were omymare statements. See um Kuah nan Nam v Tun Wmn my [20:19] I ms 702 [17] This Court addmonally finds man the asses unde! me names Mme oumpames also um um mung |o me deceased for me pmposes ol um aw Vnckmasmyv/ssztmawn «me s.nn n-nhnrwm be used m mm .. nrW\nnU|:I mm: dun-mm VII mum pm indusmn in me l\s1 eVasse1s.TM eomplmes am sanirila Vega! enmee to me deceased. [151 So, she! a ounsidsrsd scrutiny 01 an Ihe .-«sets pmwued by me Auphcanl arm suggested byJohn, mis Calm s safsfied Ituallhe (allowing awens were me deceased. ms Ooun orders me foHawmg assets be inchmed .n the list ol assets vorme nurpoess enne deceased‘; eeme: M, ...... Amaum 1a.,ea_a...,.a.m..mm, ..W.,m.z l ..w.nm , a.‘...n.a.n.....mm‘.z..m....‘ Rmamsaa 1 (-euuzom :.m...n....a.~..w.m.....a.nana... mz.:r1.5ne1a (...,a 122921! . e....m...,_W..... .men........ [1 91 The anooum in Agra Bank Bemad/Bank Penaman Malaysia Berhad no 2-00-53110001)35$~0DIhalwasopsned unaeme Aolnl names ame aeceaea and Richard had since been dosed. Emma «-2 m Endesure 10 showed me: mare was lam balance an an 12 2021 wmn was me rmnms befnre me deaased had passes on. Amie from what Ls stated above‘ mere does not seem In M any miner assmx undav me name of me aeaeaseu nr moee me: ne he1d)o\nI1yw\¢h ulhers. [20] For me Just undsr me nlma no men rene rnnlhar wmmer solely or joinflywwlh any one or me amer beneficiariu, this Ccurl rulcs Iha| may we nm In be manage nu ma us: olasseis olme deceased n 3 nm factually em vpcmmmywsszmawu “Nair sanew ...n.mm be LAIQ4 m may he nrW\nnH|:I mm: dnuumnl VII mum v-max and legally noht to du so The anpllcallon eoncumsd only me adrnrnisrratlon ow-e asset ouhe deeeased. [21] For me list or liaorlrues_ tnrs court rs rnlnaed lsaving the amount blank for the legal lees There must be pr-evslon lur rt so me rtem should be lncluded ln the Hsl ol Iabllmes, but rt should no! he canned to just RM5.DOD as requested by John The mats oi the adnunlstratron must he bomo by the estate. men vanne Klngnlm [22] Thelr late mother was enhtled to part or the deceased‘: estate as his oenerrclary The portion she was erraued to would oo executed lelttwnng the grant ol tnls LA. Her allacalion would then on to her estate whelehy a separate and dslind LA ought to be avplrsa to ednnrnster her esrate. This is not the forum to identity and confirm herhenefie-anes. That ls because this appllcahon ooneerned the eslale utme deceased [231 As such‘ Johrre rnststenee to ldenllfy me oerrerrclanea nl ther late mmhar was the flllng or affidavns rs mlsplaced ln this lnaunes. They in lrralavarlt and unrleoassary our the appllcahon 01 LA to Idmlntsher the deceasatfs estate Gum ouegg; gggmlnlstmren [24] The Applicant had med tn hsr anplicallall to be the sole adminlslralar M the deceased‘: estate as Rlchard had renounced his nghts and supomed her applcanun mere was no response hum John urml his alfidavll ln leply med M27 3 2023 s-eklng tolmzlude omsrbank awuunts slN Vnckmasmyv/ssztmawn “Nuns s.n.r n-vlhnrwm be tr... m mm ms oflmhhllly sum. flan-mm VII srlulm Wml unduv me mm! names 0! me Appllcanl and Richard m the us: at aissl: John nad BN1 sdudmcd be a wadmlmshalur an 15.4 2023 m ma further affidavll [251 There wenamany aneganone agamanne Applicant and he husband made by John ma Caurl shall not let me demgamty smemants here The Appiicanl responded by queshomng we mnagmy What Is fonaflmm m we couna mmu Is lorlhe admimsnaxdr, aside fvom bang own age and sound mind, |c have me capabmty |o daa: mm me adrmn-scranon af me eslma exnsdinnusly and eoamxmnally [251 ms Coun has a wide dmaalzun Ia decide no whom me LAwn«|d be graniad la sua sum armed man Luck (donned) (N9-lu Vuoll Km. pardon.» 1200214 MLJ 74‘ Secbon 30 and Omar 71 Rme as Rec ms ooun Vs agreeable no gram ma LA no In: Applvcanl She had Vniilaled ma anion, suuwad ma amu Ind Iiamuuea M me daceasad and mu dilvdannry responded to John: query on me named may «:1 Inc deceassxfs lunetsl awenaes The Court now nas xd canxider whelhsr In anew Jahrfs appiicalml ud be a ddadmmnmorwum me Apphcanvt. [27] It is noted mat such an an came dune lane in me day Tn-e caunalso cansuderad Juhn‘s auegacidn man the deceased was abankrum men is nu| true John had alsa mduened lar mew late mdmers benefiuanes men is irre\evanl at we «age as one aponeanon perla the estate dime deoeaaad and ndmsmata mama: John had also eougm for other bank aeoounca and prdpemas not bamngmg lo me deceased m be moluded In me H5101 asseca much we Own finds man ne nae me capammy ol bemg dmcun. shun at greed. He nad failed lo adduoe any evidence Ihal documema any Imsl lur me deceased ov any of me assets s an Ypckmasmyi/Ssitmswd -nae Snr1n\n-uhnrwmbe flied m mm .. anmmuuy mm: dnunmnl VII mum v-vrm he requuslad In be included Jar-n had also dsmindsd max ma Apvncanx adduced the source or urrodrne for rm husbands nus-nass md asset which are irrelevant in mi: znpli won but scandalous m nature There were some allegahons rasmd by John agamst me Anp¥nI‘s husband mm are not revaned |n me consideration or wnemer to gram John aw adminnstratorshlp. [23] Evrdem from me alfidavlls sxmanged. the relauonship between Jam and me deceased was not good. Ammugh me Appllcanldid mumer me spew nl asperslons against her husband and her hy queshomng ms unnagruy, her pcsmon seems more same to rasnhle me deceased‘: estale ms com wnslflars nu: ma deceased saute mus| be aflmlmslsmd axpodllfoully and audnornrcally ms on-m axlrclns in disclulmn In only gram ma Appncanon me LA In admimslar me deuauadx aslzta mum wmpnsad arms raur Issala Ind Iwo Vaabllilrel Order m (emu us granted as per ml appuauuan m ErIclosum1 DATED a SEPTEMBER 2023 WJL - ROZ MAWAR ROZNN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH count or MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For an MD//Mn): wsrmu Kumar T/n Adan M K Tga: 5. co. m srn vmmammrsszmadd mm. saw nnnhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w my r... mm-y mm: mmn vu mum v-mm

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-22NCvC-220-11/2020

PLAINTIF 1. ) GRACEFUL FRONTIER SDN BHD 2. ) GOLDEN CASTLE CITY SDN BHD 3. ) GOLDEN HIGHWAY LANDMARK SDN BHD 4. ) PENTAS OTO SDN BHD 5. ) HIGHWAY CITY LAND SDN BHD 6. ) GOLDEN HIGHWAY AUTO-CITY SDN BHD 7. ) GOLDEN STAR LAND SDN BHD DEFENDAN 1. ) THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG 2. ) RAVIN MOHANRAJ VELLO

1 In the course of litigation between the two sets of parties (plaintiffs and defendants), the Court Of Appeal made an Order.2 The 1st Defendant (D1) in this current suit published a Statement about the Order in a newspaper. The 2nd Defendant (D2) is D1’s solicitor. The Plaintiffs (Ps) sued the two Defendants in this current suit for libel.3 D2 applies to strike out Ps’ suit against him under Order 18 Rule 19. D2 asserts that Ps’ suit against him does not disclose any reasonable cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or is an abuse of the Court process.4 Should Ps’ suit be struck out?

05/12/2023

YA Tuan Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=d8850329-a6b9-4387-b373-282a67bc0ff3&Inline=true

Page 1 of 15 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI PULAU PINANG DALAM NEGERI PULAU PINANG GUAMAN SIVIL NO. PA-22NCVC-220-11/2020 ANTARA 1. GRACEFUL FRONTIER SDN BHD (583715-D) 2. GOLDEN CASTLE CITY SDN BHD (681063-A) 3. GOLDEN HIGHWAY LANDMARK SDN BHD (665095-X) 4. PENTAS OTO SDN BHD (680525-V) 5. HIGHWAY CITY LAND SDN BHD (681067-T) 6. GOLDEN HIGHWAY AUTO-CITY SDN BHD (603091-A) 7. GOLDEN STAR LAND SDN BHD (680748-U) …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN 1. THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG (NRIC No: 560126-07-5055) 2. RAVIN MOHANRAJ VELLO (yang menjalankan amalan guaman di bawah firma tunggal Tetuan Vello & Associates) … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN BROAD GROUNDS OF DECISION (APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT) 05/12/2023 11:07:53 PA-22NCvC-220-11/2020 Kand. 125 S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 2 of 15 PRELUSION [1] These are my broad grounds of decision for the 2nd Defendant’s application to strike out the Plaintiffs’ claim against him. I may add to, or elaborate further on these grounds. But these are primarily the reasons for my decision. [2] I will refer to the Plaintiffs as “Ps”, the 1st Defendant as “D1”, and the 2nd Defendant as “D2”. [3] Ps’ cause of action against the Defendants is for libel. Ps pray for the remedy of damages—special, general, aggravated and exemplary damages. [4] D2 files his application to strike out Ps’ Amended Statement Of Claim (SOC)—Enclosure 56—under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules Of Court 2012. The ground under limb (a) is that the Amended SOC discloses no reasonable cause of action. The ground under limb (b) is that the Amended SOC is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. And the ground under limb (c) is that the Amended SOC is an abuse of the process of the court. THE LAW ON THE STRIKING OUT OF PLEADINGS [5] It is well entrenched that so long as Ps’ Amended SOC discloses a reasonable cause of action against D2, the suit should proceed to trial: (1) Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36 (SC); [1993] 2 AMR 1969; [1993] 4 CLJ 7; [1993] 1 MLRA 611; (2) Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 3 of 15 Makmur & Anor [2016] 3 MLJ 1(FC); [2016] 2 AMR 795; [2016] 3 CLJ 1; (3) Tan Wei Hong (a minor suing through guardian ad litem and next friend Chuang Yin E) & Ors v Malaysian Airlines Bhd & Other Appeals [2019] 1 MLJ 59 (FC); [2018] 6 AMR 529; [2018] 9 CLJ 425. [6] A review of the law on the striking out of pleadings is found in the Federal Court judgment in Tan Wei Hong (a minor suing through guardian ad litem and next friend Chuang Yin E) & Ors v Malaysian Airlines Bhd & Other Appeals [2019] 1 MLJ 59 (FC); [2018] 9 CLJ 425; [2018] 6 MLRA 433. [7] In Tan Wei Hong, the Federal Court, through the written judgment of Justice Ramly Ali FCJ, sets out as follows— [15] Order 18 r 19 of the ROC provides: 19 Striking out pleadings and endorsements (Order 18 rule 19) (1) The court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be stuck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement, of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that — (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; (c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or (d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be. S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 4 of 15 (2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under paragraph (1)(a). . [16] The principle for striking out of pleadings pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the ROC is well settled. It is applicable only in a plain and obvious case or where a claim is, on the face of it, obviously unsustainable (see: Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36; [1993] 4 CLJ 7 (SC); Hubbuck & Sons, Limited v Wilkinson, Heywood & Clark, Limited [1899] 1 QB 86; Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v London and North Western Railway Company [1892] 3 Ch 274). [17] The tests for a striking out application under O 18 r 19 of the ROC, as adopted by the Supreme Court in Bandar Builder are, inter alia, as follows: [2019] 1 MLJ 59 (SC) at 68 (a) it is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under the rule; (b) this summary procedure can only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it obviously unsustainable; (c) it cannot be exercised by a minute examination of the documents and facts of the case in order to see whether the party has a cause of action or a defence; (d) … (e) the court must be satisfied that there is no reasonable cause of action or that the claims are frivolous or vexatious. [18] The Court of Appeal, in Sivarasa Rasiah & Ors v Che Hamzah Che Ismail & Ors [2012] 1 MLJ 473; [2012] 1 CLJ 75, had adopted the well-settled principle of striking out in the following passage: S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 5 of 15 A striking out order should not be made summarily by the court if there is issue of law that requires lengthy argument and mature consideration. It should also not be made if there is issue of fact that is capable of resolution only after taking viva voce evidence during trial (see: Lai Yoke Ngan & Anor v Chin Teck Kwee & Anor [1997] 2 MLJ 565 (FC)). [19] The basic test for striking out as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bandar Builder is that the claim on the face of it must be ‘obviously unsustainable’. The stress is not only on the word ‘unsustainable’ but also on the word ‘obviously’, ie, the degree of unsustainability must appear on the face of the statement of claim without having to go into a lengthy and mature consideration in detail. If one has to go into a lengthy detailed argument and mature consideration of the issues of law and/or fact, then the matter is not appropriate to be struck out summarily. It must be determined at the trial. [20] The established rule on this point is that the court should not examine the evidence in summary proceedings in such a way as to amount to conducting a trial on the conflicting affidavit evidence. As rightly said by Lord Diplock in the House of Lords case of American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 at p 407: … The court no doubt must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious; in other words, that there is a serious question to be tried. It is no part of the court’s function at this stage of the litigation to try to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit as to facts on which the claims of either party may ultimately depend nor to decide difficult questions of law which call for detailed argument and mature S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 6 of 15 considerations. These are matters to be dealt with at the trial … This passage was cited with approval by the Privy Council in the Malaysian case of Eng Mee Yong & Ors v V Letchumanan [1979] 2 MLJ 212; [1979] 1 LNS 18. [64] We are also of the view that in dealing with an application for striking out, the court must exercise great care and caution, bearing in mind that the court must not drive away any litigant however weak his case may be from the seat of justice (see: Lee Nyan Choi v Voon Noon [1979] 2 MLJ 28)… [emphasis mine] A FEW PERTINENT ISSUES THAT ARISE FROM THE PLEADINGS [8] It suffices for me to consider a few determinant issues in D2’s striking out application. Ps’ plea against D2 [9] Ps plead that D1 and D2, jointly and severally, published or caused to be published the notice containing the impugned words in the “The Star” newspaper. D2’s plea or defence [10] D2 pleaded and averred by affidavit that he was never personally involved in the preparation of the contents of the impugned notice. D2 pleaded this fact in paragraph 5 of his Defence And Counterclaim (DACC). S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 7 of 15 [11] D2’s striking out application hinges on this plea. [12] D2 also asserts that Ps never specifically denied this fact. But when I peruse Ps’ Reply And Defence To Counterclaim (RADTCC), I find that at paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, Ps join issue with D2 in D2’s DACC, specifically refuting paragraph 5 of D2’s DACC. [13] Further, Ps assert that— (1) D2 caused the impugned words to be published; (2) D2 knew that the words were defamatory and yet caused the impugned words to be published; Ps now ask this Court to take cognisance of the fact that D2 represented D1 to write a letter to the Court Of Appeal and to file an application to clarify the terms of the Court Of Appeal Order about whether Auto City 3 is included in the Order; (3) D2’s defence of qualified privilege is untenable because D2 had no duty to cause the impugned words to be published; (4) D2’s scope of duty to D1 (his client) should not encompass causing the impugned words to be published. Issues that arise from Ps’ plea and D2’s plea [14] I find that the issues that arise from Ps’ plea in their claim and from D2’s plea in his defence, include these issues— (1) Is D2 liable for publishing the impugned words? S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 8 of 15 (2) Is D2 liable for causing the impugned words to be published? (3) If D2’s act complained of is for causing the impugned words to be published (as distinct from publishing the impugned words), is D2 nevertheless liable for P’s claim? (4) Is the defence of qualified privilege available to D2 i.e. did D2 have a duty to publish the impugned words? Or, did D2 have a duty to cause the impugned words to be published (as distinct from the duty to publish the impugned words)? (5) Was D2’s act—whether it was for publishing or causing the impugned words to be published—accentuated by malice, which, if found, will usually defeat his qualified privilege defence? [15] In my view, to answer or to adjudge these issues, there should be a trial, which encompasses the process of Discovery, possible Interrogatories, and the whole witness-examination process in a trial. It is not fair nor just, under procedural law, and I should add—it is not safe—to determine these issues summarily under Order 18 Rule 19(1). [16] These issues are issues of law and fact, namely issues of law and the application of the law to the facts. And where there is an issue of fact, there must be a preponderance of the evidence S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 9 of 15 that either proves the facts asserted, or conversely rebuts the facts asserted. The preponderance of evidence should be done through the process that I alluded to, namely Discovery, Interrogatories (if appropriate), and a trial. [17] In other words, these are fact-sensitive issues, which necessarily mean that they are evidence-sensitive issues. Addressing D2’s arguments [18] Citing the UK House Of Lords case law authority of Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 (HL), D2 argues that as a solicitor, he is merely an agent of his client: D1; he was a mere instrument; he had nothing to do with the contents of the impugned notice that was published; and as such, no malice can be imputed to him; accordingly, his qualified privilege defence defeats Ps’ libel claim. D2 also submits that even if this suit goes to trial, Ps cannot prove otherwise. [19] In my judgment, for D2 to first avail himself of the benefit of this case law authority, he must first prove that he was, in fact, merely D1’s agent; that he was merely an instrument surrounding the publication of the impugned words contained in the impugned notice; that he had nothing to do with the contents of the impugned notice; and that accordingly, no malice should be imputed to him. D2 has to prove these facts through the process of a trial. Perhaps only then will the Court find that he succeeds in his qualified privilege defence. Not summarily through an application to strike out grounded on pleadings and affidavit evidence. S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 10 of 15 [20] Also, I find that it is premature for D2 to say that Ps cannot prove otherwise at the trial. I reiterate that Ps have the process of Discovery. Ps may be allowed to administer Interrogatories. And Ps can avail themselves of the process of cross-examination. [21] Citing the case law authority Chan Tse Yuen & Co (suing as a firm) v Yap Chin Gaik, Elaine & 2 Ors [2018] 1 AMR 34 (HC); [2017] MLJU 1459; [2017] 1 LNS 1409; [2017] MLRHU 1348, D2 argues that to defeat his defence of qualified privilege with the element of malice, it must be proven that D2 had a “desire to injure” Ps, and that the “mere proof that the words are false” i.e. that the impugned words in the notice are false—“is not evidence of malice”. [22] I find this argument untenable. If Ps are required to prove that D2 had a desire to injure Ps in order to prove malice to succeed against D2 (to defeat the qualified privilege defence), Ps should be accorded a trial process to prove that fact. [23] Further, this case law authority: Chan Tse Yuen (supra) clearly limits the application of the principle—that to prove malice, Ps have to prove that D2 in fact had a desire to injure Ps— to pre-action correspondence, such as a letter of demand, which forms part of the body of evidence in the litigation process. In this suit, however, the impugned notice did not form part of the evidence in the parties’ litigation proceeding in the Court Of Appeal. It was not a piece of correspondence or a statement issued as part of the litigation process. Instead, the impugned notice was a piece of post-litigation communication or statement published in a S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 11 of 15 newspaper, after the Court Of Appeal had determined the parties’ dispute up to that point in time. FURTHER PERTINENT ISSUES THAT ARISE [24] To avail himself of the defence of qualified privilege, it is trite that D2 must have a duty to publish or cause to publish the information contained in the words of the impugned notice. Then there must also be a corresponding duty, on the part of either “The Star”, and by extension: the public, to receive the information. The issue that arises is whether there were such respective reciprocating duties, on the facts of this suit. To determine this issue—one way of the other—requires the preponderance of evidence and further arguments. The issue can hardly be determined summarily through an analysis of affidavit evidence. [25] Put differently—just by pleading it (but without the preponderance of evidence by trial)—the defence of qualified privilege cannot apply to summarily extinguish Ps’ libel claim. APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ORDER 18 RULE 19 APPLICATION [26] In considering this Order 18 Rule 19 summary striking out application, I am not to look behind or around the pleadings to see if the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action. So long as Ps’ Amended Statement Of Claim discloses some ground of action—the mere impression that Ps are not likely to succeed at trial against D2 is no ground for it to be struck out—Honan S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 12 of 15 Plantations Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor [1998] 1 MLRA 262 (CA) per Gopal Sri Ram JCA (later FCJ), at para [7]. [27] Further, the Order 18 Rule 19 summary jurisdiction is “never intended to be exercised by a minute and protracted examination of the documents and facts of the case in order to see whether the plaintiff really has a cause of action. To do that is to usurp the position of the trial judge”—Honan Plantations (supra) at para [8]. [28] In an Order 18 Rule 19 proceeding, I should not descend into a trial by affidavits. For D2’s application here, I should look at the pleadings to see if they disclose a reasonable cause of action (under limb (a), whether the claim is scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious (under limb (b)) and whether it is an abuse of the process of the Court (under limb (d)). CONCLUSION [29] I hold that Ps’ Claim against D2 should not be struck out summarily under either Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b) or (d) because:- (1) D2 has not shown, by pleadings, that Ps’ claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action; (2) D2 has not shown, by pleadings and by affidavits, that Ps’ claim is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or that it is an abuse of the process of the Court; S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 13 of 15 (3) I am bound by the principles propounded in the authority of Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36 (SC); [1993] 2 AMR 1969; [1993] 4 CLJ 7; [1993] 1 MLRA 611. Without going into the minute details of the exhibited documentary evidence and the averments in affidavits, I find that it is not “plain and obvious” that Ps’ Claim—does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or is an abuse of the process of the Court; (4) Reading the Pleadings—the Amended Statement Of Claim, D2’s DACC and the Ps’ RADTCC—I also find that Ps’ claim is not a claim that is “obviously unsustainable”; (5) Both sides’ pleadings and affidavit averments should be tested through the process of a trial. The veracity of these documents and the evidence produced by the parties will only be revealed through the rigours of a trial, which includes the pre-trial processes. The pleaded material facts for both sides should be proven in the legal setting of a trial, not summarily under Order 18 Rule 19. [30] Ps should be given the opportunity, in fact, the right, to go to trial to prove their claim against D2. D2 too has the opportunity, and the right, to go to trial to prove his DACC. At the trial, is where S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 14 of 15 the merits of the parties’ respective cases ought to be finally determined. [31] I therefore dismiss D2’s Application to strike out—with costs of RM7K to be paid by D2 to Ps by 1.12.2023. Costs are subject to the allocatur. 5 December 2023 signed KENNETH ST JAMES Judicial Commissioner Penang High Court Counsel/Solicitors For the Plaintiff: Raj Shankar Rajahram [Messrs. Raj Shankar, Pulau Pinang] For the Defendant: T. Gunaseelan, Ravin Vello & Lee Min Yau [Messrs. Vello & Associates, Pulau Pinang] S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Page 15 of 15 Legislation referred to: 1. Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. Cases referred to: 1. Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36 (SC); [1993] 2 AMR 1969; [1993] 4 CLJ 7; [1993] 1 MLRA 611. 2. Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor [2016] 3 MLJ 1(FC); [2016] 2 AMR 795; [2016] 3 CLJ 1. 3. Tan Wei Hong (a minor suing through guardian ad litem and next friend Chuang Yin E) & Ors v Malaysian Airlines Bhd & Other Appeals [2019] 1 MLJ 59 (FC); [2018] 6 AMR 529; [2018] 9 CLJ 425. 4. Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 (HL) 5. Chan Tse Yuen & Co (suing as a firm) v Yap Chin Gaik, Elaine & 2 Ors [2018] 1 AMR 34 (HC); [2017] MLJU 1459; [2017] 1 LNS 1409; [2017] MLRHU 1348. 6. Honan Plantations Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor [1998] 1 MLRA 262 (CA). S/N KQOF2Lmmh0OzcygqZ7wP8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-12BNCvC-122-09/2022

PERAYU NOR AZRI BIN OMAR RESPONDEN MRCB ENGINEERING SDN BHD

There will be no appellate interference as the ‘plainly wrong test’ is not satisfied – Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 1 and Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 MLJ 441. This Court’s orderThis appeal is dismissed. The Session Court’s decision is affirmed. Costs of RM8,000 is awarded to the Respondent.

05/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=35ee8e69-672b-407f-98a8-0d8ac06bc61a&Inline=true

1 IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA CIVIL APPEAL NO: WA-12BNCvC-122-09/2022 BETWEEN NOR AZRI BIN OMAR (I/C NO: 691205-05-5343) …. APPELLANT AND MRCB ENGINEERING SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 198201002031 (81777-T) .… RESPONDENT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT The Appeal [1] The Session Court dismissed the Appellant’s claim for RM145,278 being the contended gratuity the Respondent owed the Appellant and damages for breach of the contract of employment. The Appellant submitted that the Session Court had erred in finding the Appellant’s employment status from 1.9.2000 to 29.2.2004 was pursuant to a genuine fixed-term contract. 05/12/2023 10:36:36 WA-12BNCvC-122-09/2022 Kand. 28 S/N aY7uNStnf0CYqA2KwGvGGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 [2] The Appellant claimed that he was entitled to the gratuity payment having consecutively served ten years of employment with the Respondent under the latter’s employment and benefit plan. The Appellant submitted he was a permanent employee of the Respondent and that the Session Court had erred as it ought to have addressed the construction of the employment appointment letters as a question of law instead of relying on his evidence in cross-examination. The Appellant’s employment [3] The undisputed facts of the case corroborated by the documentary evidence below tabulates the Appellant’s appointment as an employee with the Respondent: Date of Letter Employment Terms Employment Period 19.9.2000 Eighteen months contract as Resident Engineer 1.9.2000 to 28.2.2002 10.1.2002 Extend the contract as Resident Engineer for a further ten months 1.3.2002 to 31.12.2002 23.12.2002 Extend the contract as Resident Engineer for a further two months 1.1.2003 to 28.2.2002 1.3.2003 Appointed as Resident Engineer for a fixed term of twelve months 1.3.2003 to 29.2.2004 1.3.2004 Long term employment as Resident Engineer From 1.3.2004 [4] During his employment with the Respondent, the Appellant had tendered his resignation thrice – on 5.10.2005 which he later withdrew S/N aY7uNStnf0CYqA2KwGvGGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 and the Respondent had accepted the withdrawal of resignation on 27.10.2005. The second time on 11.1.2008 which he had again withdrawn; that was accepted by the Respondent on 11.2.2008. The final time he gave his one-month notice of resignation was on 15.4.2014, the Respondent had accepted this so his last day of employment was 14.5.2014. [5] The Appellant’s demand for gratuity was based on the following term on gratuity issued by the Respondent on 1.4.2002, namely the following clause: Clause 7.1.(c)(iv): “A Gratuity based on the last drawn salary will be paid to an employee or his estate who resigns after completion of at least ten (10) years continuous service with the company.” Clause 7.1.(f): “The Gratuity shall be a lump sum payment equivalent to one month of the employee’s last drawn basic salary for every completed year of service or proportionally for any incomplete year.” [6] What must be considered for this appeal and to determine whether the Session Court was correct in finding that he was not a permanent employee entitled to such gratuity, was the Respondent’s circular of 4/2002 dated 16.8.2002 issued to all its employees. That circular was a notification of changes to the current terms and conditions of employment S/N aY7uNStnf0CYqA2KwGvGGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 and benefit plan which was effective from 1.9.2002. For gratuity, it was plainly and clearly stated as follows: “The current benefit shall remain for employees who are currently employed as permanent employees. This benefit shall cease to be extended to all new employees effective 1st September 2002.” This Court’s finding [7] Thus, the status of the Appellant vis-à-vis his employment with the Respondent at each respective time was determinative as to his entitlement to the gratuity claimed. From the undisputed documentary evidence, as of 1.4.2002 the Appellant had already completed his eighteen-month contract as the Respondent’s Resident Engineer. He was on his first contract extension by virtue of the Respondent’s letter dated 10.1.2002 which had extended his contract as Resident Engineer for ten months. So, the Appellant’s contract of employment was from 1.3.2002 to 31.12.2002. As of the time the Respondent’s term for gratuity was effective on 1.4.2002, the Appellant had only served nineteen months of continuous employment with the Respondent. [8] When the Respondent’s circular became effective on 1.9.2002 that provided gratuity to only those who were permanent employees, it did not include the Appellant. He was still serving the Respondent as the Resident Engineer contracted for employment until 31.12.2002. [9] On 1.3.2004, the Appellant’s status of employment was no longer on contract basis. After thirty months of employment with the Respondent as Resident Engineer on contract basis, vide the Respondent’s letter of S/N aY7uNStnf0CYqA2KwGvGGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 1.3.2004 the Appellant was offered appointment on permanent basis. A clause on termination of the employment was stipulated in the contract giving parties notice of one month or payment of one-month salary in lieu of notice. With the Appellant’s acceptance, he became a permanent employee of the Respondent on 1.3.2004. [10] His resignation was accepted on 21.4.2014 and his last day under the employment of the Respondent was 14.5.2014. During that period of employment as a permanent employee, the Appellant was reassigned to Dubai. For the secondment there, Al-Fattan MRCB took over his employment. His station in Dubai was from 1.11.2006 to 21.4.2008 when he was reassigned back to Malaysia, the Respondent then took over his employment from Al-Fattan MRCB. [11] Before this Court even starts calculating the period served as a permanent employee, based on the circular the benefit of gratuity was only for permanent employees which at that particular material time the Appellant was not. The benefit of gratuity was also not extended to all new employees as of 1.9.2002 of which Appellant was only appointed as permanent employee on 1.3.2004, some two calendar years later. Therefore, the Appellant did not have any claim for gratuity based on the circular. [12] This Court noted that no evidence showed the Appellant’s previous service of thirty months on contract basis was converted/backdated as permanent employee or that the thirty months of the said previous service on contract basis was added or taken into account in any calculation of benefit entitlement when he was employed as a permanent employee of S/N aY7uNStnf0CYqA2KwGvGGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 the Respondent. As of 1.3.2004 the Appellant’s appointment was a fresh tenure. [13] As a new permanent employee, the Appellant had to undertake pre- employment medical examination, assigned new staff number (M01265) that replaced his old staff number (ME0053) and completed a new staff appointment form. Both the Appellant and the Respondent were bound by the terms of their contracts they had executed – there was no acknowledgment or inclusion of the Appellant’s previous service to the Respondent when he had accepted and assumed as permanent employee on 1.3.2004 – refer to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Datuk Yap Pak Leong v Sababumi (Sandakan) Sdn Bhd [1997] 1 MLJ 587. [14] As with the Session Court, this Court will not re-write any contracts between the two parties and interpret and enforce the plain meaning of the Appellant’s contract of employment on a fixed term dated 1.3.2004 and also the Respondent’s circular of 16.8.2002 – refer to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mulpha Pacific Sdn Bhd v Paramount Corporation Bhd [2003] 4 CLJ 294. [15] Furthermore, it was not the Appellant’s pleaded case that his past tenure on contract basis with the Respondent was incorporated into the contract of permanent employee in the letter dated 1.3.2004. The Appellant was bound by his pleadings – see RHB Bank Bhd (substituting Kwong Yik Bank Bhd) v Kwan Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 MLJ 188. As per the established legal principle, the Appellant’s claim must be decided on the issues pleaded that bind the parties – Court of Appeal’s decision in Kuan Pek Seng @ Alan Kuan v Robert Doran & Ors and other appeals [2013] 2 MLJ 174. S/N aY7uNStnf0CYqA2KwGvGGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [16] This Court has considered the Appellant’s contentions including where he claimed that the letter of 1.3.2004 was a letter of variation of his employment terms. Such contention is unacceptable. The Respondent’s letter dated 1.3.2004 which was accepted by the Appellant was clearly and certainly a fresh offer of employment permanently as Resident Engineer – Job Grade 14. This was undisputed by the Appellant himself during his testimony at trial. As the fact that his past tenure was not incorporated or considered into his new contract of employment dated 1.3.2004. The Appellant did not demand for any gratuity at the time of his resignation. [17] The Respondent’s letter dated 5.5.2008 to the Immigration Department of Malaysia conclusively confirmed the fact that the Appellant was employed as a permanent employee since 1.3.2004. There is no evidence of the Appellant having had any dispute on this. [18] A scrutiny of the evidence in the Appeal Records shows that the Appellant had initiated its claim on the basis that his former colleague (PW1) who had resigned a year later, had received gratuity payment from the Respondent. Though PW1 concurred that the terms of their contracts may differ, there was nothing to show that PW1 was contractually entitled to such payment. In any event, the Appellant had not shown any term of his contract of employment that would entitle him to such payment, to succeed in his case before the court. Consideration of the Appellant’s arguments [19] The Appellant submitted that the Session Court was erroneous when it did not decide his employment status on a question of law. The S/N aY7uNStnf0CYqA2KwGvGGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 Appellant when he submitted that he was a permanent employee from the very beginning invited this Court to the decision by the Federal Court in Ahmad Zahri bin Mirza Abdul Hamid v AIMS Cyberjaya Sdn Bhd [2020] 5 MLJ 58. However, that case concerned a judicial review of the Industrial Court’s award under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The issue was whether the dismissal was without just cause or excuse. The factual matrix there was different as the employee had worked for a group of companies under one enterprise so there was an issue of piercing the corporate veil – all of which did not arise here. [20] The Appellant highlighted the fact that he was in continuous employment without any intermittent breakssince 2000. Based on the evidence in this case, the Appellant’s submission cannot be equated to the conversion of his contract into that of permanent employment. As with the Session Court, this Court refuses to impose an interpretation not within the ambit of the contract into it. [21] This Court finds that the Session Court had considered everything – from the documentary evidence to the oral testimony of witnesses. There are no errors in its grounds of judgment. The reasoned decision illustrated the consideration of the Appellant’s contentions and also the appreciation of the evidence adduced. [22] The Appellant had failed to show on a balance of probabilities that he was entitled to the gratuity claimed. On the other hand, what was very clear from the evidence adduced is that he was only employed on a permanent basis with the Respondent on 1.3.2004, of which he was not entitled to the gratuity benefit by virtue of the circular. The Appellant himself testified that his contract had expired on 29.2.2004. Thus, his S/N aY7uNStnf0CYqA2KwGvGGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 submission that he was a permanent employee of the Respondent from 1.9.200 is devoid of merit. [23] There was also the argument of the payment of arrears raised by the Appellant. It was contended that the payment of RM708 would not have been paid to him if the Respondent did not recognise or carry forward his past tenure on contract into the contract of employment as a permanent employee. The Appellant however had failed to show the payment was for arrears from January 2004 to February 2004. The Appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that the Respondent would not have paid if it did not recognised or carry forward his past tenure on contract. The Appellant also had not adduced evidence that the said ‘arrears’ showed that there was a continuity of service of the Appellant’s employment. [24] Additionally, this Court considered the Appellant’s reference to Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Tafakul Bhd [2016] 5 MLJ 417 and Open Country Dairy Limited v Able Food Sdn Bhd [2021] 6 MLRA 244 but the evidence in this case shows no such incorporation of the benefit/gratuity into the Respondent’s letter of 1.3.2004 or any other subsequent letters. [25] There will be no appellate interference as the ‘plainly wrong test’ is not satisfied – Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors [2020] 10 CLJ 1 and Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 MLJ 441. S/N aY7uNStnf0CYqA2KwGvGGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 This Court’s order [26] This appeal is dismissed. The Session Court’s decision is affirmed. Costs of RM8,000 is awarded to the Respondent. DATED 21 JUNE 2023 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the Appellant: Farrandy Iskandar bin Norshahid together with Amir Feisal Ariff T/n Farrandy & Co. For the Respondent: Rutheran Sivagnanam together with The Wen Miin T/n Sivagnanam & Associates S/N aY7uNStnf0CYqA2KwGvGGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0

WA-12ANCvC-322-12/2022

PERAYU 1. ) GO AUTO SALES SDN. BHD. 2. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD AZLI BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL 3. ) FAROK BIN MAASOM 4. ) WAN AHMAD BIN WAN OMAR 5. ) NOR HADI BIN DAUD 6. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD SHALAHUDDIN AYUBI 7. ) SHEIKH MOHAMAD HAFIZ BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD SHALAHUDDIN AYUBI KAMAL AZAD 8. ) SHEIKH MOHD FAUZI BIN SHEIKH MOHAMAD SHALAHUDDIN AYUBI KAMAL AZAD 9. ) MUHAMMAD KHAIRI BIN NORDIN 10. ) AHMAD AZAM BIN SULAIMAN RESPONDEN Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja

There were no errors in the decision by the Session Court. The order for costs at the Session Court of RM3,000 is maintained. This Court finds the appeal to be without merits and dismisses it with costs of RM10,000.

05/12/2023

YA Puan Roz Mawar binti Rozain

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=5eb27518-3630-44f7-9568-e3d6f1ba091a&Inline=true

05/12/2023 12:34:50 WA-12ANCvC-322-12/2022 Kand. 14 S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N GHWyXjA290SVaOPW8boJGg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal wA—12mcvc—322—12/2022 Kand. 14 H5/12/2013 12:3u-50 IN 045 HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN we remain; vsmzrrowv, nuuvsu cum APPEAL no. wA-12ANcvc- 12/2022 BEIWEEN 1. GO Aum sues sun sun (ztn uomtaes (92£9W-N) (dnhulunyl dlkcnlll . hlgll Gr sun and) 2. SHEIKN MONAMAD AILI BIN SHEIKN MOHAMAD NASIMUDDIN KAMAL (mm: Mo:a41123-14-MIT) 3. FAROK am ransom (NRIC No: 1o122o.1I.53o:) 4. WAN AHMAD am um: cum: (muc Nu: naussn-I1-5091) IN GMWyX:A2~msvaoPwaxsu1Gv -um smm ...m.mm be used m mm .. mm-y mm: dun-mm VI] muNG pm 5. non MAD: am mun (NRIC Na: sinus-01-5153) a. swim: uouuuo SNALAMUDDIM Avual (NRIC No: 570130-05-509/52543051) 1. SNEIKH uuumn Hmz am SHEIKH MOHMAD SHALAHUDDIN Avusl KAMAL AZAD (NRIC Mo: nsMzLsss15a) a. susmu MOHAMAD nun SNEIKN IIIOHMAD SHALAHUDDIN AYUBI KNIIAL AIAD (mm: No: 341207-1 #5081) n. uumnun KHAIRI am NORDIM INRIC No: 7310250:-5:03) 1n.Amun ‘AZAM am SULAIMAN (um: nu: MnsaA—owsau1 r 414414145) APPELLANT! finds Ih: anneal In be wimom mums and disrmssls n wxlh was <11 RM|0.0U0. DATED 30 MAY 2023 R02 MAWAR ROZNN JUDVCIAL COMMVSSYONER HIGH COURT IN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For the ADae¢/ant: Nor Ramzur mm Bauer: r/n Adrran Rhatm A ca. For the Rospondsnr Msnlfon an aenurmy the Appellants u m GMWyX1A2m1sv.oPwaxxuGv mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm vim me sum! to be wnnom moms and dbrlllssas n wilh max: at RMI0.000 DATED 30 MAY 2023 / ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT DN MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR For me Apps//.m.r Nor R-z>z.m bml: Banal: r/n Adnan Ruhlm 4 Ca Fe: me Responds/ll. Msnuon an Benalfby me Appomsnrs n m GMWyX:Az~msv.oFwatsa1Gv mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm! LEMBAGA Kum-uuu wmo SIIPANAN PEKERJA nssrounsm GROUNDS or JUDGMENT it] A summary ludfimenl was ordered by me Session Cnun on 912.2022 against me Appalanvs lot (allure to pay me slamlury comnumons in accordance to me Empmyses Pruvtdenl Fund An 1991 (me EFF Acl). [21 me Awellam argued Ina! me mileage and Iravelling claims nf me empkayees wsm nu! underme deflnmnn nl ‘wages’ undevlha EFF mam: thus no uonlnbunon mum be asasned by me Rlsvondent nu: ma pnymenu mm by me Amxeuanu «a mo omployaes [31 "Va alhar Davmuflls wfuch worn fur harvsuofl alkawlneet and ovnrridinfl aflowsnon Paid In Ihu Iormer EMDWYOII Aiain‘ It was lruusd lhil Ihou D|Y7lI0f\Is wan no! ‘mass’ lhal were subjsmd In the Respondent's usassmem «or wnlnbunors m be made. [4] me Anpdlams suhmrlled man they have raised mam issues m we rauamng forms In) the Rssvondem nan lalled la produce me payment voucr-ens In suwon ns eomennons: m Gxwyxmzwnsvuovwaxsalfiv mm. smm ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII mum pm nr) some at me orrmarrarrrg mnlnhuhons clawrnsd war: rm wage (In) are Matements procurefl pursuam |o the Raspamerrrs rrwesuwrrorr were dlspulad and IrnonsIs1snl Mm me paymerrr vouchas produced by me Appenanrs wmcrr were wsveflmg and uvemdlng alnwlanoes, not wages [51 rrra Appeflam a\so arguad Ihal may we rron nave rrr mar possession sums of me payrrrerrn vouarers for me year zurz us 20: 5 war was known In ma msporru-rrr The Appeuarrr chaflenged me Sassnn cams aacrsrarr for a summary ruugrrrerrx as r1 was In rm pnsllmn |u verify ma lolal srrrmrrrr auulnndlng Inrcanlnbunnn. T Courlguglsl I {a| ms Oouvl rrmaa mallhe Fivs(Anpel|znl’s business is ufnllinn cars rmugrr m the cmvurane mfmmahon lodged wnrr rm Companies Commlsswn Malaysra slaled mar rn also operand its business for me maimeuance and reparror molar vemdes, defence/secumy swim and maintenance and ravalr of firearms. m The Fvrs(AppeHan( rs an employeras defined um1evs2 EFF Anwnn was resrmrrsrue lor rrronmy Donlnbulmns fnv an irs empmyaes. n n ‘awfully required In pay a otnnmbmlon under 543 and ms EFF AM. Payment mus! be made wrrmrr ma fime frame slrnumed in Rule 3(1) of the EFF Rulas zoo: which rs nu Ialar man rm merrrrr day aller me end chha rrrorrm alwhich me said oanrrrzruuon was MM:-d (o be pend m GWIyXrAz~znsv.oPwaxxr1Gv “Nana smm nnuhnrwm r. med w my r... nflmrrnflly mm: dun-mm vu nF\uNG v-mm [3] ma prumlu ollhs Rupondenfs dalmwhim ms alleweu vlaa the summary judgment by me Ssshll cum ia an on mieioe dailna. uanapoll allowances and menlulng illowlrlees labelled VI ma Fiul Apoallanrs payrvlent vuucnela. The imesugauon .21 me Respondent revealed man may were nul genulllely calagofissd Those paymalls by me Firs1 Appellam were In actual fan eummlsslona lol me aala wf venlclee by its raspecllva employees. [9] we coun nceepla ma evidence omalnea by the Respondent pursuant la 2.3715) EPF Au. ll lallwa lnal me payments made |o ns enlnloyees wlucn were commlsslons rel me sale can unaar |ha aennlllen elwages ln s2 EPF Au ‘All rnmlmerlllorl W morlny, duo to an employer undo! M cont!-ct el aerylee or lpprsnlvcsshin whatnot egma lo be pald monthly, waskly. aally or olnelmae and lncluau any bonus, cammlnron or allowance payable by me employs: to me empl-zyn wlluhor such bonus, l:9mmlssl'arl a allowance Y8 payabln umisr Hls came: 0! servlcs, appunlleealup orolhelwtse nun does no! lrldllde 7 fa) ssmbecharge, lo) oyemmapaymam: lo) gnal-um td) reuremenzbeneht: (H) rstmnchment, /ay11Ilnv!9mllnallan benefits, (I) any Iravullmg allowance ov me value ol any rzmllmg cormasslanrai tg) nnybtrlorrlmurlavallonarpaymslllasmayboexunwmdhytne MlIllJlaI' m GMwyxlA2WSVnDPwEbu1Gy mu. a.n.l ...na.lyn .. u... m yam .. mn.ll.y ml. umm. y.. nFluNG am [10] on a balance ol pmoaoilnlas, tms Calm n sahsfied as tbs sssalon own was‘ that me clasamcauon of ma payments at mileage clalms. tnnappn allowance and mmdinq allowance lortnasa years in quasllun were actually oummlssxonslorme sale olvatuaaa by lhe employees who were in am olme Flrst Appellant [11] The argument at me Appellants on lnmnslslency with ma flocumemary evidence ls mlsmmnuaa as me invaallgallon showed lnat me commimona were guwao unoar won payrllenls lp avnld Daymenls lor conlribullms Io EFF mat may were olwgalao to do The lnvaallgallon findlngs carry mom walgnl and uaalolllty man lust me oucunlanla on ma lace ol mam [I2] Themfnla, Val IM claims lodgud by tn. Resnondlul agalrlsl ma Appellants. tnara Are no tnatxa llillel A mal n il ware Io pmcesd would be locum on tho same avldmoe Illeady anparanl al Ihls junclwe There ls no neoessltylu wane lI10Y8|lMS.CDSl and rlsaumes wfallher pany am also ma murnu manna same emance on me lssua - mat the payment In ma employees were in fact opnumssions lor tne sumassml sales undertaken by mm. [13] mo Fonn E and uxllfinala ol Indeblednsss together move an a balance 0! pmoauliues the amount 01 comnbultons due and awing lrom ma Appellanvs — see 564 EFF Act and ‘hug Kwor Him I or: v Lambaga Kumpulan wang slmpanan Pump {zoos} 3 cm 576 There were no manta Issues raised by ma Appellant Asma lrom dulyirlq mat ma payments waca lo: wnnusslona, me Appellants had not shown any otneravmanoate conobornle sudl contenmn andlnchallrlgl ma finding M lna Racpanaanra lnvaatlgatlon findings — aaa Lunbag-I xumpulan s m GMwyxlAzm1svaoPwataa1Gp “Nair s.n.l ...n.mm .. LAIQ4 m mm .. mn.u.y mm. dun-mm VII arlum pnnxl Wang simparwr Mug‘: v Lon omnum comp-ny and l LIIrH.ain [nos] 6 MLJ 33 TM; I: me use where il can be dealt wwn summanly as new by me Supreme com m Bunk Megan Mnlnyaln v uuhd Ismail A on [2992]1 cm 14: ‘Under 014 auplrcavon, me my 015 [adge does not end as soon as 5 lac! rs assailed by one party and named or mspmed by me alher m an amaaw‘: wnmr such sssemon, new 0: drsprrre Is eqmvncal, ovlankmg pvscislon or rs mm»:/alent «am we umrrspurea aomempolary documents or arm statement: by Ms same dnponenl, ms lnharamly rmprunam In Itself, man the mg. has 5 my ro mac! such assamon or dental, Insnshy rsndu/ng rm Vssun no: men. Unlu: rm: pllnmpla rs aanemr In, a may: I: In no posmon Ia -mm. nu dlscramn judicially in in on lpollcatson - [1 41 The Aypallams mm me use 01 coma Slnds such Rum Sdn End :1 Kourunn Kuonnvsun PIkIril»PIhIan Hotol, Bu um Rosrolan Sunnnlnjung Malaysil [2019] 3 ILR 235 and PF vAnyAmrr Nulding Sdn Bhd[201 41 4 cm 524 m aubrnmmg Ihanravelling auawance ls nut memaa unuerme defimuun o1‘wages‘m Iha EFF Act Be man as it may‘ me Aupeuams had lailed Ia shww um um Invssugamon findmg of me Respondem was erroneous when [new emplayees IhervL=e\ves had uonfirmed man the paymenrs were var wmmxsstcns of Iheir sumessfm sales. [151 Yherelover ms Court does nu| amp: me Appellants‘ 5ubm\s5\ms that me sam evidence could um be mncluswe prool var A summary judgment when more was rm avldenoe lu omuer-as um um: m Gnvvyxmzwnsv-oPwatsa1Gy “Nana Snr1n\n-nhnrwmbe LAIQ4 M mm .. nrighvnflly mm: dun-mm VII mum pans! [16] The Awallants had Vurltlav vafermd |o Llmhnga mm-pulan Simpznan P-k-rja v HOL cnainmn (Malaysia; Sdn and 5 Or: [2013] 1 ms 232 as rt dlsuuted me clams and conlaslea ma calwlahons ems wnlrlhuuons assessed by me Rkspandenl Yhe challenge was based on ma same cmlenuon mal me paymanla were my allowances mm evidence was mum in be M! genuine as ll masked the real paylllellis. So‘ in the pvemises, me Aapallanls challenge ls no| supynlled by any omer Ivllisnoe ml We Aopcllams had argued that may ole ml have possession :2! some at me puym-nl manners and dlzcumulls In! a law pamculal llme pcnofls. Thuy had also alleged lhal lzacauaa ma Rsponaem nae vallsa Io pmduoa any, we Rupondem was run! anlillad In make such ualma Thu argumam I5 unnmlptable, ma onus is always on ma Apnallanl la mp melnwm lucurds Tn. Rwspanderl|hadc\eIr1yrIIladun Farm E and me camflcalt or lndelnedness ll ls ma fimlnu ol lma Court ll-at ma Aupellantf amen ol classily-ng lnuwvacliy ma paymams humamourll la anamvts or avamng in pay me lefiullid eonlvibulions under ma EFF Am. The EPF Act lar ma pmlaalan and benerl: M employees where in la la ensure a schema cl savings (or employees‘ vefiremenl and lr-e managemanl of me savlngs for lellrsmem puposes All empluyers are to elude by ll [18] The Flrsl Awellanl was rsqullad Io paylorlhe aulslanalng unaunl at EFF oon|llb\.mans lav their smployess for June 2:212, January 2013. null 201;, May 2013 Augusl mm‘ Ocmber 2013, Dacembev 2013, February 2014, Aanl zlm, June 2014, January 2915. March 2015, ,Ap1l| 2015, Jun: 2015 In Sapiombev 2015. Novembev 2015 In my zonal l)aober2U16InAugus(2017, 0c1abcr2DI7wDecembar2017, February m GMWyXlAz~ansv.oPwalsa1Gll “Nair s.n.l ...m.mm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dun-mm VII .mm mm 2015 la Semember 2015, Novomhar 2013 he March 2020, Junta 202D September 2020 to Nuvember 2fl2fl‘ January 2021, February 2021, Jun: 2021 to January 2022 ha! lblafled tn RM345‘630 um deflalls Ii DI! the SIalemenIoi0Ia\m1SnC)), [19] “we dwidands required tn be pad ns pmvkied [01 under 545(3) EFF Am, me pemnuagss of mum as spodflad in ma soc man was summlrflyqranlad by me session can Admlmnally, Iha mamas for Val: plymanls Iva Ilsa required m be paid .n aocnrdanca with 54! EFF Act, nnm MI and «nan snmnmsnc. Thu psmsmage at Imsmsl marge-1 as man paymanls .s alw simulated in me soc Much was summsrfly granted by In Slwovl Conn [20] the point and several naomoes aldlrectovs are stated unde< 546 EFF Act as Ioflaws. ‘Where any nontnbutvons remanung unpaid by n company, a firm or an nssonnupn nr persons, znnn, nalwvllulandmg anytmng no the century rn znn Acl many wvfllon /lw‘ mu dmscturs mum company muumng any Dsvsons who was dirnmws Olsuclv cumplrly dun:-9 won new m which comnpmnm were /more to be p-«1. or we partners 0/ such fimv, mcrumng any pusons we we par!/Hr: 0/ such firm dunng such period m which we eonb-Immons were liable to be paid, or me olficewbearels ol such assocrazion olpersons, mdudmg any persons whu were ofiicewbearers olsuuh assodazmn durmg such Wm M mm. (Iva oanmbufions were lmbls m be pant, as me case may (:3, man together mm the company, firm or assocralron olpmons name m pay me ssrd conmbufiom. onomuy m GMWyX1A2wsvnoFwaxsa1Gv mm. snn nmhnrwm n. LAIQ4 w my n. mmun mm: dnuumnl wa .mm Wm! and umrarry news in: the eonrnnunons due and payable to IM mm " [21] Conmbulmvs Indude dwsaenus and ensues on Vale paynlenl Thersfnra, me Sewnd up me Tenth Appeuams arela a\so pay (pvmy am severaflywllh ms Fursmppearanmna cnrmbullons required In In: amount of RM345,63D Induding ma dmdands and accrued mwaren vm Vale ptymenl. The um: frame luv man d\rac|uvshiD6 variud. rm: summary masmam u inn m. dwaclura which may am m lainliy and savarllw pay me Reswmdanl an as comm (at me Second Avaeilann ma sum M RM345,630, mo dwudervds memo and me or-arues on late Daymenli my ms mm and Fnurm Appsllanls RMIAQJZ4‘ Ihe dwidends lneran ma me dlsmes on late paymecun (ct me Fmh. sum samm. Eiahln am: Nmm Apwlamx on sum M RM5952. me dividend: (hereto and me chimes on Vabe neymenr. (:1) ma Term Apps||an| Ihe sum no RM339,678, the dlwdends thereto and ma margss on ‘ma paymml, .Qfin:|.||I.lIn 122; mm were no armrs m me den nn by me sessmn Court. The mverfor costs am» Ssim cmm of RM3,D00 ws malntamed. ms Court m Gwlyxmzwsvuopwaxxufiv mm. smm nmhnrwm .. LAIQ4 w may he mm-y mm: dnuumnl VII mum Wm!

Tika 2.6.0 & Pytesseract-0.3.10

PA-45B-1-02/2018

PENDAKWA RAYA Pendakwa Raya TERTUDUH 1. ) RAGESUTHEN A/L JAYASANKAR 2. ) SHARMAH A/L VELU 3. ) GOKULAN A/L SELVARAJOO 4. ) TATISAN A/L KUNASEGARAN

"Seksyen 300(c), 302 & 326 Kanun Keseksaan - Tertuduh 1,2,3, 4 & 5 dituduh dengan kesalahan membunuh di bawah Pertuduhan Pertama dan Ketiga - Tertuduh 1,2,3 & 4 di tuduh menyebabkan kecederaan parah ke atas Pengadu di bawah Pertuduhan kedua - Pengadu (SP7) adalah pengadu dan saksi mata tunggal di bawah kesemua pertuduhan.Isu, antara lain: (a) samada bencana tubuh yang dialami mangsa mencukupi pada lazimnya menyebabkan kematian dan samada didalam kes ini besar kebarangkalian telah menyebabkan kematian mangsa; (b) percanggahan dalam keterangan SP7; (c) percanggahan 2 laporan polis SP7; (c) percanggahan antara keterangan SP7 dan pengawai siasatan SP13 dan SP16; (d) keterangan SP7 bahawa laporan polis adalah palsu dan di benarkan oleh SP16; (e) samada ada keraguan berlakunya pergaduhan di tempat kejadian kedua; (f) kegagalan memanggil saksi material; (g) samada SP7 saksi yang kredibel; (h) samada terdapat kecacatan dalam Pertuduhan Pertama dan Ketiga; (i) kegagalan memeriksa semula saksi atas keterangan material; (j) samada penolakan keterangan SP7 mengenai kejadian di tempat kedua menyebabkan keterangan di bawah Pertuduhan Kedua selamat di terima.Dapatan, antara lainya: (a) terdapat keraguan samada bencana tubuh yang di alami mangsa besar kebarangkaliannya telah menyebabkan kematiannya; (b) terdapat percanggahan dalam keterangan SP7; (c) terdapat percanggahan antara keterangan SP7 dan SP13& SP16; (c) terdapat kegagalan memanggil saksi material; (d) percanggahan yang tidak di jelaskan mengikat kes Pendakwaan; (e) terdapat keraguan samada berlaku pergaduhan di tempat kedua; (f) SP7 di didapati saksi tidak kredibel dan keterangan mengenai kejadian di tempat kedua di tolak; (g) terdapat kecacatan dalam pertuduhan apabila fakta dalam pertuduhan tidak sokong keterangan kes; (h) percanggahan tempat berlaku perbuatan membunuh antara Pertuduhan Pertama dan Pertuduhan Ketiga; dan (i) dapatan SP7 tidak kredibel dan penolakan keterangan mengenai tempat kejadian kedua di bawah Pertuduhan Pertama dan Ketiga menyebabkan tidak selamat keterangan SP7 di bawah Pertuduhan Kedua di terima tanpa keterangan koroboratif.Keputusan: Pihak Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan kes prima facie di bawah semua Pertuduhan - kesemua Tertuduh di lepaskan dan di bebaskan.

05/12/2023

YA Tuan Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid

https://efs.kehakiman.gov.my/EFSWeb/DocDownloader.aspx?DocumentID=ddb54765-7286-4bc2-91e6-b5ecf1e85984&Inline=true

05/12/2023 08:28:58 PA-45B-1-02/2018 Kand. 403 S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal S/N ZUe13YZywkuR5rXs8ehZhA **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal

Tika 2.6.0